duffer
Well-Known Member
How completely arse-backwards the FL are.
Had they enforced their rules, rather than employ their "discretion", SISU would have had to negotiate with ACL. Indeed as Ainsworth pointed out in an earlier letter of 5th July, there was an offer to play for free whilst in admin whilst continuing to negotiate. So there was no real threat to fixtures, until it became clear that the FL were going to sit back and do FA.
http://bobainsworthmp.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/football-league.pdf
The statement that ACL are responsible for the ten-point deduction is scandalous. As the creditor for a legally enforceable debt they were entitled to take any action they saw fit. Presumably the FL rules were designed to force clubs to find arrangements with the creditors, and generally the people owed the money are allowed to decide how fair the debtor's offer is.
That's the whole point of the CVA process. If the creditor doesn't think it's fair for whatever reason, then they are entitled to vote it down.
If the FL really thought that ACL were responsible then surely the proper course of action was to award no penalty whatsoever.
It's an utterly bizarre letter that shows just how pathetically weak the FL is. If they can use their discretion to avoid enforcing their rules here, then every tinpot owner that wants to avoid a legitimate debt will take them on. Good luck to them too - the faster we can show that the FL isn't fit for purpose, the quicker we can get someone in with the balls to do the job properly.
Had they enforced their rules, rather than employ their "discretion", SISU would have had to negotiate with ACL. Indeed as Ainsworth pointed out in an earlier letter of 5th July, there was an offer to play for free whilst in admin whilst continuing to negotiate. So there was no real threat to fixtures, until it became clear that the FL were going to sit back and do FA.
http://bobainsworthmp.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/football-league.pdf
The statement that ACL are responsible for the ten-point deduction is scandalous. As the creditor for a legally enforceable debt they were entitled to take any action they saw fit. Presumably the FL rules were designed to force clubs to find arrangements with the creditors, and generally the people owed the money are allowed to decide how fair the debtor's offer is.
That's the whole point of the CVA process. If the creditor doesn't think it's fair for whatever reason, then they are entitled to vote it down.
If the FL really thought that ACL were responsible then surely the proper course of action was to award no penalty whatsoever.
It's an utterly bizarre letter that shows just how pathetically weak the FL is. If they can use their discretion to avoid enforcing their rules here, then every tinpot owner that wants to avoid a legitimate debt will take them on. Good luck to them too - the faster we can show that the FL isn't fit for purpose, the quicker we can get someone in with the balls to do the job properly.
Last edited: