Potential National League fine and Points Deduction

Anyone else seen the Ollie Bayliss tweet re fines of £2k per game for those we didn't "fulfill" this season AND a 2 point suspended deduction....?
Just when I thought my opinion of National League couldn't get any lower. SHAMBLES.

Like all communication from the National Integrity League it’s ambiguous and baffling. No mention of which clubs have been fined.

Hopefully we’re entering the last few weeks of governance by this discredited committee and its woeful chair.

Club statement tonight. 4k fine and suspended points deduction. Clubs needs to band together and appeal to FA.

What does a suspended points deduction mean?

I guess if we didn’t turn up at say Chelmsford next season we’d be docked the points.

I am not surprised by this. Bodies are obliged to protect their authority (especially when they themselves are less than competent) and hence were bound to take a dim view of members independently deciding not to fulfil their obligations ie not playing fixtures in a competition they themselves have signed up for (whatever the reasons and circumstances). Clubs we were due to play wanted to play and our decision was unilateral.
The fact thàt the league authority failed to show leadership and forced us into that action is probably reflected in the nominal nature of the sanctions.

I should not be surprised by the ignorance shown by the NL in their statement - but this shower of sh*t just shouldn't be allowed to govern our League any more.
As I read what they said, one thing leapt out at me - "Given the extremely unusual circumstances that have affected football at all levels and the financial pressures the absence of spectators has brought to bear on clubs, the Panel expressed its sympathy with the Clubs’ predicament. However, the Panel believes it must also take regard of the fact that the majority of Clubs continued to fulfil fixtures and incur much costs until the League ended on February 19th." The reason that the majority of Clubs continued to fulfil fixtures was because they could afford to!!! Many of them are fortunate to be 'bank-rolled' in some form or other - and good luck to them, but the rest of the Clubs (including us) simply could not afford to continue to play, especially for an indefinite period of time. it was for no other reason, and it was certainly not for lack of wanting to carry on playing.
This bunch of **** have completely dismissed the financial state that some Clubs are in, and that the continuance of a subsidy to complete the season was so crucial to them.
I hope that all the 'digging' that LB has been doing, in liaison with his contacts, unearths the truth about the vagaries of the 'promised' post-Christmas grants that were allegedly mentioned by the NL; and that this whole matter can be concluded by the withdrawal of any fines or suspended points deductions - and the consequent dismissal of the current members of the NL Board!

Well said, Steve!

Nice little earner

Ollie Bayliss this morning....

National League clubs are discussing calling for a 'vote of no confidence' in the National League chairman & board.
Clubs proposing the motion plan to contact other members on Monday to gauge support for an emergency EGM and a no confidence vote.

I’m surprised it has taken so long for some movement on this. Of course should a vote be held and the sorry shower kicked out it they will need to be replaced. However I’m sure that amongst them the 66 clubs have suitable and willing officials who could take the League forward.

As for the chairman, my neighbour’s greyhound could do the job as well as the present one has.

I wonder what Vanarama are thinking being associated with this...

Hopefully this farce will get itself sorted. I dont think Vanarama would be best pleased if supporters of the penalised clubs decided to put uncomplimentary comments on its own or other trade review sites just for being associated with an incompetent organisation.

The Rule 8.39 that the league has referred to relates to “...any club without just cause failing to fill an engagement to play a Competition match on an appointed date.” It is difficult to think of much better ‘just cause’ than a global pandemic and would be interesting to hear what would meet the league’s definition of the term.

It would also be interesting to know who was on the ‘independent panel’ that reached these decisions, although I expect that information will be hidden like the report on the distribution of the National Lottery money was!

I see that BBC Sport has now got hold of the story and the possible vote of no confidence so you can only hope that a national spotlight on this might bring a sensible conclusion. You do have to wonder what Vanarama must think - hopefully they have a get out clause in the recently signed deal.

Personally I do not think that is just cause.
We were happy to play in a pandemic as long as it was financed by someone else. We didn't say at the start we will only complete the season if it doesn't cost us anything.
I didn't hear much dissent from supporters when we entered the play offs.

tovid wrote:Personally I do not think that is just cause.
We were happy to play in a pandemic as long as it was financed by someone else. We didn't say at the start we will only complete the season if it doesn't cost us anything.
I didn't hear much dissent from supporters when we entered the play offs.

Well if you don't think a global pandemic is a just cause perhaps you should stand for the NL board when the inevitable vacancies arise!

Seriously though, isn't it a fact that virtually all of the clubs have said that the only reason they started the season was because they had been assured by the NL board that there would be funding at least until fans were allowed in, and if they had known that it would be in the form of loans they wouldn't have kicked off in October?

As for the playoffs, there were plenty of dissenting voices raised at Society meetings, on here and on social media both before and after they took place.

If the penalties were decided, totally, by an independent panel then it would be interesting to know who were its constituents.
It does seem that the outcome was something to which Chris Grayling would have been proud to have had an association.

I'm not saying the pandemic isn't a serious matter LB it is just that it was just as much a serious matter when the season started and that cannot be ignored. I don't think you can use it as an excuse later when everyone knew absolutely how serious it was from the outset.
The reality is that clubs proceeded despite the pandemic risks.
I think the NL is a busted flush and it is no good rearranging the deckchairs.

Well if there’s no one capable of making a better fist of it than this lot then I agree it is a busted flush.

With the endless problems they have created for themselves in the past year I guess that they’ve had little time for reflection and if they did would simply pat themselves on the back for securing an extension to its deal with the white van people.

For many years the Alliance/Conference was seen as the pinnacle of non league football - the present set up has next to nothing in common with it and clubs like ourselves are very much the poor relations.

Clubs deciding to carry on playing without real income should have to accept the risks that entails. We shouldn't be punished because they took financial risks. And where does all this money go?

the demon headmaster wrote:And where does all this money go?

indeed. More than £100,000 in fines. It really is unbelievable that this bunch of jokers are in charge of a major football league.

comrade powell wrote:Well if there’s no one capable of making a better fist of it than this lot then I agree it is a busted flush.

The measure of an organisation is how it performs when things are going badly not during the good times. It proved to be disfunctional when it had a crisis to deal with.
It occurs to me that the structure of the business isn't up to the task and any new faces will soon become mired in it.

I think the NL’s shortcomings were apparent long before the pandemic. As the FA are laughingly seen as the guardians of the game I suppose it’s their responsibility to intervene.

Yes you are right. And that is another disjoint in football. There has long been distrust and jealousy between the FA and the leagues and it was that rift that resulted in the ushering in of the premier league which quite frankly has been a disaster for english football.
The whole thing is a mess.

Ollie Bayliss has tweeted....

National League clubs have been asked if they will support an EGM to debate this resolution:

"The meeting has no confidence in the Chairman and the Board."

The EGM is being proposed by Maidstone United and Dorking Wanderers.

Clubs have been asked to respond by 12pm Wednesday.    

Strange that this story had not developed further. Or at least had more media attention.

The BBC haven't pursued either the league or Barwick for comment or the clubs asking for support for an egm. Journalism isn't dead????

I believe the deadline was moved to this coming Monday to give clubs time for their boards to meet and discuss their preferences. A few, including Concord, have already stated publicly that they will back the motion. York have said they won't which has staggered some of their online fans.

I guess that journalists know they're wasting their time trying to get a response out of Barwick or his committee unless there is a sponsorship deal to announce.