Surely it is illegal, Why should footballers not be allowed to play? They have done nothing wrong.

A joke is not the word I would use to describe this situation.

i would like to see where in the Conference rules this is covered.

Is this rule in the league rules, was it in the rules when Lewes owed the HMRC 115k as they never had an embargo to my knowledge so were rules adhered to then if one existed or is this just pick on welling and risk them going under?.

Can we see any negligence or victimisation by the conference?

-- Edited by JgFc on Friday 3rd of September 2010 11:33:01 PM

even more reason to get right behind the players and the club.

I'm with JGFC on this. If a player were to play through injury and therefore sustain a serious one as a result, in my opinion, they should sue the Conferences' arse off. Some of them have other full time jobs, which they may not be able to fulfil.

The Conference board - much like The FA - is run by Eton boys who are out of touch with reality. They really do embarrass the non-league game.

Welling should get together with Hinkley and any other club in the same situation and protest.
Do the clubs have a committee themselves or reps that talk to the conference? Surely its in all the interests to protest. IF we get out of this, there will be others in the same boat.

I think we are only allowed to have the 11 players and 5 subs that were on the first league game's teamsheet. i am sure otherwise the players would have been registered. Agree about the fact it may be a rule. HOWEVER with 5 fit players in the stand and a few injured on the pitch, if one injured player makes the injury worse that rule could prove the league to be negligent and liable to pay the player and club compensation.

Surely the Club must have an up-to-date copy of the rulebook, with any recent amendments?  Frankly, the issue of the embargo needs to be discussed at today's meeting.  It is as important, perhaps more so, than any of the ideas for fund-raising - otherwise supporters raise dosh to go forward two steps but continuation of the embargo and more injured players makes us go back one or two steps.

We need to hear whether Barrie and the club's solicitors have made strong representations and the likelihood of a satisfactory outcome to those discussions.  We need to know whether the rules governing an embargo can be applied in our case, that of a petition rather than a full High Court Order. Then we need to know all of the facts, so that we are in a justified position to launch a vociferous campaign in whatever media is at our disposal.  If we do fall within the rule for an embargo, we can either accept our fate and redouble efforts to raise money/attract investors or we can campaign to have this rule removed for clubs in the same circumstance.

Agreed, Tom.

wings 630 wrote:

---

The argument for lifting the embargo is not valid becuas eif we had paid our taxes in the first place we would not be in this position

we just have to get on with it im afraid

---

My dear 'wings 630', the basis of your statement is made with good grounding.

However, there are sectors in industry that have been allowed different working practices, it doesn't make it right but it helps make it understandable regarding the position we find ourselves in.

If embargos or any other action is taken against any business, surely it be lawful and consistant in respect of other businesses within that same sector that are in a very similar position.

The reason that the rules are being sought is that the above could be in question.

 

-- Edited by Trigger on Sunday 5th of September 2010 11:28:42 AM

If we have agreed "time to pay" with HMRC and paid this years taxes then it seems (and it's only based on an article as the rules are as elusive as ours) that if we were in the Football League the embargo would have been lifted. Is the Conference really so different? I can sort of see the sense behind it, on the basis that if a club is facing legal action over debt then preventing it from spending more than absolutely necessary is probably sensible but still......

perhaps i might have missed the answer to my question what would happen if charlie got hurt would the leagues embaro allow us to get a loan keeper if so shay given free most saturdays

Do the conference have something against us? It's starting to look a bit obvious.

-- Edited by Dogme on Sunday 5th of September 2010 08:28:06 PM

Surely this a common law restraint of trade on Pires and Clarke? If they are missing out on match-fees, win bonuses, etc., they'd certainly have a good case.

If these properly registered players are not allowed to be in our squad, when fit, perhaps they themselves should contact the Conference citing the above.

Though Clarkey and Pires have signed for the Club they were deregistered from Conference when the embargo was declared and we were restricted to 16 registered players. At that time they were both unavailable through injury for 3 weeks or so and the Club hoped that by the time they were fit the embargo would have been lifted. It hasn't been lifted so unless we are able to deregister 2 players and replace them with Clarkey and Pires it is technically the Club's decision which prevents them from playing (albeit in compliance with a league ruling.)

The nonsense of the embargo is the 16 player limit. Name 16 from the squad of 18 which includes injured players and you limit the size of the bench for the crucial early games which come thick and fast. Name 16 players omitting the injured players and players picking up knocks will play injured or or you can't fill the bench with fit players while you have players who have recovered from injury frustrated and kicking their heels. Its a lose lose scenario.

The registration limit of 16 players is presumably reached as its 11 + 5 subs in our league but why not 11+7 which all clubs in our league can name in an FA Cup tie? Surely the League wouldn't condone releasing contracted players which would incur an immediate worsening of the clubs financial position by having to pay up the contract in order to pare our signed squad down to 16.

Why is no account taken of the size of the debt which is what generates the implementation of an embargo in the first place? £125K and £50K debts present very different probabilities of repayment in the short term.

Not perfect but surely a better and more equitable course of action is to take the mean wage bill of the league and impose that as a wage cap.

All in all it is a totally unacceptable situation.

Not if they are contracted to Welling they cant. And i believe both to have signed contracts at Welling.

Lets hope the club can get this embargo lifted so we can be at full strength every game. At least the players are doing the business in the meantime.

You suspect wrong, Barrie clarified it all at the meeting.

To be honest I can understand the emargo on signing new players. It would be a nonsense for a Club to be before the High Court for having large debts, and then at the same time were out signing new players and getting into more debt. The league would be quite rightly criticised if they allowed this to happen. I also think it has happened in the past, thus the rule.

However it seem ridiculous that Welling, in its financial position, is having to pay two players and is not allowed to play them. From my conversations - we can't deregister two players and replace them with Pires and Clarke. We are stuck with the same 16 - even if they are injured. This can not be right. It means players like Jack, are playing with injuries.

What is terrible is the time taken by the conference to communicate, The arseholes were quick to slap an embargo on before a court hearing that was adjourned. They should answer important questions in an hour not ignore clubs for days.

I go back to why Lewes never had an embargo. I am aware that the number has gone from 18 to 16 this season but unaware if the rules have changed since Lewes were allowed to trade unrestricted re issuing an embargo.

I would say that the conference are so amatuer that there will be many loopholes and **** ups in their embargo issuing.

Can anyone get a copy of the rules for this season and last season???






-- Edited by JgFc on Tuesday 7th of September 2010 12:24:03 PM

Do the club have solicitors?