i think the best thing for us to do is to wait and see, and not keep pushing the point of how tinpot boston and crawley are. we are starting to drift towards a FGR and i'm waiting for the rules are rules speach from sum1.
First things first, there is a marked difference between fans venting their frustration at seemingly financially corrupt clubs being allowed to remain in the league and a paid member of staff from the club using their position to lobby for another club to be deducted points.
Secondly, no one should be afraid to do a rules are rules speech. The difference is that the rules that could potentially see the end of Crawley are decent rules that punish clubs for gross mismanagement rather than a rule that punishes a club for making an administration error and gaining no advantage from it.
Crawley have cheated to keep their place in the league. They owe people money, instead of paying them back they have spent the money on good wages to keep them up. If they can't give assurances that this money will ever be paid I will be one of the first to tell them that rules are rules and if they hadn't tried to cheat they wouldn't have suffered such a fate. We of course did not cheat nor did we attempt to cheat, therein lies the difference between us and Crawley.
Although I am probably one of many who would welcome us remaining in Blue Star National, if this did happen we would undoubtedly be getting a reputation as the team who only survives at that level through the misfortunes of other clubs (Scarborough from 2005/6 season).
There are a number of criteria that a club must fulfill if it wishes to compete in the Conference, one of which is that they must achieve enough points to not be relegated should they already be in it. Another is that they must be financially sound so as to be able to compete the following season. This is the key criteria, if you can't fulfill this one then it doesn't matter about any other criteria concerning grounds and points won etc...
Rules govern what goes on on the pitch and off it, if we stay up by virtue of the rules concerning what goes on off the pitch I will consider that we have stayed up on merit. We will have abided by rules that other clubs have deliberately transgressed or managed themselves in such a reckless way that they have broken them. It seems that it is rather easier to stay up by splashing the cash but have a shambles of a business than be competitive and run a tight ship. Leagues are built on the proviso that clubs can complete their fixtures, this is fundamental to their very existence, as such providing assurances that a club can do such a thing is far more important than how many points you managed to earn using players that you couldn't really afford because you should have been paying your creditors.
The only people that will get their knickers in a twist over us getting a reprieve will be internet morons (most likely from Kettering) and quite frankly I couldn't give a sh*te what they think.