The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

The Chester City debacle has proven that the existing Conference rules rewards failure. The only teams to gain from Chester City getting expelled are those that dropped points against City - that is a disgrace and whilst I accept the rules of the competition can't be changed mid-season, the Conference Board MUST be looking at preventing this from happening again.

Next season it looks as though we will be joined by Darlington, whose own financial position is fragile to say the least. Last season the Conference Board accepted Chester City into the Confernence despite not fulfilling their own financial criteria, they knew they were in a mess before a football was kicked in anger. I have no doubt they were forced to do so by a corrupt Football League Board who (I presume?) blackmailed/forced them into accepting a side whose finances were in such a mess. The end result is the mess we now have.

Now, the Conference Board have got to look at their rules. If the Football League are going to force them into accepting sides that don't fulfil their financial criteria (as I expect them to do yet again with Darlington) then they MUST amend their rules so that sides who have worked hard to accrue points against them aren't penalised when they inevitably "go under".

Otherwise we will yet again be faced with the situation where a club is unable to fulfil its fixtures and supporters and other clubs will yet again be faced with the ridiculous situation we now find ourselves in. What do you think?

PigmanRDFC wrote:Next season it looks as though we will be joined by Darlington, whose own financial position is fragile to say the least. Last season the Conference Board accepted Chester City into the Confernence despite not fulfilling their own financial criteria, they knew they were in a mess before a football was kicked in anger. I have no doubt they were forced to do so by a corrupt Football League Board who (I presume?) blackmailed/forced them into accepting a side whose finances were in such a mess. The end result is the mess we now have.

Great post Piggers. Just to add, from what i remember, at the time, the FL threatened to take away the promotion places if the conference did not accpet Chester. I sincerely hope they would not have been able to get away with this if they had tried, but then that is making the rather large assumption that the FA would a) give a flying f***, and b) that they would also have not bottled it!

Unfortunately if this is going to be the threat each time, there is very little imo that the conference board can do!

We've also got the uneven situation where some clubs have gained gate revenue from a home fixture with Chester - whereas others haven't. That discrepancy will mean some clubs having to make tough financial decisions which others have avoided by virtue of their Chester revenue.

Luton had 6500 fans for their game at home to Chester, so they win in two ways - no longer suffering the two dropped points from that game (or the two from the away game) as well as the revenues from that home game.

Then there is the issue of season ticket holders at these clubs getting disgruntled and being less likely to renew next season.

Money was withheld from Chester in the form of the parachute payment (by the FL :roll: ) and the money given to clubs at the start of the year to ease the loss of Setanta. Their reasons for this were due to the continued involvement of the Vaughan family, which I can understand.

Possibly some of this could be used to compensate the likes of Forest Green who made a loss the night the players refused to get on the bus, and maybe the rest to teams who have yet to play them, based upon their average gate at a time when they would play them as part of lost revenue?

It's not a new phenomena for a team to be kicked out, but it usually happens after the season has finished. I don't see the points lost as being "penalised", cos we reduced the games played as well, so we now have a game in hand of others. As Formic says, the biggest loss to the club will be the (potential) 600 - 800 paying customers on the day. I take it season ticket holders will have to take the loss on the chin?
I did notice in today's NLP that our average attendance has now crept up to the 1440's and with Oxford, Mansfield and Luton to come we could still yet crack the 1500 barrier.

I suppose a counter argument is that the other Conference Clubs were asked to vote at the start of the season whether Chester should be allowed in - so they have to take some of the blame for the fact that they aren't getting as many home games as they budgeted for.

This won't be our problem if we get promoted.

Formic wrote:I suppose a counter argument is that the other Conference Clubs were asked to vote at the start of the season whether Chester should be allowed in - so they have to take some of the blame for the fact that they aren't getting as many home games as they budgeted for.

I think you'll probably find that the FL held a gun to their head and said you either take them or else we look at the 2 up situation? To not accept them would be a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas woundn't it?

I do see it as being penalised because those are 3 points we had already earned that are now being taken away, AFC Dons lost to them and have gained greatly at our expense, as have Luton who could only draw twice. Look at Cambridge who have now lost 6 points. They have been put in an impossible position and who knows, they may well have restructured their finances in January as they could have felt they were almost safe, now they're in the dung big time. Mansfield's hopes of the play-offs have been seriously dented by losing 6 points - how is that not being penalised?

jimbobjaw wrote:

PigmanRDFC wrote:Next season it looks as though we will be joined by Darlington, whose own financial position is fragile to say the least. Last season the Conference Board accepted Chester City into the Confernence despite not fulfilling their own financial criteria, they knew they were in a mess before a football was kicked in anger. I have no doubt they were forced to do so by a corrupt Football League Board who (I presume?) blackmailed/forced them into accepting a side whose finances were in such a mess. The end result is the mess we now have.

Great post Piggers. Just to add, from what i remember, at the time, the FL threatened to take away the promotion places if the conference did not accpet Chester. I sincerely hope they would not have been able to get away with this if they had tried, but then that is making the rather large assumption that the FA would a) give a flying f***, and b) that they would also have not bottled it!

Unfortunately if this is going to be the threat each time, there is very little imo that the conference board can do!

IF they are being forced to accept these clubs, then they need to sort out a much fairer way of dealing with it should we be in the same situation again - just lopping off the points gained isn't fair. JE in the NLP suggested giving all clubs 3 points and 1 goal. Whatever you do won't be totally fair, but its got to be better than what they've got as rules at the moment.

I don't think it's being penalised because it's only considering the teams that have played them and won. K*ttering have not played them at all so have gained their points anyway, all it means is that we'll have a game in hand (tonight) to make that up. Who's to say that K*ttering wouldn't have won those two games against Chester as well, therefore keeping parity? It would have ended up being another Weymouth situation, or worse still with Chester unable to complete the season (and that's not fair on the teams they had left to play what would we do then?). As for Cambridge, well they've only themselves to blame for losing against so many other teams. The Conference had to make a choice, expunging their results is the only fair and practicable way of doing it at the moment IMO.