People keep repeating that the FL changed their rules to stop another MK Dons - can anyone shed any light on what these rules are and more importantly why they have any faith in them? So far their implementation has been non-existent. Wimbledon left Merton having fallen out with the Council and unable to find any ground in the vicinity (sound familiar?), so ground shared with Crystal Palace. This ground share then became the next millstone around the neck of the owners who claimed that it could not afford to continue to pay the rent. Wimbledon claimed Merton never wanted them back. So what happened, well we all no the rest don't we?
So far nothing gives me any confidence that something similar wouldn't happen under the FL's jurisdiction. The Govt will probably step in - but it will be too late for us. If SISU/Otium don't get their hands on the Ricoh what will their next move be? Sam Hamman had links with MK from the early days, do our lot have any similar links? If their long term plan B is to move us to another city/town, is it Northampton or elsewhere?
As I see it a quick look at the rules doesn't really give any confidence?!?
This one wasn't worth much obviously was it?
13.4 Ground sharing will only be approved at the discretion of the Board. The Board will not generally approve any ground-sharing arrangement where the club plays its matches outside the conurbation, as defined by the Board, from which the Club takes its name or with which it is otherwise traditionally associated.
The following hardly seems watertight do they??
13.6 Each Club shall register its ground with the Executive and no Club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
The next ones get more promising....
13.7 In considering whether to give any such consent, the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and shall not grant consent unless it is reasonably satisfied that such consent:
13.7.1 would be consistent with the objects of The League as set out in the Memorandum of Association;
13.7.2 would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground;
13.7.3 would not adversely affect such Club's Officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;
But they are followed by this which basically means they will do what is right for the Football League regardless??
13.7.6 would enhance the reputation of The League and promote the game of association football generally.
And regardless of the rules above they then have a caveat that says that in terms of insolvency they will apply their own insolvency policy (private document). So that could basically undo all of the above anyway to make sure a club does not go bust.
If SISU have it in their game plan to take us away permanently, I can't see anything or anybody standing in their way. When you look back in 6 years time and we're still not back in Cov maybe those that did nothing will think differently, or maybe they'll still happily be supporting from wherever.
So far nothing gives me any confidence that something similar wouldn't happen under the FL's jurisdiction. The Govt will probably step in - but it will be too late for us. If SISU/Otium don't get their hands on the Ricoh what will their next move be? Sam Hamman had links with MK from the early days, do our lot have any similar links? If their long term plan B is to move us to another city/town, is it Northampton or elsewhere?
As I see it a quick look at the rules doesn't really give any confidence?!?
This one wasn't worth much obviously was it?
13.4 Ground sharing will only be approved at the discretion of the Board. The Board will not generally approve any ground-sharing arrangement where the club plays its matches outside the conurbation, as defined by the Board, from which the Club takes its name or with which it is otherwise traditionally associated.
The following hardly seems watertight do they??
13.6 Each Club shall register its ground with the Executive and no Club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the written consent of the Board, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
The next ones get more promising....
13.7 In considering whether to give any such consent, the Board shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case and shall not grant consent unless it is reasonably satisfied that such consent:
13.7.1 would be consistent with the objects of The League as set out in the Memorandum of Association;
13.7.2 would be appropriate having in mind the relationship (if any) between the locality with which by its name or otherwise the applicant Club is traditionally associated and that in which such Club proposes to establish its ground;
13.7.3 would not adversely affect such Club's Officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors and others having an interest in its activities;
But they are followed by this which basically means they will do what is right for the Football League regardless??
13.7.6 would enhance the reputation of The League and promote the game of association football generally.
And regardless of the rules above they then have a caveat that says that in terms of insolvency they will apply their own insolvency policy (private document). So that could basically undo all of the above anyway to make sure a club does not go bust.
If SISU have it in their game plan to take us away permanently, I can't see anything or anybody standing in their way. When you look back in 6 years time and we're still not back in Cov maybe those that did nothing will think differently, or maybe they'll still happily be supporting from wherever.
cks
