• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

So Up Yours National League

Forums New posts
Harry Bullocks said:
An easy 18 page read 🤔🤔🤔
Click to expand...

I've had a skim through, the case was about the NL trying to revoke our unconditional licence (which was granted to us on the 5th May) on financial grounds.

The crux of the FA's findings is that the NL ****ed up and gave us an unconditional license on May 5th (this is despite only granting a conditional licence in the previous season). Once an unconditional licence has been granted the NL isn't allowed to revoke it unless there has been a significant change in circumstances.

The FA decided that the NL were already fully aware we were a financial mess on May 5th, so the NL can't then decide to revoke our licence a month later because we're a financial mess, there hasn't been any change there. The NL tried to argue that our accounts still being late was a significant change but since our accounts were already overdue on May 5th the FA didn't view that as significant enough to revoke the licence.

The FA did say however that they can't understand why the NL gave us an unconditional licence in the first place, had they granted a conditional licence on May 5th with the same terms they tried to place on us in June then the FA would have been far more sympathtic to the NL's arguments.
 
southendkid said:
I've had a skim through, the case was about the NL trying to revoke our unconditional licence (which was granted to us on the 5th May) on financial grounds.

The crux of the FA's findings is that the NL ****ed up and gave us an unconditional license on May 5th (this is despite only granting a conditional licence in the previous season). Once an unconditional licence has been granted the NL isn't allowed to revoke it unless there has been a significant change in circumstances.

The FA decided that the NL were already fully aware we were a financial mess on May 5th, so the NL can't then decide to revoke our licence a month later because we're a financial mess, there hasn't been any change there. The NL tried to argue that our accounts still being late was a significant change but since our accounts were already overdue on May 5th the FA didn't view that as significant enough to revoke the licence.

The FA did say however that they can't understand why the NL gave us an unconditional licence in the first place, had they granted a conditional licence on May 5th with the same terms they tried to place on us in June then the FA would have been far more sympathtic to the NL's arguments.
Click to expand...
Great summary!
 
southendkid said:
I've had a skim through, the case was about the NL trying to revoke our unconditional licence (which was granted to us on the 5th May) on financial grounds.

The crux of the FA's findings is that the NL ****ed up and gave us an unconditional license on May 5th (this is despite only granting a conditional licence in the previous season). Once an unconditional licence has been granted the NL isn't allowed to revoke it unless there has been a significant change in circumstances.

The FA decided that the NL were already fully aware we were a financial mess on May 5th, so the NL can't then decide to revoke our licence a month later because we're a financial mess, there hasn't been any change there. The NL tried to argue that our accounts still being late was a significant change but since our accounts were already overdue on May 5th the FA didn't view that as significant enough to revoke the licence.

The FA did say however that they can't understand why the NL gave us an unconditional licence in the first place, had they granted a conditional licence on May 5th with the same terms they tried to place on us in June then the FA would have been far more sympathtic to the NL's arguments.
Click to expand...
which effectively meant the National League had no legitimacy in imposing an Embargo on 17 May or demand for a £1m Bond in June/July.
 
Blue Streak said:
which effectively meant the National League had no legitimacy in imposing an Embargo on 17 May or demand for a £1m Bond in June/July.
Click to expand...
Agree on the bond.

I haven't read full document yet, but the transfer embargo was put on because of the WUP. Mind it should've been removed quicker. Or did they remove it once WUP cleared but put it back on instantaneously?
 
Holy Joe said:
Agree on the bond.

I haven't read full document yet, but the transfer embargo was put on because of the WUP. Mind it should've been removed quicker. Or did they remove it once WUP cleared but put it back on instantaneously?
Click to expand...
Yeah i just realised Embargo,s can be imposed for a rule break and a condition break (jeez that NL Rules document is boring). Ours was clearly a rule break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram
SUFC Exiles


ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top