The Football League shows us how it's done....

[ian.64]

Rotherham docked 17 points.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...td/7543195.stm

The Football League are sort of reminiscent of a stringy, muscles-like-peapods Charles Hawtrey sort who's full of bullish bravado after celebrating pushing over his first four-year-old. 'Yeah, Premier League, you may give slaps on the wrist, but here we - yeah - we kick arse!'

[NHH]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

They seem to me to be like a boss who's gone out on the piss at lunchtime in the middle of a mid-life crisis, and are just barking increasingly bizarre orders to their staff which are on the verge of the ludicrous.

[NHH]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

I mean 17? Why 17? What's the logic? The only logic I can see is that 17 gives Luton a chance and makes League Two vaguely interesting.

[My Name Is Ian]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

I'm not normally prone to conspiracy theories, that the Football League are making it really difficult to not think that they are just stitching up these clubs to get them relegated and take the heat off everyone else for a year.

[Jimmy Bignutz]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

NHH wrote:

They seem to me to be like a boss who's gone out on the piss at lunchtime in the middle of a mid-life crisis, and are just barking increasingly bizarre orders to their staff which are on the verge of the ludicrous.

I hear that Chester have been docked 10 points for leaving out a dirty coffee cup, and Brentford have ben given a five-point penalty because they keep doing this:

[Ball Comrade]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

How far is Don Valley from Millmoor anyway?

[My Name Is Ian]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

About four miles, I think.

[Houdi Elbow]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

Whilst I'm sure that Rotherham fans don't want to be playing in Sheffield, I can't understand the 'must return to Rotherham in 4 years' clause. To put it in context, the border with Rotherham is, I guess, less than 2 miles away.

Does this mean Grimsby will have to move from Cleethorpes and West Ham from Upton Park? The FL are just making it up as they go along.

[noj]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

The Football League really are a bunch of twats.

Yet more commisserations to GO, Dangermouse etc.

When's the time limit up for Franchise returning to Wimbledon?

[DCI Harry Batt]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

Unaccostomed as I am to sticking up for the Football League, I don't see the insistence on returning to Rotherham being a bad thing. The Franchise situation shows the need for that, doesn't it?

[Houdi Elbow]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

Given the distances concerned it does seem a tad petty in this case.

[DCI Harry Batt]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

Distance isn't the only marker here though, is it? The ground is in Sheffield, which isn't Rotherham. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Or are people suggesting that there is no problem at all in Rotherham moving out of Rotherham and into Sheffield, and people shouldn't worry about such things?

If the Football League had insisted that Wimbledon return to Wimbledon within four years of moving out (to another part of London, not many miles away) that would have been a good thing.

[Ball Comrade]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

Well yeah. But the club want to move back, the fans want them to move back, and there is no chance of them being successful in an athletics stadium in Attercliffe.

Asking them for £750,000 when they've got no money, to prove their desire to rectify something that is going to cost them a lot of money, is really cunty. Especially when they'll be kicked out of the FL if they don't do as they're told anyway.

[DCI Harry Batt]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

the club want to move back, the fans want them to move back, and there is no chance of them being successful in an athletics stadium in Attercliffe

You know, I can't help thinking I've heard something similar before...

I dunno about £750k, it doesn't seem to be mentioned in that BBC article. In principle, I'm in favour of the Football League insisting on a return, but it's not obvious how that can be done reasonably, I agree.

[Houdi Elbow]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

Or are people suggesting that there is no problem at all in Rotherham moving out of Rotherham and into Sheffield, and people shouldn't worry about such things?

Straw man.

Nobody is suggesting that RUFC should be permanently based in Sheffield and you are totally misinterpreting what I wrote. I would have thought that the major concern of a club playing in a different town (or London borough) would be the difficulty of fans travelling to games and the consequent erosion of support and finances. This isn't so much the case here - it's not ideal but hopefully gets them out of a temporary hole.

[DCI Harry Batt]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

Then what's wrong with the Football League insisting that it is, indeed, temporary?

[Ball Comrade]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=560544&sec=england&&cc=5739

[DCI Harry Batt]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

Well, that does seem rather odd, doesn't it? Does that mean they have to find £750k, in actual cash money, today?

[Ball Comrade]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

TonTon wrote:

Well, that does seem rather odd, doesn't it? Does that mean they have to find £750k, in actual cash money, today?

I think so.

I haven't seen anything about what happens to that money if they end up getting relegated out of the Fl during that time, either.

[Ray de Galles]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

TonTon wrote:

Then what's wrong with the Football League insisting that it is, indeed, temporary?

I thought the rule they allowed Franchise to initially break was that you had to be within a certain mileage (25?) of your named conurbation?

This was to acknowledge that QPR aren't in Queen's Park any more, Bolton aren't in Bolton, Chelsea aren't in Chelsea etc.

While I agree it should be RUFC's intent to move back in to Rotherham as soon as possible (and everyone currently running or wanting to run the club has that as priority one after keeping the club solvent) the Football League's arbitrary ruling of it smacks to me of face-saving after the Franchise debacle and not actually in the interests of club or area.

[Gangster Octopus]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

Rotherham Council are so keen to get the club back into town that they've put up £500,000 of the bond. And they're working with the club and rugger club to get the new stadium built; an area has already been earmarked. This is a massive move forward.

It would be nice to finish a season with the number of points that we've actually earned on the pitch for a change...

[David Agnew]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

What is the reasoning behind the punishment?

The Leagues' own rules stated that punishment is demotion to League Two, nothing about points deduction - so while Leeds get to keep their League One status, and just get deducted 15 points, Luton are punished heavily for something not deemed worth punishing at the time, and Rotherham are seemingly punished for something they've already been punished for.

And despite the recommendation in the League v Leeds case being that clubs should have the right of appeal, the League forces the clubs to waive the right of appeal if they want to stay in the league.

And, I bet David Sheepshanks (one football club in administration, that he steered to debts of £36m) was on the panel, just like he was on the Luton panel.

Farcical fucking cunts.

[Ray de Galles]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

I'm being told by the office Cherry that Bournemouth have been refused their "Golden Share" ( oh how I hoped I'd heard the last of them with Leeds last season) today and will have another go tomorrow.

Didn't Leeds start the season without it , last season?

[David Agnew]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

TonTon wrote:

Distance isn't the only marker here though, is it? The ground is in Sheffield, which isn't Rotherham. That seems pretty straightforward to me. Or are people suggesting that there is no problem at all in Rotherham moving out of Rotherham and into Sheffield, and people shouldn't worry about such things?

If the Football League had insisted that Wimbledon return to Wimbledon within four years of moving out (to another part of London, not many miles away) that would have been a good thing.

By that token, should AFC Wimbledon not have left Kingstonian by now? Or should Wimbledon be given a Grimsby/Cleethorpes free ride?

[David Agnew]

The Football League shows us how it's done....

Harri Saer wrote:

I'm being told by the office Cherry that Bournemouth have been refused their "Golden Share" ( oh how I hoped I'd heard the last of them with Leeds last season) today and will have another go tomorrow.

Didn't Leeds start the season without it , last season?

The league have said they will announce their postion on Bournemouth on Tuesday. I'm guessing they've decided to deduct them the amount of points equal to the bonus ball in Saturday's lottery.

The "golden share" means nothing, in terms of actual playing. You lose it the moment you enter administration, and you don't get it back until the league meeting after you exit administration. The "golden share" prevents you from signing players (although you can be given special dispensation if you have no keepers fit, or you've had to sell so many players you can't raise a team) and voting at league meetings.

The only implication for Bournemouth is that the players must be registrered with OldCo, and not NewCo, if they want to play before the share is returned.