GS Red
Rank = Ryan McLuskey
Posts: 88
|
Post by GS Red on Jun 9, 2020 14:40:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by garstang7 on Jun 9, 2020 16:25:21 GMT
Shafted by the F A as expected.
What I had not read previously was that initially both the NPL and the SLP preferred the Points oer Game basis be used against the Isthmian Null and void.But to get a unanimous decision they changed their stance.
At least the F A didn't suggest the decision was to protect the integrity of the game.
The only real winners here is those sides who would have been relegated how fair is that ?
|
|
Jeff S
Rank = Lee Andrews
Posts: 204
|
Post by Jeff S on Jun 9, 2020 17:35:43 GMT
What I had not read previously was that initially both the NPL and the SLP preferred the Points oer Game basis be used against the Isthmian Null and void.But to get a unanimous decision they changed their stance. This was always a key part of SS' argument, and was part of the process challenged in their original letter. NPL & SL initially said PPG, Isthmian said not. Mysteriously, both leagues who said PPG changed their minds "for consistency". Clearly it should have been the Isthmian League who changed. It absolutely reeks of two Boards being incentivised by the FA to close it down and go away. Shocking. Well done to South Shields for standing their ground, and hopefully they will get their reward next season. And us, of course.
|
|
|
Post by 4evereds on Jun 9, 2020 17:42:02 GMT
Well and truly shafted.
Nightmare come true, Barra go up on ppg when looking odds on they'd bottle it and us robbed when nailed on.
Decision makers hang their heads in shame will never understand what the rush was
|
|
|
Post by rockerlad on Jun 9, 2020 19:36:28 GMT
Well and truly shafted. Nightmare come true, Barra go up on ppg when looking odds on they'd bottle it and us robbed when nailed on. Decision makers hang their heads in shame will never understand what the rush was I wonder if there would be enough support from other clubs to go for a no confidence vote in the NPL committee?
|
|
|
Post by 4evereds on Jun 9, 2020 21:21:16 GMT
Be good to have people in charge with backbone and integrity but doubt there is the will for change. Difficult to keep motivated when these FA and league committee people make unjust decisions. All we want is consistency across all levels. Not to much to ask for surely!
|
|
Jeff S
Rank = Lee Andrews
Posts: 204
|
Post by Jeff S on Jun 10, 2020 9:20:28 GMT
Well and truly shafted. Nightmare come true, Barra go up on ppg when looking odds on they'd bottle it and us robbed when nailed on. Decision makers hang their heads in shame will never understand what the rush was I wonder if there would be enough support from other clubs to go for a no confidence vote in the NPL committee? There might be enough for a vote, although it would lose - there are more winners than losers from the decision. But there should be a clear requirement for Mark Harris as Chair to explain the specific reasons why the NPL changed it's vote from PPG to null and void, and to show what consultation process with clubs the NPL Committee went through to come to a) its original support for PPG, and b) the consultation process to then change it's vote. I would hope our Chairman would pursue this.
|
|
Jeff S
Rank = Lee Andrews
Posts: 204
|
Post by Jeff S on Jun 24, 2020 16:39:49 GMT
South Shields have been landed with a £230k legal bill after failing to overturn the FA's null & void decision. The club says they've been made to pay the full £62k cost of the arbitration panel & 65% of the FA's legal costs. A non league fan based ( not an official South Shields FC page ) fundraising page been set up here to support them : www.gofundme.com/f/south-shields-fc-supporters-booster?utm_source=customer&utm_campaign=m_pd+share-sheet&utm_medium=copy_link-tipThe site states that the Club had sent letters asking for consultation in the early stages that were ignored. The Club had no choice but to follow the FA’s own rules (i.e. starting the arbitration) as The FA wouldn’t engage with them. The Club then asked for a one man arbitrator and The FA insisted on it being a panel. They now insist the Club have to pay for this panel (£62k plus vat) AND 65% of their costs - another £65k! So SSFC have existing legal costs of over £230k whilst the FA pays £35k. The whole thing stinks. I've donated.
|
|
|
Post by 4evereds on Jun 24, 2020 21:50:35 GMT
Lost faith in footballing authories. The decision to null and void our levels and rule others on ppg is just wrong!
The more you read about case the more shameful it all becomes
No integrity , all self interest and only care about top leagues and money it generates.
Big credit to Geoff Thompson for fighting for fairness and standing up to them but looks like paying a heavy price.
What chance do clubs like ours stand against a huge money obsessed machine like that who can easily bully the little guys We count for nothing in their eyes.
Have given small donation.
|
|