I would ASSUME its the lack of financial reporting that the clubs have to adhere to, i am only guessing. I read Strudwick say that Clubs have to show that they are upto date in regular figure reports that he said we hadnt done.
I thought this was a meeting we convened appealing against the embargo and refusal of the Conference to allow us to play contracted players.
Looks like the Conference have taken us to task and put us on a charge. Clearly showing their empathy and willingness to help that you may have read them mention.
Lets hope we get off and they dont impose further handcuffs on us.
-- Edited by JgFc on Wednesday 15th of September 2010 10:07:32 PM
__________________
Alexander O'Neal 1987 "I'm fed up cos all you wanna do is criticize "
Well...I am reading this as the culmination of what the two sets of solicitors met up and talked about on Monday
I think it was the clubs solicitors and the leagues solicitors
We all understand that we cannot sign new players but if the outcome is that we can use the three players that we had at the start of the season then that will be a result
Well...I am reading this as the culmination of what the two sets of solicitors met up and talked about on Monday
I think it was the clubs solicitors and the leagues solicitors
We all understand that we cannot sign new players but if the outcome is that we can use the three players that we had at the start of the season then that will be a result
I think you will find that its only Clarke and Pires who were signed before the first game so I would be satisfied if they were allowed to register all 18 and since we don't have a reserve keeper provision for emergency cover for Charlie.
__________________
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
Yes, those two back is the fair compromise ... no-one new, just those two back and playing ... also, its standard practice re: emergency goalkeepers as its a unique position on the field ... other clubs in problems before have had this agreed, along with outside the transfer window in the Prem.
355pm, 5,000 fine and no lifting of embargo but Clarke and Pires allowed to play.
PS 5,000 is the maximum they can fine us i think so they will do.
Whatever the outcome i hope the club sue the conference on many issues for the way they have handicapped and disadvantaged us and acted negligently to our players for the last 8 matches. Also discriminated against us.
-- Edited by JgFc on Thursday 16th of September 2010 01:36:42 PM
__________________
Alexander O'Neal 1987 "I'm fed up cos all you wanna do is criticize "
We could have informed the Pope of our plight. Asked him to sign a contract just for the Woking match, taken a photo of him and the Hobbins on the pitch holding a Welling shirt, got him to sign the Photo. Patsy could have then put it in the Auction. Financial problems solved.
Oh well maybe on his next visit!!
__________________
Growing old is compulsory, Growing up is optional.
We should appeal but we are playing so well we can overcome the 5 points deduction. We should plead for leniancy and ask them to reconsoder as it could affect our ability to increase gates.
But the players have lost only 1 game and we can over come the points. Lets all stick together and really fight hard now. I am sure Loick and Clarkey are busting a gut to get out there and the squad we have is equal to any in this league.
LETS WIN THIS LEAGUE WITH THE DEDUCTION AND SAY UP YOURS STRUDWICK YOU STILL CANT STOP US.
__________________
Alexander O'Neal 1987 "I'm fed up cos all you wanna do is criticize "
I think Welling should appeal the five points, after all liability was admitted and despite the problems with HMRC, Welling didn't know that a potential investor was to 'disappear'.
Still as for crowds, once the news gets out of this latest setback, I hope the Welling public turn out in force, however I am not sure.
I admit until non-league day I was lethargic to go to Welling and even though 80 'new' fans with season tickets got in for a fiver, as reported, the crowd was less than the Lewes game the previous Monday.
Still I will be there on Saturday and I hope that Woking will bring a lot more than Boreham Wood did.
When I first read it I thought it seemed a fair result, in a way an immediate fine would have been a much bigger punishment. Then I thought we should appeal (provided it wasn't likely to lead to a heavier penalty being imposed). Trouble is if we're successful then we're going to get some punishment for the admitted misconduct which means you're looking at a fine again presumably. I've never heard of this sort of points deduction before. Massive result getting Clarke and Pires back.
I don't think we've got a leg to stand on with the misconduct charge - we were clearly telling porkies last season.
However, I'm puzzled as to why Clarke and Pires are now allowed to play. Either it's in the rules that we had to reduce our squad to 16 or it's not. And if it's not, surely whoever applied this non-rule should surely face a misconduct charge, too... Suitable punishment would be to cover Clarke's and Pires's wages for the period they weren't allowed to play.
Agreed Russ ... its either a rule or not a rule ... you cant say "ok, you can have Clarke and Pires back but instead we will dock 5 points" for example.
Anyway, lets clear this debt and lets win this league with or without the 5 points. We have the ability and spirit to do it.
