Rotherham docked 17 points.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rotherham_utd/7543195.stm

The Football League are sort of reminiscent of a stringy, muscles-like-peapods Charles Hawtrey sort who's full of bullish bravado after celebrating pushing over his first four-year-old. 'Yeah, Premier League, you may give slaps on the wrist, but here we - yeah - we kick arse!'

They seem to me to be like a boss who's gone out on the piss at lunchtime in the middle of a mid-life crisis, and are just barking increasingly bizarre orders to their staff which are on the verge of the ludicrous.

I mean 17? Why 17? What's the logic? The only logic I can see is that 17 gives Luton a chance and makes League Two vaguely interesting.

I'm not normally prone to conspiracy theories, that the Football League are making it really difficult to not think that they are just stitching up these clubs to get them relegated and take the heat off everyone else for a year.

NHH wrote:

QUOTE:
They seem to me to be like a boss who's gone out on the piss at lunchtime in the middle of a mid-life crisis, and are just barking increasingly bizarre orders to their staff which are on the verge of the ludicrous.

I hear that Chester have been docked 10 points for leaving out a dirty coffee cup, and Brentford have ben given a five-point penalty because they keep doing this:

<tuts and throws head back>

How far is Don Valley from Millmoor anyway?

About four miles, I think.

Whilst I'm sure that Rotherham fans don't want to be playing in Sheffield, I can't understand the 'must return to Rotherham in 4 years' clause. To put it in context, the border with Rotherham is, I guess, less than 2 miles away.

Does this mean Grimsby will have to move from Cleethorpes and West Ham from Upton Park? The FL are just making it up as they go along.

The Football League really are a bunch of twats.

Yet more commisserations to GO, Dangermouse etc.

When's the time limit up for Franchise returning to Wimbledon?

Unaccostomed as I am to sticking up for the Football League, I don't see the insistence on returning to Rotherham being a bad thing. The Franchise situation shows the need for that, doesn't it?

Given the distances concerned it does seem a tad petty in this case.

Distance isn't the only marker here though, is it? The ground is in Sheffield, which isn't Rotherham. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Or are people suggesting that there is no problem at all in Rotherham moving out of Rotherham and into Sheffield, and people shouldn't worry about such things?

If the Football League had insisted that Wimbledon return to Wimbledon within four years of moving out (to another part of London, not many miles away) that would have been a good thing.

Well yeah. But the club want to move back, the fans want them to move back, and there is no chance of them being successful in an athletics stadium in Attercliffe.

Asking them for £750,000 when they've got no money, to prove their desire to rectify something that is going to cost them a lot of money, is really cunty. Especially when they'll be kicked out of the FL if they don't do as they're told anyway.

QUOTE:
the club want to move back, the fans want them to move back, and there is no chance of them being successful in an athletics stadium in Attercliffe

You know, I can't help thinking I've heard something similar before...

I dunno about £750k, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in that BBC article. In principle, I'm in favour of the Football League insisting on a return, but it's not obvious how that can be done reasonably, I agree.

QUOTE:
Or are people suggesting that there is no problem at all in Rotherham moving out of Rotherham and into Sheffield, and people shouldn't worry about such things?

Straw man.

Nobody is suggesting that RUFC should be permanently based in Sheffield and you are totally misinterpreting what I wrote. I would have thought that the major concern of a club playing in a different town (or London borough) would be the difficulty of fans travelling to games and the consequent erosion of support and finances. This isn't so much the case here - it's not ideal but hopefully gets them out of a temporary hole.

Then what's wrong with the Football League insisting that it is, indeed, temporary?