Rage Online

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 183943.stm

Looks like Chester could well be in limbo for a season.

&quotSwissbloke&quot wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 183943.stm

Looks like Chester could well be in limbo for a season.

Perhaps the FA and the BSP/Conference shold start communicating with each other!

What a shambles...

So if Chester don't participate will we ST holders get a pro-rata refund or will we expected to be &quotgood ole boys&quot and leave it in the pot, 12th man stylie?

&quotJohn Byrne's Underpants&quot wrote:

&quotSwissbloke&quot wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 183943.stm

Looks like Chester could well be in limbo for a season.

Perhaps the FA and the BSP/Conference shold start communicating with each other!

What a shambles...

Perhaps the FA should take the Conference over and dismiss Brian Lee and co.

Is there a reason why the 'fit and proper person' test for new football club owners (or a variation thereon) cannot be (re-)applied to those people taking clubs out of 'financial events' such as Administration/CVAs etc, even if they were connected to the club prior to the event?

That way, the FA could intervene in situations such as this (should the allegations of irregularities in the process be confirmed) so as to remove the offending individual from the game but leave the club itself intact...

Obviously there is a stumbling block in how the outgoing individuals stake is valued, in order for alternate owners to take over, but I would have thought that the principal of being able to remove these types from the game for good (ie those failing the test would not be allowed to take a stake in ANY club) would be a goal worth chasing and surely better than allowing said individual(s) to remain in place but penalise everyone else connected to the club with points deducations and/or demotions.

&quotBaboo&quot wrote:

&quotJohn Byrne's Underpants&quot wrote:

&quotSwissbloke&quot wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 183943.stm

Looks like Chester could well be in limbo for a season.

Perhaps the FA and the BSP/Conference shold start communicating with each other!

What a shambles...

Perhaps the FA should take the Conference over and dismiss Brian Lee and co.

Now that would be good idea.

&quotBaboo&quot wrote:

&quotJohn Byrne's Underpants&quot wrote:

&quotSwissbloke&quot wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/footbal ... 183943.stm

Looks like Chester could well be in limbo for a season.

Perhaps the FA and the BSP/Conference shold start communicating with each other!

What a shambles...

Perhaps the FA should take the Conference over and dismiss Brian Lee and co.

That's the best idea I've heard for a while!

The plot thickens

http&#58//www&#46chester-city&#46co&#46uk/latest&#46asp

It's interesting to see how the Conference basically said, in their statement to member clubs, that they need to vote in favour of the Boards decision otherwise it might mean problems with the &quot2 up, 2 down&quot system into the football league.

Sounds a lot like blackmail to me, that. I'd like to know what happens if the vote is mixed. Will that mean the end of the Conference Board as it basically shows a vote of no confidence in their decision making.

2.7 In the event that any Club which is an unincorporated association resolves to transfer its membership of the Competition to a company or in the event that a Club which is a company resolves to transfer its membership to a different company the Board will use the following minimum criteria in deciding whether to approve that transfer:
2.7.1 The shareholders or members of the Club have voted to agree the transfer of the Club’s membership to the new entity
2.7.2 All Football Creditors in the Club must be satisfied in full or transferred (with the creditors’ consent) to the new entity, and evidenced as such.
2.7.3 All other creditors in the Club must be satisfied and evidenced as such.
2.7.4 The proposed new entity has provided financial forecasts showing its ability to fund the Club for the next 12 months or to the end of the Playing Season following transfer (whichever is the longer) and that evidence of funding sources has been provided.
2.7.5 The FA has given approval for the transfer to take place.

Getting even 1 of those ticked looks a bit iffy, let alone all 5.

reports that a unanimous vote in favour of allowing chester to participate in the conference was acheived this morning:

http&#58//www&#46gateshead-fc&#46com/ne ... php?i=1356

http&#58//www&#46devachat&#46com/index& ... opic=57326

Although apparently the FA still have to give their final say-so for tomorrow's match to go ahead.

Either way you look at it (Chester kicked out or starting on minus 25) they will take one of the relegation spaces so it comes down to the question:

Do you want to make money from 23 home games or make money from 22 games and refund season ticket holders?

Pretty much a no brainer.

&quotMally&quot wrote:Either way you look at it (Chester kicked out or starting on minus 25) they will take one of the relegation spaces so it comes down to the question:

Do you want to make money from 23 home games or make money from 22 games and refund season ticket holders?

Pretty much a no brainer.

I don't understand why the clubs would have to refund season ticket holders the cost of one match?

Is there a contract of sale that means we can take our ticket back if we don't get the required number of games? My argument would be that you (or myself) have bought a &quotseason&quot ticket. The definition of &quotseason&quot is not set by the club, but by the Conference. So if the Board decide the season is only going to be 10 games long, then the cost per game of your season ticket has gone up.

A season ticket is not a discounted book of 23 tickets (unlike the &quotLucky 7&quot), but mearly a pass into the ground for the duration of the season, however long that may be.

The latest rumour on Blues Mad, as yet unconfirmed, is that not only is Chester's game against Gateshead tomorrow now postponed the FA have summoned the Conference Board to FA HQ about what they describe as &quota supposed breach of rules&quot. Whether the last bit it true or not, it is clear that the FAs postponing of Saturday's game, overturning the earlier Conference Board decision to give it the go-ahead, casts yet more bad light on Lee et al. It begs the question - how much longer are they going to be allowed to keep screwing things up for teams in the Conference before significant action is taken against them? And can anybody with more legal training and knowledge of football structures than I offer suggestions as to what that action realistically might be (as opposed to what many of us would like to happen to Lee. In a dark alley. With no witnesses around).