• 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
Jai said:
Will be interesting to see the details of the second appeal.
Click to expand...
It was included in this document, from item 53 onwards. The second appeal was against the Bond being imposed. The imposing of the Bond cannot be done under an Unconditional License. The FA finding in our favour in relation to Appeal 1 (the change of license), then Appeal 2 is effectively obsolete and unnecessary so didn't need addressing. The National League ******d up by issuing us with an Unconditional License and tried to change that at a later date. The FA in this document are quite critical of The National League and i think it confirms what we all suspected, that The National League are incompetant
 
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...
So, basically, the National League being its usual, professional, well run organisational self with consistent rules in place for everyone equally, then.
 
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...
Thank you for explaining it so well as a lot of this stuff is completely lost on me
 
Seriously nee to get out of this league, I know we will eventually .Get the positions filled we need filling with some very capable players with experience and the whole side will be transformed ,I realise theres a lot of work to be done a lot of repairs etc to be done especially to RH and our new training facilities. but it is imperative we get back to the EFL and not languish in the VNL for too long. getting back to the EFL i believe will help the finances. The rat family really have a lot to answer for dont they. I wish COSU all the best in getting us back there and Kev and co and all the staff well also ,i know they will be doing there utmost to get us back where we belong .
 
Tom's statement regarding this was very balanced and underlined what a safe,balanced and mature CEO he is.
I am sure he is aware of the individuals at the helm of the NL organisation who pulled the strings to try to get the bond; & not to name them is a good ploy.
Am I correct in that those persons would be chairmen or such, associated with other teams in the NL, NLN and NLS?
 
Massimo Giovanni said:
Tom's statement regarding this was very balanced and underlined what a safe,balanced and mature CEO he is.
I am sure he is aware of the individuals at the helm of the NL organisation who pulled the strings to try to get the bond; & not to name them is a good ploy.
Am I correct in that those persons would be chairmen or such, associated with other teams in the NL, NLN and NLS?
Click to expand...

The VC and Director is Dagenham MD Steve Thompson MBE. I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Honourable mentions for the GM Mark Ives also. Again, I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Chairman
Jack Pearce MBE

Vice Chairman
Steve Thompson MBE (Dagenham & Redbridge)

General Manager
Mark Ives

Directors
Stephen Thompson MBE (Dagenham & Redbridge)
Shahid Azeem (Aldershot Town)
Sonia Kulkarni (Gateshead)
Timothy Murphy (Solihull Moors)
Ben Hudson (Hampton & Richmond Borough)
Joanie Roberts (Hereford)
Darren Royle (Oldham Athletic)
Simon Gardener (Farnborough)
Martin Copus (Sutton United)
David Johnston (Darlington)

Independent Non-Executive Directors
Martin Howard
Nabila Zulfiqar
Martin Thacker MBE
 
The guy from Oldham got on the executive very quickly seeing as how it was Oldhams first season in the VNL i believe.
 
Interesting to see the name Gareth Farrelly at the bottom of the judgement, he used to work for my firm after he retired from playing Football having famously scored the goal that saved Everton from Relegation from the Premier League!
 
So I guess this is what All at Sea was referring to on X a while back when he said it will all come out.
 
Smiffy said:
The VC and Director is Dagenham MD Steve Thompson MBE. I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Honourable mentions for the GM Mark Ives also. Again, I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Chairman
Jack Pearce MBE

Vice Chairman
Steve Thompson MBE (Dagenham & Redbridge)

General Manager
Mark Ives

Directors
Stephen Thompson MBE (Dagenham & Redbridge)
Shahid Azeem (Aldershot Town)
Sonia Kulkarni (Gateshead)
Timothy Murphy (Solihull Moors)
Ben Hudson (Hampton & Richmond Borough)
Joanie Roberts (Hereford)
Darren Royle (Oldham Athletic)
Simon Gardener (Farnborough)
Martin Copus (Sutton United)
David Johnston (Darlington)

Independent Non-Executive Directors
Martin Howard
Nabila Zulfiqar
Martin Thacker MBE
Click to expand...

The decision to give us an unconditional licence was almost certainly an administrative error rather than a board decision so if there’s anyone on that list to blame it would be Ives rather than Thompson. More probably it was someone under Ives who screwed up.

However his secretary or whoever it was actually did us a favour as it allowed us to get off on a technicality when the NL would have been well within their rights to demand a bond at the start of May.

We’re also in no position to criticise administrative errors having failed to post accounts on time and bafflingly failed to provide evidence of funding in time when it was requested.

So how about we wait until we’ve actually demonstrated we’re a professional outfit to criticise the NL for their amateurism.
 
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