Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Altysmiffy]

Not being funny Chris but it was wrong when you did it as well. Where is the punishment?

You may think it is wrong and yes... it probably is. But my point is everybody would do it, even yourselves if you're honest,

WE COULD HAVE DONE IT, BUT WE DIDN'T. We managed our debt instead and are now all but debt free. Don't forget also that we were relegated. If we had not done this and carried on spending above our means then we would probably still be in the Conference - BUT WE FOLLOWED THE RULES!

[ChrisVessey CUFC]

WE COULD HAVE DONE IT, BUT WE DIDN'T.....BUT WE FOLLOWED THE RULES!

Correct me if i'm wrong AltySmiffy, but you weren't at risk at a ten point deduction were you?? If you were i'd wager my life on you doing the same as Cambridge and Leeds.

It's just common sense. Take the ten points now when it doesn't matter or debilitate yourself as a football club by taking it next season? Yeah right! The ramifications are massive, you're unlikely to win promotion back, you're going to struggle to attract good players and sponsors etc etc..

In every walk of life if you can gently bend a rule to suit your own means, you do it. Show me someone who lives his whole life with the mantra 'rules are rules' and i'll show you a liar. You'd never leave the house!

We both know deep down if Altrincham were in Leeds' exact position at the moment you'd do the same. If not, well... right or wrong, that's just stupid.

[bighairedmike]

"Wise, Wise, whatever have you done? You've taken Leeds to Division One. You won't win a cup, you won't win a shield, your biggest game will be Huddersfield."

 

[Altysmiffy]

WE COULD HAVE DONE IT, BUT WE DIDN'T.....BUT WE FOLLOWED THE RULES!

Correct me if i'm wrong AltySmiffy, but you weren't at risk at a ten point deduction were you??

Catch up Chris, The reason we were not at risk of losing 10 points is in capital letters quoted at the top of your post.

You answered your own criticism!

Alty could easily have taken the route of going into administration but, instead, arranged to pay off the debtors over a period of time and tightened the financial belt appropriately

[Ballers]

Not being funny Chris but it was wrong when you did it as well. Where is the punishment?

You may think it is wrong and yes... it probably is. But my point is everybody would do it, even yourselves if you're honest, so it does smack of a little hypocrisy to condemn others as 'wrong'. In fact you'd be plain daft for not doing it, a la Rotherham, and look what happened to them. It's upto the FA to change or tighten this rule asap, because clubs will keep doing it and the deduction becomes pointless ('scuse the pun!).

You also ask 'where's the punishment?'. Well, our punishment was a near corrupt board who financially mismanaged the club to near death, sold Dave Kitson for a paltry £150,000 and sold our stadium to property developers for £1.9million on land which is worth over £10million. We have to make near impossible rent payments of £200k a year which slashed our budget so much we could not compete and were relegated to the Conference. Whilst they walk away scot free, the new regime and supporters are left to pick up the pieces, which resulted in almost another relegation which would have more than likely finished us off.

I think thats 'punishment' enough, don't you?

With respect Chris, you have to say that having corrput directors is a consequence not a punishment. You shouldn't let your club fall into those hands. If the brought success you'd take that as a consequence. Likewise, through the years we've had some sh*t managers and sh*t players.

Yes, the supporters pick up the pieces but it is the club (whoever is responsible) who are committing the offence. So it's not really punishment enough no. Altho thankfully it seems to have worked out for you in the end with these yanks that are putting the dosh in. Incidentally, was this investment reliant on you staying up or would it have gone ahead anyway.

Also, good to see on the bbc website that the football league have written to boston reserving the right to aplly the football sanctions (-10pts) at any given time. i.e. next season rather than this if  necessary, not sure what the conference make of it tho.

[ChrisVessey CUFC]

Catch up Chris, The reason we were not at risk of losing 10 points is in capital letters quoted at the top of your post.

No Smiffy, what i mean is, if you had gone into administration, would you have been deducted ten points? I don't think you would have because that law was not in force when you had financial problems. You as a club were able to work it out with your debters to pay all your debts off in full, whereas we were not. We took administration as a very, very last resort otherwise there wouldn't have been a Cambridge United today. Our debts were mainly tax problems, and they were not budging on deadlines. We had no option. It's admirable what you did as a club to pay off your debts in full, and it would have been nice for us to do the same... but we couldn't.

Incidentally, was this investment reliant on you staying up or would it have gone ahead anyway.

No Ballers, the investment would not have been there had we gone down. Just to comment on that, the NLP made it out as though we have had millions pumped into the club and we are about to become 'rich-boys' which just isn't true. We actually haven't had any investment yet from the Americans and when they do, it will be in installments that will eventually total £600,000. You made some interesting comments about our problems being consequences and not a punishment. I can see your point but looking from a CUFC point of view it certainly feels like a punishment!

[Altysmiffy]

Catch up Chris, The reason we were not at risk of losing 10 points is in capital letters quoted at the top of your post.

No Smiffy, what i mean is, if you had gone into administration, would you have been deducted ten points? I don't think you would have because that law was not in force when you had financial problems. You as a club were able to work it out with your debters to pay all your debts off in full, whereas we were not. We took administration as a very, very last resort otherwise there wouldn't have been a Cambridge United today. Our debts were mainly tax problems, and they were not budging on deadlines. We had no option. It's admirable what you did as a club to pay off your debts in full, and it would have been nice for us to do the same... but we couldn't.

If Alty had wanted to take advantage of this loophole at any point at all, such men as Graham Heathcote & Geoff Goodwin would not have said that it would have been the easy option to take administration as an option.

Consequently, if Alty were never willing to take the admin option, they are hardly likely to have considered the loophole option as per Leeds.

Irrelevant to any other club's problems (including CUFC - and I do sympathise with what Cambridge have gone through), the option Alty have taken is that of INTEGRITY.

That is more than you can say of the Crawleys & Leeds of this world.

[ChrisVessey CUFC]

Irrelevant to any other club's problems (including CUFC - and I do sympathise with what Cambridge have gone through), the option Alty have taken is that of INTEGRITY.

I've never doubted that, as i said in my previous post. I think something we will agree on, is that the current -10 point ruling does not work, and the FA need to do some thinking to change or tighten this up asap.

[Altysmiffy]

Irrelevant to any other club's problems (including CUFC - and I do sympathise with what Cambridge have gone through), the option Alty have taken is that of INTEGRITY.

I've never doubted that, as i said in my previous post. I think something we will agree on, is that the current -10 point ruling does not work, and the FA need to do some thinking to change or tighten this up asap.

I'll give you that one Chris! I think the FA is proving to be very ineffectual on this.

[chrisrufc]

Not being funny Chris but it was wrong when you did it as well. Where is the punishment?

You may think it is wrong and yes... it probably is. But my point is everybody would do it, even yourselves if you're honest, so it does smack of a little hypocrisy to condemn others as 'wrong'. In fact you'd be plain daft for not doing it, a la Rotherham, and look what happened to them.

Chris,

That's not quite right.  We had a choice going into the last game of last season, if we avoided defeat to MK Dons then we stay up but if we lost then we would start the next season on -10 in League Two.  We actually made the right choice and stayed up,  of course we played the system just like you did and every club would have done in our position.

We didn't particularly overspend beyond our means but we got dropped in it when our chairman decided to get rid of the club and forced the club to sell him the ground  at a relatively cheap price, so that we could pay him the debt that he was owed.  This was promptly followed up with relegation in the same season.

[altyf]

To be fair Slade, every team would do the same in their position.

It's not the point that we wouldnt do it because we probably would if we were in that situation. The point is you shouldn be able to do this. How can there be a rule that says "as long as you declare administration or CVA before the end of the match on the last game of the season, you will be docked points from that season and begin the folowing season on zero points with everyone else." Where is the reward for the teams running the club properly. You could be 5-0 down at half time, realise your certainly going down, declare CVA and have 10 points deducted even though it makes no difference to the fact you're going down. No punishment whatsoever. The only form of punishment is the suffering of the fans but that is the result of having a poorly run club. At the moment teams are getting away with absolute murder. They're avoiding relegation, liquidation, everything by using the farcical rules of the FA. The only way clubs will learn is if some sort of proper rules are enforced.

[gazwarrington]

maybe lose -10pts for 2 seasons. So you would have the season you are in and the following season on -10pts. Surely a little better and would make clubs think twice??

It just seems that you can go 'all or bust' and have little punishment. Think of all the people who are relying on the club to pay their debts and it seems wrong that they could be just written off so easily.

[Nasha]

Could Charlie actually help us then

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/boston_united/6632541.stm

That has raised serious concerns with Conference bosses, who will discuss Boston's predicament at a board meeting on Thursday.

Conference vice-chairman Charles Clapham said: "It's a unique situation with them going into administration in the last two minutes of the last game of the season. "Whichever way you look at it, you can't turn around and say that this is sending out the right message in the world of football. "It might be technically legal, but morally it's sending out the wrong message to creditors.

Don't hold your breath though

[Altysmiffy]

Aye, but as the report says, they will have to do a bit of searching to find a way to kick them out.