A non-league club faces expulsion by the Football Association from all competitions if it fails to pay an ex-player convicted of armed robbery.
Grays Athletic FC terminated Ashley Sestanovich's contract before his conviction in December 2006 for conspiracy to rob a roofing company.
Grays have been given 14 days by the FA to pay Sestanovich £14,000.
Sestanovich was jailed for eight years over a robbery in Streatham, London, in 2005 when a man was murdered.
An FA disciplinary hearing ordered Grays to pay Sestanovich five months' wages, in June, last year, after ruling they were in breach of FA regulations.
The club must also pay a £500 fine and the hearing's costs.
If they fail to do so, the south Essex club will be suspended from all football.
Grays have been involved in a counterclaim against Sestanovich who played one pre-season friendly for the club before his arrest.
The club claim that Sestanovich told them he was being held on remand for motoring offences but once the nature of the charges became known they served him with 14 days' notice.
The former Sheffield United, Scarborough, Grimsby Town and Chester City player was found guilty of conspiracy to rob a roofing company in which Thomas Fahey was murdered.
Two other men were convicted of Mr Fahey's murder.
'Shot in cold-blood'
Grays chairman Mike Woodward said: "I am bitterly disappointed in the FA's judgment, all they seem to want to do is take money from football clubs.
"We are being forced to pay approximately £14,000 to a player who only had three training sessions and 20 minutes in a pre-season friendly due to his involvement in a heinous crime which saw a young father shot in cold-blood.
"Unfortunately my principals will not allow me to pay this money from either my own pocket, or from the club's, and the directors are of the same opinion. I feel sorry for the supporters of this club but I hope that you will back me on this decision."
The FA said because Sestanovich was arrested after he signed for Grays, the club were obliged to honour his contract until he was actually convicted of an offence, under contract law.
I think the FA are between a rock and a hard place. It's contract law that is the problem. He signed the contract before he was nicked and as you are innocent until proved guilty they have to keep paying. Otherwise if you are arrested and subsequently found not guilty, but in the meatime your employer stops paying you - you lose your house, can't eat or go watch football when you have done nothing wrong. I would have thought Grays should be suing the player now he has been found guilty
I am no lawyer but I supsect that Grays may be on dodgy ground if they don't pay. Morally they are in the right without a doubt - why would you want to pay a man who was involved in such an awful crime, legally I would guess that they have to pay and then sue him.
If he signed for Grays before he was arrested I don't see why people are getting so upset about it. Usually if you are arrested whilst working you would expect to be suspended on full pay, after all he could have been acquitted. Once convicted you would expect the club to fire him. I think the FA are spot on.
Grays were found at fault because there was no disclosure of information clause in S's contract (the standard FA Players contract). This loophole was exploited and in June the FA said they would be looking at this.
Grays had consulted and been advised by the Football Conference before terminating S's contract with the required period of notice.
In these circumstances if I were Grays I would feel pretty aggrieved.
Since S was held on remand was therefore unable to perform his contract as a result of his own actions, be that for a driving offence or as was the reality being involved in a robbery during which someone was murdered, surely he should have been dismissed on those grounds.
__________________
YOUTH are the future
****
"The worst thing you can do is make a committment and not meet it and I understand that." Barrie Hobbins 14 August 2010
What about the presumption of innocence? Being arrested and held on remand is entirely different to being convicted of a crime. He was unable to perform his contract because of the actions of the state not the individual. In this case no one will have any sympathy for S but I know someone who has just been acquitted of a very serious offence - would it have been right for his employers to have sacked him at the outset of the case?
Andrew its been 13 or so years since I worked in HR and regularly had to deal with such matters and things may well have changed but the situation then was always that the employer worked on the balance of probability in such cases. Being held on remand implies more than a spurious arrest.
I readily accept that there will always be miscarriages of justice - no system is perfect but would the more sensible solution in such cases be to hold over the award of payment until innocence or guilt are established. I would suggest paying it initially and being required to pay it back but realistically it would be spent and Grays would still be £14,000 light since he would not be in a position to make the repayment and we would then get into a sequestration? of assets scenario.
The bottom line is that Sestanovich knew what he was doing, he made himself unavailable and brought Grays and football in general into disrepute. For doing so, If Grays yield to the pressure, he will get £14,000 which in my book, and I'm sure that of many others, he is not entitled to.
Grays action was ultimately vindicated so why should they have to pay the wages - a case of the law is an ass in my book I'm afraid.
__________________
YOUTH are the future
****
"The worst thing you can do is make a committment and not meet it and I understand that." Barrie Hobbins 14 August 2010
