Chester

Radley Rambler · Post by **Radley Rambler** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:43 pm

Can ayone enlighten me on whether they will be participating this season? I presume they are playing their match on Saturday because if not, the demise of the club would surely have made the headlines and I ain't heard nothing if you'll excuse the double negative.

Thanking you.

boris · Post by **boris** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:46 pm

Today was the deadline the Conference gave them to confirm they'd be able to compete next season, so we should hear first thing tomorrow. It's quite likely, given the short notice, that even if they can compete the game on Saturday at Grays will be postponed, and a further points deduction will be imposed. However, given the lack of news from the Chester end it would seem that in this instance no news is bad news (for them anyway)

Baboo · Post by **Baboo** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:21 pm

&quotboris&quot wrote:Today was the deadline the Conference gave them to confirm they'd be able to compete next season

And if they can't compete next (this) season I wonder what wonderful contingency plan Mr Lee and his pals have to put in place to cover their disappearance.

Radley Rambler · Post by **Radley Rambler** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 10:34 pm

&quotBaboo&quot wrote:
&quotboris&quot wrote:Today was the deadline the Conference gave them to confirm they'd be able to compete next season
And if they can't compete next (this) season I wonder what wonderful contingency plan Mr Lee and his pals have to put in place to cover their disappearance.

Don't worry, according to them it's very difficult to give every team a game each Saturday so Chester's potential demise will allow all teams to have some Saturdays off........

Baboo · Post by **Baboo** » Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:20 pm

&quotRadley Rambler&quot wrote:
&quotBaboo&quot wrote:
&quotboris&quot wrote:Today was the deadline the Conference gave them to confirm they'd be able to compete next season
And if they can't compete next (this) season I wonder what wonderful contingency plan Mr Lee and his pals have to put in place to cover their disappearance.
Don't worry, according to them it's very difficult to give every team a game each Saturday so Chester's potential demise will allow all teams to have some Saturdays off........

Of course. It's all starting to make perfect sense.

Myles Francis · Post by **Myles Francis** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:22 am

The latest (yet to be confirmed) is that Chester will be starting the season on -25pts. The delay is down to the FA waiting for confirmation from the club that they won't appeal.

Dr Bob · Post by **Dr Bob** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:27 am

&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote:The latest (yet to be confirmed) is that Chester will be starting the season on -25pts. The delay is down to the FA waiting for confirmation from the club that they won't appeal.

Which begs the question (and assuming this is a potentially feasible trade-off under FA rules) - is it better to play an entire season with almost certain relegation at the end of it, or accept relegation now, perhaps in lieu of that extra 15 point penalty, and start rebuilding now in the Conference North?

What I find most worrying (and this is not just because of our experiences last season) is that more and more decisions that have a fundamental impact on teams' league positions are being taken by administrators and most of those decisions punish everyone except those responsible for making the bad decisions in the first place.

Roo · Post by **Roo** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:22 am

On a similar point I was told yesterday by a friend who is a Salisbury fan, and has his finger on the pulse there, that it is common knowledge around the club that they will go into administration after 2/3 games. They will thereby avoid automatic relegation, in this closed season, and take a points deduction instead. I don't think that they will be the only ones either.

Mooro · Post by **Mooro** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:56 am

However using Farsley as a precedent, I would have thought that any other club going into administration now would also avoid automatic relegation, given the league lineups have been announced (or are you suggesting that the Conference would still entertain swapping teams between its own leagues).

Just to confirm - the FA Licence applies to all leagues, not just the upper ones in the pyramid. In other words, if the FA remain unhappy then Chester would not be able to start the season regardless of which league they were demoted to (even if they'd have them).

I raised Dr Bob's point last season in relation to Luton, but would have thought that all points penalties would need to be wiped out before it being worthwhile, and then I'm not so sure anymore, given how difficult it can be to get back up - arguably no easier than overcoming a points deficit to stay up (look at Rotherham and Bournemout).

GodalmingYellow · Post by **GodalmingYellow** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:36 am

&quotDr Bob&quot wrote:
&quotMyles Francis&quot wrote:The latest (yet to be confirmed) is that Chester will be starting the season on -25pts. The delay is down to the FA waiting for confirmation from the club that they won't appeal.
Which begs the question (and assuming this is a potentially feasible trade-off under FA rules) - is it better to play an entire season with almost certain relegation at the end of it, or accept relegation now, perhaps in lieu of that extra 15 point penalty, and start rebuilding now in the Conference North?

What I find most worrying (and this is not just because of our experiences last season) is that more and more decisions that have a fundamental impact on teams' league positions are being taken by administrators and most of those decisions punish everyone except those responsible for making the bad decisions in the first place.

I agree with that, but I would take it one step further and argue that clubs should not be putting thmeselves in these positions in the first place.

If Chairmen/owners operated the financial aspect of their football clubs like any other business, then in most cases, there would be no reason for the game's administrators to get involved in these decisions.

slappy · Post by **slappy** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 11:39 am

Just as well we aren't in the Argentine league - quote from FA website
&quotThe start of the football season in Argentina has been delayed indefinitely due to financial problems. The season was due to start on August 14 but the Argentine Football Association say some clubs do not have enough money to pay players.&quot

Dr Bob · Post by **Dr Bob** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:43 pm

I agree with that, but I would take it one step further and argue that clubs should not be putting thmeselves in these positions in the first place.

If Chairmen/owners operated the financial aspect of their football clubs like any other business, then in most cases, there would be no reason for the game's administrators to get involved in these decisions.[/quote]

Absolutely. I think the problem, fundamentally, is that Chairmen/owners can act in a financially irresponsible way, because they want to ingratiate themselves to fans, believe they can buy success, or whatever, but if things go belly-up they can walk away and leave the club, fans, etc facing the consequences, not they who took those decisions. It would be nice to see penalties, of whatever sort, imposed on those responsible for the mess, but how well that may or may not sit with company law, etc is another matter....

GodalmingYellow · Post by **GodalmingYellow** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:21 pm

&quotDr Bob&quot wrote:
&quotGodalmingYellow&quot wrote:I agree with that, but I would take it one step further and argue that clubs should not be putting thmeselves in these positions in the first place.

If Chairmen/owners operated the financial aspect of their football clubs like any other business, then in most cases, there would be no reason for the game's administrators to get involved in these decisions.
Absolutely. I think the problem, fundamentally, is that Chairmen/owners can act in a financially irresponsible way, because they want to ingratiate themselves to fans, believe they can buy success, or whatever, but if things go belly-up they can walk away and leave the club, fans, etc facing the consequences, not they who took those decisions. It would be nice to see penalties, of whatever sort, imposed on those responsible for the mess, but how well that may or may not sit with company law, etc is another matter....

It would only be possible under company law on the grounds that a director had acted fraudulently or allowed the company to trade illegally.

I do fully accept your point though that often it is the wrong people who pay the price of previous failures, and I am opposed generally to off field penalty points deductions as it makes a farce of the league tables and competition.

It is a flawed process, but I can't see anything better than requiring clubs to trade at no worse than break even, after interest and tax, in each accounting year, together with a requirement for net current assets. It wouldn't guarantee an end to insolvency, but it would make it much more difficult. And the penalty for failure - perhaps an enforced relegation of 1 division at the end of the season.

GodalmingYellow · Post by **GodalmingYellow** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:12 pm

Now confirmed, Chester City will begin the season on -25points.

http&#58//www&#46footballconference&#46 ... sp?id=1565

Hog · Post by **Hog** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 9:43 pm

I saw the Chester fans after their relegation was confirmed at Aldershot last season. Less than a full coach full, about 35 of them, half of whom were crying their eyes out a full hour after the game had ended. It struck me then that not very many people cared about their demise but those who did care actually cared a lot!

Rage Online

Chester

Chester

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: