Rage Online

And here.............................

http://www3.talksport.net/shows/presenters.asp?mi=3

&quotMatt D&quot wrote: I think the Club would have problems getting on board 'officially', as it leads to the obvious question of 'why didn't you appeal then?', but as individuals we've seen the squad and management lend their support.

Is that your view, or the view of the club? Can I ask (and I’d partly understand if you ducked the query) if you’ve actually put this question to them?

And I’m not sure I understand your point about the appeal, as this is not about the 5 points but the way the Conference conducts itself in general.

&quotSnake&quot wrote:Is that your view, or the view of the club? Can I ask (and I’d partly understand if you ducked the query) if you’ve actually put this question to them?

And I’m not sure I understand your point about the appeal, as this is not about the 5 points but the way the Conference conducts itself in general.

I haven't asked them, no.

You're right, of course, but I think that the two issues do overlap, and the point would be made that if they felt strongly about it, they had the opportunity to put a case forward directly. Also, Brian Lee's latest letter hints at their likely line of defence in this case too - he makes the point (again) that clubs have the opportunity to propose rule changes 'in the normal way'.

Sideshow Rob said

[quote]Now Brian Lee, Chairman of the Conference has written to OxVox to say they will keep the results of the review in house[quote]

Does anyone know if the Freedom of Information Act applies?

&quotBoogie&quot wrote:Sideshow Rob said

Now Brian Lee, Chairman of the Conference has written to OxVox to say they will keep the results of the review in house

Does anyone know if the Freedom of Information Act applies?

I believe that it wouldn't apply because the Conference are not a public body.

Anyone else have a view / definitive answer?

Also how do you do the quote thingy properly?

&quotBoogie&quot wrote:Anyone else have a view / definitive answer?

Also how do you do the quote thingy properly?

I agree with RR. FOI wouldn't apply to the Conference.

Answering FOI queries is my profession, and I can confirm that the Act does not apply to the Conference.

p.s. I'm going off line for a few weeks, and when I come back I want to see all this sorted!

&quotBoogie&quot wrote:Also how do you do the quote thingy properly?

Just click on the Quote icon in the top right hand corner of each post and when the text box appears just type your message below the text that will have appeared (after the last quote in brackets)

Apparently a discussion on the points deduction was dropped at the last momemnt by the Non League Show last nigh and Trevor Oxvox posted the following on TiU:

Frustrating that the show didn't include an interview on the points issue in the end. Their decision.

I received the email below from Martin Shaw of StagsFansUnited last night, which explains the background. The Conference spokesman Chris Bird seems to be distinguishing between the findings of the review and any detailed internal matters.

That's a fair point IMHO, so far as it goes, but is I think a PR man's attempt to steer a middle course between publishing and not publishing, where we have been told two different stories.

Email as follows:

Hi Trevor, Mark

Caroline from BBC Non-League Show rang me.
She had spoken to Chris Bird.
Chris told her they admit this was a communications error.
The bottom line is that the review will be presented to the conference board and the findings will then be made public. The report itself will not be made public since it will probably contain internal matters, it might point fingers at individuals (hypothetical comment), and it wouldn't be appropriate for personal information to be put in the public domain.

Caroline suggested there is little to be gained by making Chris Bird and Brian Lee squirm over this. She would prefer not to do that as it gets a bit personal. I said I accept that point.

She said she is more than happy to keep the pressure up for the review to be completed and reported on, but she suggests the following:
- Keep up the pressure for the review (we have and are doing that already, it has been on the show most weeks for the past 2 months).
- When the findings of the report are made public, she would like to get me, someone from OxVox, Brian Lee and Chris Bird into the studio to thrash it out in a full on debate.
I said ok that's fair enough.

I hope you think this is ok. Please let me know.
Thinking on my feet during the phonecall, I didn't think it would be a good idea to push to go on tonight if she didn't really want to, as the worst thing we can do is get any negative vibes from the studio and the studio end up defending the Conference guys in some way.

I hope you don't feel I've let you down.

Martin



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're welcome on the OxVox forum - http://www.oxvox.org.uk/phpBB2/



I say MAKE THE BUGGERS SQUIRM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE!

The chain of letters can be found within this link, including the full reply from Brian Lee

http://bognorfc.proboards42.com/index.c ... &amppage=1

What do you think?

Here it is again. I'm sure I didn't dream it up (from Barry A of Bognor):

&quotIt would surely also be worth making the point that the 'spot check' system used earlier this season for checking player registrations has been used and found wanting once before - by the Southern League who, if our information is correct, were subsequently obliged to apologize and restore points that they had deducted. Furthermore, we understand that the Southern League official responsible for player registrations at that time was the same Mr Strudwick who now handles these matters at the Conference.&quot

So a precedent has been set.

&quotSideshow Rob&quot wrote:Here it is again. I'm sure I didn't dream it up (from Barry A of Bognor):

&quotIt would surely also be worth making the point that the 'spot check' system used earlier this season for checking player registrations has been used and found wanting once before - by the Southern League who, if our information is correct, were subsequently obliged to apologize and restore points that they had deducted. Furthermore, we understand that the Southern League official responsible for player registrations at that time was the same Mr Strudwick who now handles these matters at the Conference.&quot

So a precedent has been set.

If that's correct, then the club really should have appealed.
I think a lot of this is after the horse has bolted stuff, I like the fact that OxVox are trying, as they should - but really the club should have investigated this type of thing before deciding we were only ever going to get 2 points back, if it all went well.

How we'd like those 5 points now.
Budgie-hearts.

I can now understand Brian Lee's response about points gained on the pitch / not lost in the committee room.

The point f) in the Oxvox et al. letter was to say that &quotpoints should be won and lost on the field of play and not in a committee room. &quot

Lee is obviously saying (well it is obvious to me), that you need some sort of sanction to prevent off-field irregularities benefiting your club in the league table to the detriment of others.

So, what if Hutch had played whilst suspended for a red card, instead of being unregistered [edit from: inelegible]? We would have lost three points in the committee room - yet I doubt many would think that was unfair...


Lee picked the weak argument in the letter to reply to, but wouldn't everyone do the same?

If I were in Lee's position, I hope I'd answer all the questions raised.