Brendan Guilfoyle's Comments (1 Viewer)

[njdlawyer]

The Football League rules regarding a club's ground / groundshare are set out here:-

http://www.football-league.co.uk/regulations/20120702/section-4-clubs_2293633_2125725

Brendan Guilfoyle was pointing out that each and every club has to register their ground with FL. Presumably at present ours is registered as the Ricoh. The proposed new owners are saying that they will not play at the registered ground but have no new ground / proposed new ground (or at least one that we know about) and without a registered ground the club is not entitled to play under the auspices of the FL


Most relevant to what BG said are 13.4, 13.6, 13.7.2, 13.7.3 and 13.8

If you read those you could almost convince yourself that Otium / SISU are stymied in their attempts to take us to Nene Park, Walsall or anywhere else. R13.4 makes it clear that FL wil not generally (and that may be the operative word) consent to a groundshare outside the conurbation that gives the club its name or from where it is traditionally associated. A similar condition is set out in R13.7.2 which relates to changing / moving grounds. R13.7.3 is interesting because it states that any move must not adversely affect officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors or other interested parties. Now players go anywhere so they are unaffected and the shareholders are SISU so forget them but supporters will be very adversely affected by a move to anywhere other than Nuneaton, one sponsor (and a biggy at that - Cov BS) has withdrawn support and a great many interested parties not the least of whom are the Coventry ratepayers who vicariously "own" half the Ricoh stand to suffer as a result of any move

Letters / emails to FL - and yes I know it seems like p*****g in the wind - reminding them of this cannot do any harm at all

 

---

[fernandopartridge]

The Football League rules regarding a club's ground / groundshare are set out here:-

http://www.football-league.co.uk/regulations/20120702/section-4-clubs_2293633_2125725

Brendan Guilfoyle was pointing out that each and every club has to register their ground with FL. Presumably at present ours is registered as the Ricoh. The proposed new owners are saying that they will not play at the registered ground but have no new ground / proposed new ground (or at least one that we know about) and without a registered ground the club is not entitled to play under the auspices of the FL


Most relevant to what BG said are 13.4, 13.6, 13.7.2, 13.7.3 and 13.8

If you read those you could almost convince yourself that Otium / SISU are stymied in their attempts to take us to Nene Park, Walsall or anywhere else. R13.4 makes it clear that FL wil not generally (and that may be the operative word) consent to a groundshare outside the conurbation that gives the club its name or from where it is traditionally associated. A similar condition is set out in R13.7.2 which relates to changing / moving grounds. R13.7.3 is interesting because it states that any move must not adversely affect officials, players, supporters, shareholders, sponsors or other interested parties. Now players go anywhere so they are unaffected and the shareholders are SISU so forget them but supporters will be very adversely affected by a move to anywhere other than Nuneaton, one sponsor (and a biggy at that - Cov BS) has withdrawn support and a great many interested parties not the least of whom are the Coventry ratepayers who vicariously "own" half the Ricoh stand to suffer as a result of any move

Letters / emails to FL - and yes I know it seems like p*****g in the wind - reminding them of this cannot do any harm at all

I see what you're saying but precedents have been set already:

Brighton playing at Gillingham being the best example.

 

[wingy]

I see what you're saying but precedents have been set already:

Brighton playing at Gillingham being the best example.

But that was when their original ground was sold/ gone ,there is still a ground in this City for them to utilise ,and its becoming obvious they can have use of it pretty much on their terms.

 

[njdlawyer]

I agree

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that anything I have written is born out of optimism!!

Brighton sold the Goldstone Ground to repay debts and as it was sold for development they had no ground. I haven't looked closely at a map but I suspect that Gillingham or Crystal Palace were the only viable groundshare options for a ground that would meet all safety / policing etc requirements. The distinction with our case is that we HAVE a state of the art, purpose built stadium within the conurbation and we are only (in theory) not playing there through the choice / obstinacy / stupidity of the owners. We are NOT homeless unlike Brighton were

Like I say, I am not optimistic and fully expect FL to ignore wothout explanation their own rules...

The small glimmer of hope that I have is that BG's comments have riled / worried SISU who think there might be some substance to them thus prompting TF's latest "...only 3 weeks away from an announcement..." statement. It may be coincidence, it may not. Let's hope it isn't and that SISU know or have been given the word that they have a problem

Finally (again with the caveat of my total lack of optimism) rules are rules and the Brighton / Gillingham situation occurred more than ten years ago - the FL may have grown teeth (and balls) since then!

 

[SkyBlueSwiss]

I agree

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that anything I have written is born out of optimism!!

Brighton sold the Goldstone Ground to repay debts and as it was sold for development they had no ground. I haven't looked closely at a map but I suspect that Gillingham or Crystal Palace were the only viable groundshare options for a ground that would meet all safety / policing etc requirements. The distinction with our case is that we HAVE a state of the art, purpose built stadium within the conurbation and we are only (in theory) not playing there through the choice / obstinacy / stupidity of the owners. We are NOT homeless unlike Brighton were

Like I say, I am not optimistic and fully expect FL to ignore wothout explanation their own rules...

The small glimmer of hope that I have is that BG's comments have riled / worried SISU who think there might be some substance to them thus prompting TF's latest "...only 3 weeks away from an announcement..." statement. It may be coincidence, it may not. Let's hope it isn't and that SISU know or have been given the word that they have a problem

Finally (again with the caveat of my total lack of optimism) rules are rules and the Brighton / Gillingham situation occurred more than ten years ago - the FL may have grown teeth (and balls) since then!

Bit ambiguous:
Stupidity of which owners? Owners of CCFC or owners of the Ricoh?

 

[fernandopartridge]

I agree

Please don't make the mistake of thinking that anything I have written is born out of optimism!!

Brighton sold the Goldstone Ground to repay debts and as it was sold for development they had no ground. I haven't looked closely at a map but I suspect that Gillingham or Crystal Palace were the only viable groundshare options for a ground that would meet all safety / policing etc requirements. The distinction with our case is that we HAVE a state of the art, purpose built stadium within the conurbation and we are only (in theory) not playing there through the choice / obstinacy / stupidity of the owners. We are NOT homeless unlike Brighton were

Like I say, I am not optimistic and fully expect FL to ignore wothout explanation their own rules...

The small glimmer of hope that I have is that BG's comments have riled / worried SISU who think there might be some substance to them thus prompting TF's latest "...only 3 weeks away from an announcement..." statement. It may be coincidence, it may not. Let's hope it isn't and that SISU know or have been given the word that they have a problem

Finally (again with the caveat of my total lack of optimism) rules are rules and the Brighton / Gillingham situation occurred more than ten years ago - the FL may have grown teeth (and balls) since then!

Gillingham is 70 miles from Brighton. Considering the strength of opposition to the Brighton move (far better than any of the protests outside empty offices) it still happened.

 

[njdlawyer]

Bit ambiguous:
Stupidity of which owners? Owners of CCFC or owners of the Ricoh?

I would have thought that was obvious in the context of the post and if read as a whole

To be clear it is the owners of the football club who have rendered themselves "homeless" through choice, obstinacy or stupidity

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

I would have thought that was obvious in the context of the post and if read as a whole

To be clear it is the owners of the football club who have rendered themselves "homeless" through choice, obstinacy or stupidity

Constructive vagabonds then...?

 

[wingy]

Constructive vagabonds then...?

Great Terminology. Nothing like Jimmy James and the Vagabonds............Fun Lovin Criminals ...............:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

 

[Sky Blue Kid]

Now is the time....Jimmy's biggest hit.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Now is the time....Jimmy's biggest hit.

Mis read that at first.. thought it read Timmy's biggest *hit...

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Great Terminology. Nothing like Jimmy James and the Vagabonds............Fun Lovin Criminals ...............:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

Spooky that.. I used to do a little DJ'ing back in "my day".. my stage name was Jimmy James.....fortunately was never homeless though.