billythefish wrote:AD wrote:billythefish wrote:The Yid wrote: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.