The Chester City Aftermath: Self-Serving In The Blue Square Premier

Ian

Ian began writing Twohundredpercent in May 2006. He lives in Brighton. He has also written for, amongst others, Pitch Invasion, FC Business Magazine, The Score, When Saturday Comes, Stand Against Modern Football and The Football Supporter. Ian was the first winner of the Socrates Award For Not Being Dead Yet at the 2010 NOPA awards for football bloggers.

You may also like...

14 Responses

  1. blogdroed says:

    You don’t name the other nine clubs involved in this appeal – do we know who they are?

    Also, as a supporter of an ex-league club and one who “talk(s) about (the league) with little more than contempt” I would point out that many of your excellent articles have shown the BSP to be run in a farcical manner – perhaps that is why we treat it with such contempt ..?

  2. Ian says:

    Gary, the clubs listed on the appeal (and this is according to the Twitter feed of the Mansfield Town chairman, as well as the Altrincham FC website) are Stevenage, York City, Tamworth, Kidderminster, Crawley, Rushden, Oxford, Cambridge, Mansfield and *cough* Barrow. This list was also reported on the front page of Sunday’s NLP.

  3. blogdroed says:

    Phew, glad we aren’t listed amongst the bunch of chancers … it has to be said, nothing would surprise me with our club at the moment!

  4. Mark says:

    The Football League should take some responsibility here – they forced the BSP to accept Chester at the start of the season when BSP rules clearly stated that Chester should have joined a lower league.

    Oxford and Stevenage are obviously behind this, the chance to cement the title via a stitch-up is clearly more than they could resist. Sad. The fact that the statement contains a glaring factual inaccuracy (80% versus 60%) and that they are ignoring fairness and precedent speaks for itself.

  5. Dermot O'Dreary says:

    Some clubs being shown up here for the two-bob, classless outfits that they really are – yes, Stevenage Borough, I’m thinking particularly of YOU.

  6. Sexyfootball says:

    Utterly appalling behaviour by these chairmen, thank goodness I’m not a fan of one of these clubs, I’d be ashamed.

    A fair solution would be to dock the “naughty nine” 10 points each for this frivolous appeal and wasting everyones time.

  7. Ron Ipstone says:

    The Football League did not force the Conference to accept Chester City.

    The Board of the Football Conference decided of its own free will to exercise its discretion to admit Chester, I assume that it thought that its members wanted a 46 game season rather than a 44 game season. The Board took the chance that Chester might fold mid-way through the season.

    The reasons for Chester’s admission to the BSP are irrelevant as to what should happen when it leaves.

    As I understand it, the rules of the Conference gave the Board power to expunge the points already played for, or let them stand and award points for unplayed matches.

    Let me make it clear that I agree with the author of the article when he says in this instant case the expunging of points is the only sensible way to deal with the matter. But I think that the rules should be altered to take the decision away from the Board and/or the member clubs as to expunge or not, and be replaced with a rule that says that expunging points is the norm unless an independent FA tribunal determines that the expunging of points would produce unfairness and/or undermine the integrity of the competition.

    I am not sure what the complaint of the member clubs who are appealing is; whether it is that the Board took the decision to expunge points, without considering the alternative, or whether the member clubs took the decision to expunge the points without being given the oppotunity to vote on the alternative by the Board. Whatever it is, going forward those with an interest in the outcome should not vote on the expunging of points and the matter should be dealt with by an independent body.

  8. Martin says:

    “The Football League did not force the Conference to accept Chester City.

    The Board of the Football Conference decided of its own free will to exercise its discretion to admit Chester, I assume that it thought that its members wanted a 46 game season rather than a 44 game season. The Board took the chance that Chester might fold mid-way through the season.”

    Yet again Ron you show that you live in La-La land, weren’t paying attention last summer or are just plain ignorant.

    Woking would have happily made up the 24 if asked just as happened before when Boston were relegated out of the League and placed in Conference North because they were still in administration.

  9. Ron Ipstone says:

    I was paying attention last summer.

    Chester City’s place in the BSP was assured until the CVA which it had entered into was revoked by the Court on 29 July 2009. The new season was due to start on 8 August, all fixtures had been arranged for Woking in the BSS.

    In 2007 Boston’s CVA was adjudged by the Conference at its AGM in June to have violated conference rules on the payment of football creditors, the Conference resolved to demote Boston to the Conference North and allow Altrincham to remain in the Conference National.

    Why it should be said that the Football League should bully the Board of the Conference to accept Chester City at the expense of Woking, yet have not intervened in 2007 to assist Boston to the detriment of Alty, quite frankly,is beyond understanding.

  10. mick says:

    By complete coincidence, the 9 clubs who believe that reinstating points gained & awarding 3 points for games unplayed is the ‘fairest’ way to ALL BSP clubs…….just happen to be ones who will all gain 6 points from the proposal ! Who’d have thought it.
    Kettering and Barrow both would benefit to the tune of 6 points and have both stayed clear of this. The clubs in question should be ashamed of themselves…….if not for the appeal, then for the blatant lies about the percentage of games played. Big time charlies who don’t think they should be here.

  11. Micky F says:

    It’s bad enough that Ipstone bores the pants off everyone on the 606 website, now he’s turned up here as well! Ron could you please start your own website (how about http://www.ilovethefa&footballleague.com?) where you could post all of your interminable ‘love notes’ to the FA Blazers without bothering us normal supporters?

  12. Lurch (S.F.C) says:

    Fleetwood are doing the same thing in the Blue Square North after Farsley left the League.

    Their Chief Exec actually admitted in the NLP that they were only appealing because Southport (my Club) had lost a game to Farsley so therefore “gained” 3 points on them.

    He said in the same article that he didn’t actually know under what grounds they were appealing but that they would find one!!!

  1. March 25, 2010

    […] City Here's another interesting article. It is about the expunging of Chester's results: The Chester City Aftermath: Self-Serving In The Blue Square Premier | Twohundredpercent __________________ Sack the […]

  2. June 6, 2012

    […] 27. The Chester City Aftermath: Meanwhile, the Football Conference was getting itself tied up in knots over what to do with its league arrangements once Chester had been expelled. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>