An easy 18 page read![]()
Great summary!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.
And on 1 pageGreat summary!
For once wasn't Ron moving the goalpostsClearly the NL made some questionable decisions, realised they cocked up and tried to make changes.
Oh dear.
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.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.
I'm just pleased Ron actually left us with some.For once wasn't Ron moving the goalposts
Agree on the bond.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.
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.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?
Although doesn't explain why it took them so long to remove it!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.