Cobblers...... It's true

[AD]

Trouble is its the balance between morally reprehensible versus legally allowed. It's completely wrong on so many levels - but the League can't hold the Council accountable for their approach re the stadium. Could the league legally stop it? They've allowed the club to have different levels of ownerahip

I agree that football is fucked - maybe we should have asked Sky what to do - they run football now

Not sure what the League could do to stop it tbh.

The problem is where do you draw the line (5 miles, 10 miles, 30 miles) - if the Ricoh had been built a couple of miles away in Beduff should that mean that the League should stop the club moving there? Plenty of clubs will look to move a few miles away to find space for a new stadium should these all be banned as they are moving the club outside of its traditional home.

SISU have said this is a temporary move and a replacement ground will be built in Coventry (god knows if that will ever happen but I suspect not) based on this what reason would the League give for stopping the move? No point in blaming the League for the failing of this and the other owners in the last 20+ years.

I think the league could have stopped it on grounds of the plans not being finalised. I swear it's regulations said that any groundshare would only be agreed if concrete plans and timescale could be produced along with planning permission.

The problem with that is this is not being talked about specifically as a ground share, more as an 'arrangement', so maybe once again they've circumnavigated the rules on a technicality. Under a groundshare apparently we'd get first say over when to play fixtures as we're higher up the league pyramid, but in this arrangement Northampton do (which is at it should be as it's their stadium)

Maybe but if they did turn it down then what happens? There is no guarantee in place that the club could agree to play at the Ricoh or find an alternative ground in Coventry. Does that mean that they throw the club out or force them to play all the games away from home? Neither would be palatable options and I am guessing that the League would be reluctant to do either. If you were to throw the club out what happens? Do you promote someone, reorganise games etc etc

Regardless of our individual thoughts on this the League have been given an outline plan that is to play at Northampton for three seasons whilst they build a new ground in the Coventry area. They have submitted a £1m bond and confirmation that they will keep the League updated. What more could the club do until the stage when land is purchased, contracts are exchanged etc. None of that will be before the start of the season.

All valid points and obviously the FL don't want to kick teams out of the league. But it just goes to show that all these rules and regulations are nothing more than lip service - when push comes to shove they will never actual enforce them. They are by and large useless.

However, one thing they could have said was "This £1m bond we're charging you. Instead of giving it us, give it to ACL and play there for three years. It's practically what they were willing to accept anyway. And at the end of that three years though you won't get the £1m bond back you'll have not lost out on £5m+ of revenue, so you end up better off from it".

EDIT: Or demanded both SISU and ACL go to the CAS or other mediator/ombudsman and whatever their ruling as to reasonable rent/ access to other forms of revenue etc. would be binding. Although less prevalent today, it's worked in the past for transfer fee tribunals, some of which were for a lot more money than we're talking about here.

[the boss]

Not sure what the League could do to stop it tbh.

they could of asked for a bond of 20 million saying if the 'new ground' is not complete in 5 years and within the city bounderies they would forfit this money. You would not of seen the crooks for dust.

Plus if by some miracle we happened to go up to the premier ( I know its crazy ) in the next 2 years where would we play then? Old trafford?

[billythefish]

However, one thing they could have said was "This £1m bond we're charging you. Instead of giving it us, give it to ACL and play there for three years. It's practically what they were willing to accept anyway. And at the end of that three years though you won't get the £1m bond back you'll have not lost out on £5m+ of revenue, so you end up better off from it".

EDIT: Or demanded both SISU and ACL go to the CAS or other mediator/ombudsman and whatever their ruling as to reasonable rent/ access to other forms of revenue etc. would be binding. Although less prevalent today, it's worked in the past for transfer fee tribunals, some of which were for a lot more money than we're talking about here.

Whilst that is what most fans want I doubt that the League has the power to "force" or even suggest that a club does something else. They can only comment on what a club wants to do not what it should do.

CAS is a possibility but again I doubt that the League can officially do this.

[king chillout]

Just posing the question......if an organisation doesn't have the power to enforce it's own rules, why bother having any ?

I just can't understand how the FL can even consider one of their clubs playing in a totally different county to their original area as a viable option. It will kill the club and they must know that, surely ?

[Timbo]

Brighton had their home games at Gillingham for two years. That's around a 150 mile round trip. The precedent has been set.

[billythefish]

Just posing the question......if an organisation doesn't have the power to enforce it's own rules, why bother having any ?

I just can't understand how the FL can even consider one of their clubs playing in a totally different county to their original area as a viable option. It will kill the club and they must know that, surely ?

What rule are you referring to? I am not aware there is any that mention playing in a different county or anything like that.

[AD]

However, one thing they could have said was "This £1m bond we're charging you. Instead of giving it us, give it to ACL and play there for three years. It's practically what they were willing to accept anyway. And at the end of that three years though you won't get the £1m bond back you'll have not lost out on £5m+ of revenue, so you end up better off from it".

EDIT: Or demanded both SISU and ACL go to the CAS or other mediator/ombudsman and whatever their ruling as to reasonable rent/ access to other forms of revenue etc. would be binding. Although less prevalent today, it's worked in the past for transfer fee tribunals, some of which were for a lot more money than we're talking about here.

Whilst that is what most fans want I doubt that the League has the power to "force" or even suggest that a club does something else. They can only comment on what a club wants to do not what it should do.

CAS is a possibility but again I doubt that the League can officially do this.

So again all were saying is the entire thing is a mockery just to placate fans. In reality there is nothing they can do. Even if they threaten to kick a team out legally they have no right to do so as the club will say they do have somewhere to play and nowhere in the regulations does it specifically say that that place is unsuitable. Any club could be moved anywhere else and nothing could be done to stop it.

Mind you, i think boss may have a point. If they can enforce a 'bond' on teams as they have done here, why not make it so prohibitively expensive to not be worth their while moving? I don't know if there is an upper limit on what they can charge, or even yet if the club may choose to challenge the legality of them to do so at all.