|
|
Batch
Not a Batch
 Online
Posts: 57754
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 11:46:25 » |
|
Hopefully they'll get a successful appeal then.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
 Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #2 on: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 11:49:57 » |
|
Unlikely I'd have thought, they're hanging judges in the Conference. And anyway, the primary aim of these rules is to ensure that each year Forest Green can get relegated and reprieved because someone or other has fallen foul of the financial regs and been kicked out.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rich Pullen
|
|
« Reply #3 on: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 11:52:13 » |
|
Salisbury have been running on empty for a while though haven't they?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #4 on: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 11:55:14 » |
|
Salisbury have been running on empty for a while though haven't they?
Yeah, but they've been taken over by new owners since then. They had their 10 points deduction for entering admin under the old lot, then got taken over. And it was the new lot who had to arrange the CVA, do the financial restructuring etc. And just when they get everything back on an even keel they get walloped with this. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
thepeoplesgame
Offline
Posts: 666
|
|
« Reply #5 on: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 12:55:39 » |
|
Unlikely I'd have thought, they're hanging judges in the Conference. And anyway, the primary aim of these rules is to ensure that each year Forest Green can get relegated and reprieved because someone or other has fallen foul of the financial regs and been kicked out.
To be fair to Forest Green, I think that has happened once (2004/5?) during their 12 seasons in the Conference. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #6 on: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 13:25:30 » |
|
To be fair to Forest Green, I think that has happened once (2004/5?) during their 12 seasons in the Conference.
Well it will be twice this season. I wasn't really having a go at FGR, though, it was supposed to be tongue in cheek. But actually now I think about it, I might have been confusing them with Altrincham. Bugger. Anyway, seems a bit rough on Salisbury was my main gist. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chubbs
Offline
Posts: 10517
|
|
« Reply #7 on: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 13:42:49 » |
|
are you Gazza in disguise? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
thepeoplesgame
Offline
Posts: 666
|
|
« Reply #8 on: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 15:00:12 » |
|
Anyway, seems a bit rough on Salisbury was my main gist.
Agreed  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
jayohaitchenn
Wielder of the BANHAMMER
Offline
Posts: 12832
|
|
« Reply #9 on: Thursday, May 20, 2010, 15:51:43 » |
|
WWAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Unlucky.
We 'ate Salisbury and we 'ate Salisbury
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
medwayred
Offline
Posts: 110
Up the Reds
|
|
« Reply #10 on: Saturday, May 22, 2010, 13:51:12 » |
|
Does that mean Ebbsfleet will stay up now?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
One Davie Bamber.......................
|
|
|
ronnie21
Offline
Posts: 6154
The Mighty Hankerton
|
|
« Reply #11 on: Saturday, May 22, 2010, 13:55:56 » |
|
Does that mean Ebbsfleet will stay up now?
No, Forest Green - if they can afford it and are still operating! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
dogs
Offline
Posts: 828
|
|
« Reply #12 on: Saturday, May 22, 2010, 16:37:55 » |
|
Got a couple of mates who are Salisbury supporters. Such a shit punishment.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Spencer_White
|
|
« Reply #13 on: Sunday, May 23, 2010, 11:32:49 » |
|
They are harsh on clubs financial irregularities down there.
That was why it was so important we never got on that slippery slope.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Foggy
Offline
Posts: 1948
Ketchup wanker
|
|
« Reply #14 on: Sunday, May 23, 2010, 17:58:08 » |
|
WWAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Unlucky.
We 'ate Salisbury and we 'ate Salisbury
im not sure if you are a wind up merchant or a twat... i will get back to you with the verdict later |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sad to say, i must be on my way
|
|
|
|
