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be very adversely affected by a move to anywhere other than Nuneaton, one sponsor (and a biggy at that - Cov BS) has withdrawn support and a great many interested parties not the least of whom are the Coventry ratepayers who vicariously "own" half the Ricoh stand to suffer as a result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
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