|
|
Post by CyclopsStone on Feb 20, 2014 16:55:30 GMT
www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend_messenger/sport/varney-hits-back-in-stones-13029/Ebbsfleet United have responded angrily to Maidstone United’s promise of legal action in their fight to get 3G pitches accepted by the Football Conference. Conference clubs voted against the proposal to allow artificial surfaces at an EGM in Telford last month, meaning the Stones – who play on 3G at their Gallagher Stadium – wouldn’t be allowed up next season. Maidstone have consulted lawyers and are prepared to take the Conference to a tribunal, news which has gone down badly at Stonebridge Road. Fleet vice-chairman Peter Varney said: "It was disappointing to hear that Maidstone United are considering taking legal action over the recent decision by Conference clubs not to allow artificial pitches in the Conference Premier and Conference North and South. "I think it is well-documented that we are against the introduction of artificial surfaces. In short, it is a football argument versus a commercial argument. "Maidstone are directing a lot of criticism at the Conference board, which is unfair, as this was a decision taken by member clubs and, of course, Maidstone is not a member club. "If the matter does go to court, it will be for clubs like ours to fund the legal costs, which again is unfair. "If member clubs democratically come to a vote on any key issue and those against the decision taken resort to threats and legal action to try and overturn the decision, it is not – in my view – the way to do business."
|
|
|
|
Post by MFCSTONE on Feb 20, 2014 17:04:08 GMT
pete varney has always been a twit
|
|
|
|
Post by CyclopsStone on Feb 20, 2014 17:11:58 GMT
Must admit it would appear he likes an argument!
|
|
|
|
Post by ipswichstoneden on Feb 20, 2014 17:16:56 GMT
It is unfair that not all the Conference clubs had an individual vote - Seems Mr Varney doesnt understand what a democratic vote is - but perhaps his club doesnt want to vote on things, just hide behind a farce of a vote!
|
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Feb 20, 2014 17:19:07 GMT
You've got to laugh though, how many Kent clubs have gone out of business or nearly gone bankrupt, including the one he now runs,
And here we have a club with a business model that makes the club sustainable, and he describes it as "not the way to do business"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2014 17:22:22 GMT
Maidstone United will only be able to win a legal action if something illegal has been done. If the Conference have acted legally, then MUFC will be the only ones to suffer by taking legal action. What does this man have to worry about?
|
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Feb 20, 2014 17:39:18 GMT
Maidstone United will only be able to win a legal action if something illegal has been done. If the Conference have acted legally, then MUFC will be the only ones to suffer by taking legal action. What does this man have to worry about? Exactly, and all these clubs worried about the legal case costing them money are pointing the finger of blame in the wrong direction because surely the conference should have ensured the vote was legally water tight before placing such importance on it. If it's water tight then they have nothing to worry about...much easier for the conference to blame us for their own shortcomings |
|
|
|
Post by stainese on Feb 20, 2014 18:00:40 GMT
I fear the legal challenge will be futile . The conferences argument must be that the vote was carried out within the rules of there own competition , all clubs agree to these rules as member clubs truly democratic or not .
I feel the way the Stones must win this battle is by winning hearts and minds of these anti clubs
|
|
|
|
Post by binsey on Feb 20, 2014 19:35:48 GMT
#bellend along with the #bellend from dartford
UEFA and FIFA approved = no argument
|
|
|
|
Post by southwick1 on Feb 20, 2014 20:02:07 GMT
In the result of a positive outcome for Maidstone how will the legal costs be shared between Conference clubs?.If its like the voting system the National division will have to cough up most of it I guess.The north/south clubs only having to pay about 10% between them?.I bet the likes of Luton,Cambridge,,Grimsby,Wrexham etc will be very keen to look after the smaller clubs by footing most of the bill.
|
|
|
|
Post by nws on Feb 20, 2014 20:24:56 GMT
Before I make my comments on this I will state that I am in the same boats as Stainsie. I want to get to places by winning the argument on football terms. Now let's look at what Mr Varney has www.kentonline.co.uk/gravesend_messenger/sport/varney-hits-back-in-stones-13029/Fleet vice-chairman Peter Varney said: "It was disappointing to hear that Maidstone United are considering taking legal action over the recent decision by Conference clubs not to allow artificial pitches in the Conference Premier and Conference North and South. Taken predominantly by Conference Prem clubs, as Conference North and South clubs were not given a full quota of votes. There is hardly and democracy in some clubs being more equal than others"I think it is well-documented that we are against the introduction of artificial surfaces. If he refers to just his club then fair enough. If he referes to the conference in general then we must look at the point above and say that until there is a one club, one vote system he cannot make such a statement.In short, it is a football argument versus a commercial argument. I doubt it. The football argument he seems to be on about is a request for increased postponements, frustrated fans travelling miles for no reason etc etc. The injuries argument has been found to be a non-event or at best unproven. If Mr Varney feels football is all about playing on dodgy pitches and the pitch being the dominating factor for part of the season then sobeit. Apologies that 3g gives a true, flat surface where the deciding factor is the teams' ability. I suspect some of the votes were made with commercial factors in mind above football factors, particularly given some of the clueless statements that were available (such as no sliding tackles). Finally, Mr Varney can argue about football factors all he likes when he has no club left. I will also be unlikely to be lectured, as such, by someone whois connected to a club that ignored many fans wishes and engaged in a silly experiment based purely on financial factors. I guess that this was done because Gravesend and Northfleet were unsustainable on a 'football basis'."Maidstone are directing a lot of criticism at the Conference board, which is unfair, as this was a decision taken by member clubs and, of course, Maidstone is not a member club. We cannot accept such a statement until there is a one clubs, one vote method of decision."If the matter does go to court, it will be for clubs like ours to fund the legal costs, which again is unfair. While I don't want us to go down this route there is nothing unfair about it. An undemocratic decision was made and someone else has a right to mount a challenge to it. If Mr Varney believes in what he says he will put his money where his mouth is. Why is he worried about a bit more debt to protect his 'principles'. After all he is prepared to accept a massively disrupted season with all it's costs. "If member clubs democratically come to a vote on any key issue and those against the decision taken resort to threats and legal action to try and overturn the decision, it is not – in my view – the way to do business." Couldn't agree more. When the conference takes a democratic decision can he please inform us. |
|
|
|
Post by harlowfan on Feb 20, 2014 20:27:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Feb 20, 2014 21:00:35 GMT
Cheers Harlow, I see 3G is working well for you guys and the more genuine support there is for these FIFA and UEFA approved pitches the better.
Incidentally you will see we're hosting a 3G workshop of which one of the speakers comes from the FA.
Also it is worth noting, and it seems to have been over looked somewhat, that our co owner also wrote to the FA chairman suggesting there was no incentive for non league clubs in nurturing good quality young footballers, only for the larger clubs to come in and cherry pick those players for no fee, and therefore no benefit for the clubs who need the most financial help.
Perhaps all those clubs who are slating Oliver Ash at the moment should take a minute to read his open letter to the chairman of the FA.
|
|
|
|
Post by moley on Feb 20, 2014 23:15:26 GMT
So lets get this straight?
Varney is saying that the Conference made a proper fair and democratic decision, one he totally agrees with, but he doesn't want to pay the price of defending it in the courts (which if he were right they would win and would not have costs anyway)
The word hypocrite is just not good enough to describe him
AND by his logic, if the Conference voted to allow tax and VAT evasion by member clubs, then that would make it legal. I think HMRC would have something to say about that
I would rather this issue was won by the hearts and minds method, but if the minds are closed and the hearts rotten what choice is there?
|
|
|
|
Post by ssstone on Feb 20, 2014 23:58:04 GMT
jealousy, fear, crap stadium, crap fans, crap town.
|
|
