Rotherham Council are so keen to get the club back into town that they've put up £500,000 of the bond. And they're working with the club and rugger club to get the new stadium built; an area has already been earmarked. This is a massive move forward.

It would be nice to finish a season with the number of points that we've actually earned on the pitch for a change...

What is the reasoning behind the punishment?

The Leagues' own rules stated that punishment is demotion to League Two, nothing about points deduction - so while Leeds get to keep their League One status, and just get deducted 15 points, Luton are punished heavily for something not deemed worth punishing at the time, and Rotherham are seemingly punished for something they've already been punished for.

And despite the recommendation in the League v Leeds case being that clubs should have the right of appeal, the League forces the clubs to waive the right of appeal if they want to stay in the league.

And, I bet David Sheepshanks (one football club in administration, that he steered to debts of £36m) was on the panel, just like he was on the Luton panel.

Farcical fucking cunts.

I'm being told by the office Cherry that Bournemouth have been refused their "Golden Share" ( oh how I hoped I'd heard the last of them with Leeds last season) today and will have another go tomorrow.

Didn't Leeds start the season without it , last season?

TonTon wrote:

QUOTE:
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.

By that token, should AFC Wimbledon not have left Kingstonian by now? Or should Wimbledon be given a Grimsby/Cleethorpes free ride?

Harri Saer wrote:

QUOTE:
I'm being told by the office Cherry that Bournemouth have been refused their "Golden Share" ( oh how I hoped I'd heard the last of them with Leeds last season) today and will have another go tomorrow.

Didn't Leeds start the season without it , last season?

The league have said they will announce their postion on Bournemouth on Tuesday. I'm guessing they've decided to deduct them the amount of points equal to the bonus ball in Saturday's lottery.

The "golden share" means nothing, in terms of actual playing. You lose it the moment you enter administration, and you don't get it back until the league meeting after you exit administration. The "golden share" prevents you from signing players (although you can be given special dispensation if you have no keepers fit, or you've had to sell so many players you can't raise a team) and voting at league meetings.

The only implication for Bournemouth is that the players must be registrered with OldCo, and not NewCo, if they want to play before the share is returned.

Phoebe wrote:

QUOTE:
TonTon wrote:

QUOTE:
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.

By that token, should AFC Wimbledon not have left Kingstonian by now? Or should Wimbledon be given a Grimsby/Cleethorpes free ride?

Kingston.

Thanks Phoebe, that's put his mind ( slightly ) at rest.

Phoebe wrote:

QUOTE:
What is the reasoning behind the punishment?

Haven't a fucking clue.

My understanding is that the club have to sign a letter agreeing to pay them (the League) 750K if, by 2012, they haven't moved back to Rotherham.

I agree with TT about the Wimbledon clause - indeed, it was fan concern at how Wimbledon and Brighton left town without any comeback from the FL which led to this becoming an issue. What's wrong here I think is that the policy would be fine if the reason for the move is because nasty club chairman wants to either move the club permanently or build houses on a perfectly good ground. In both cases, it assumes the club is master of its own destiny, which it quite clearly isn't here. If anything, making Rotherham's task harder makes life easier for the Booths, it seems to me.

The problem is that League's policies are informed by no real fan understanding and an arrogance that doesn't brook people pointing out there's flaws (and with them run by a politician known for being the rudest Tory Cabinet Minister in the last Tory government; fancy!)

The main flaws remain that they have fuck all to say about people running up millions of debt at the time when something could be done about it, and get all aggravated when the club is on its knees.

Take Luton - they said that the additional 5pts on top of the 15 points was a penalty to reflect the fact that the club had been in admin twice in recent years.

What that fails to take into account is that the second of those was not a financial fuckup - it was a supporters trust putting the club into administrative receivership in order to be able to change the locks on the club offices and get rid of John Gurney, an man of very, very dubious provenance. It goes without saying that duing these existential crisis for the club, the League were utterly fucking absent.

Anyway, more worryingly is the Bournemouth situation. There's a board meeting this evening at the League where they'll decide what to do with them. I have a very real fear it'll be the first league club to go since Aldershot. The problem seems that the club have at various times had rescuers coming in to take on the club, but nothing's happened. The League I think would rather have the club not start a season than start it to go under halfway through. Unless someone can do a deal in the next 2 hours to exit administration (and do a deal = provide actual cash and stuff like real money), then things are bleak.

Which begs the question - is the reason no deal has been done because of a lack or urgency or a lack of cash? We'll know by 7pm.

This can't help ;

QUOTE:
Cherries chairman Jeff Mostyn has been in dialogue with Football League officials for a number of weeks and was understood to have been dealing with the club's case.

Mostyn, who recently joined forces with Baker and his Sport-6 partner Alastair Saverimutto, was last night unavailable for comment. He is believed to be on holiday in Spain.

PM for NHH, by the way.

I see the FL in their unfailing wisdom and enlightenment have hit Bournemouth with a 17 point deduction.

The integrity of the competition is intact.

A joke, sheer hypocrisy on the part of the football in league with the big clubs.

Looks like it is two from three for the drop and perhaps extinction.

Do any of the three have any chance of survival if they drop out of the league?

Unfuckingbelievable yet alltoofuckingpredictable.

What possible raitionale can there be for giving us (Bournemouth) an bigger points deduction than Leeds? Obviously we should have tried to build up much bigger debts, screwed over the creditors in much more devious fashion and exited administration through a bizarre deal involving offshore companies. Then we might have got away with a fifteen point deduction. Clearly just being perpetually skint isn't glamorous and exiting enough.

Fucking clueless shower of fucking cunts.

The worst thing is that Leeds' "punishment" was 15 points *instead* of the one in the rules, which should have been demotion, but because of the fuss Bates made, the League now think they are seen to be fair.

There is absolutely nothing in the rules that say that clubs exiting administration should have any points deducted, merely that they should be demoted to League Two (because the share passes to a new company). And, because the league tells the club that by accepting the Golden share, they waive their right to appeal, and that hinting that if they don't, they won't be allowed to play, they have the clubs shafted.

Even though the independent arbitration panel strongly suggested to the league that they allow clubs to appeal any post-administration penalty, the league still decides to give the clubs the "no appeal" condition. As such, by accepting their league share, any arbitration panel will throw out an appeal on that basis alone - as they did with Leeds.

Gutless fucking bastards.