National League at risk

Quoted from davmariner

Suspect the vote will look something like this. The ones towards the top (and also those with a shout of the play offs) wanting to continue and the smaller clubs in mid table and those in danger of going down will vote to void.

Torquay - Continue
Sutton - Continue
Hartlepool - Continue
Altrincham - Continue
Stockport - Continue
Halifax - Continue
Notts County - Continue
Maidenhead - Continue
Solihull - Continue
Borehamwood - Continue
Wrexham - Void
Aldershot - Continue
Chesterfield - Continue
Bromley - Void
Eastleigh - Continue
Woking - Void
Dagenham - Void
Wealdstone - Void
Kings Lynn - Void
Yeovil - Void
Weymouth - Void
Dover - Void
Barnet - Void

I think you’re overestimating how many clubs are prepared to take a loan to continue a seasok where their only chance of promotion is by the play-offs which is a one in six.

Personally I think it will be a conclusive majority for stopping. Around 18-5.

Quoted from toontown

If the league has been lumbered with the loan then all clubs including any relegated ones would suffer equally  i.e. less central payments. The ones that would avoid that penalty being any promoted out of the division,leaving the others to suffer the consequences...

So Torquay wouldn't care about the consequences of the league being lumbered with loans if they expect to not be playing in that league in future - that could be their and others way of thinking anyway.
Other clubs might think well even if we don't get any central payments in future nor will the other clubs in our division, and if we go up we dodge the consequences entirely, nowt to lose. One way of thinking about it.

The league taking up the loans is already something that has been taken off the table. The option is simple, take the risk of a grant that'll take weeks to come through or finish the season.

I fear there's enough teams in the National League who will take the risk for the chance at playing in the EFL.

Well, Barrow are not doing very well, despite being impressive in NL.

Quoted from pontoonlew

Seems like the National League are having a meeting today and Tuesday to discuss how to apply for grants.

The fact that meeting is actually happening suggests a breakthrough will be made in some way shape or form, especially given the North/South are still able to finish theirs.

Why? Nothing’s changed, it’s not a new scheme and has been running for months. The fact that they’re being channelled down this route, via an independent board of assessors, rather than having a Minister step in would suggest the opposite.

Quoted from ska face

Why? Nothing’s changed, it’s not a new scheme and has been running for months. The fact that they’re being channelled down this route, via an independent board of assessors, rather than having a Minister step in would suggest the opposite.

Got to agree Ska, Conrad Rangers chairman saying as a minimum they need to suspend for 4 weeks until they can receive money as it will take 4/6 weeks for funding to arrive, after they’ve opened their books.

Also it is assuming normal income streams in April which I can’t see. My honest opinion is this is heading one way, why would you risk the future of your club on loans or playing chicken for just one season with very little reward? (2 promotion places)

the latest view from Yeovil

Meetings and More Meetings
National League clubs are engaged in a meeting with Sport England this morning (there's another slot available this coming Tuesday for those who can't make today's). Whilst the National League Board had responsibility for distributing the first tranche of funding back in the autumn it appears it will not this time. The NLB had seemed to be working on the assumption it would remain in charge of distribution up until a couple of weeks ago. It may be that it was always intended that Sport England would be tasked with the job - this was a Board so off the pace it didn't even realise it had agreed loans not grants - or that its performance, described by a former Conservative Sports Minister in Parliament as "flawed" and a "botch", means the Government no longer trusts its competence and now prefers Sport England to do it.
What clubs appear to have been most concerned about in this meeting is the timescale, particularly for any process of presenting a case and receiving a decision on whether they are eligible to have a loan converted to a grant. It's doubtful chairmen are going to have been impressed by the response that is being reported - that it is likely to take four weeks, and possibly longer. This appears a lengthy period, but it seems likely that in order to demonstrate eligibility clubs will be asked to present detailed accounts, projections and forecasts to 'prove' a grant rather than a loan is essential to its survival.
Chairmen were also informed that this funding was designed to take them through the three months (since it was supposed to have begun January 1st) up to the beginning April, after which the situation would be that clubs would have to rely on their "normal revenues".
Of course when this package was negotiated back in the autumn lots of optimistic wishful thinking was in the air, particularly from some parts of Government, that all this would be pretty much over by Christmas. Thus a three month package of loans from January to March could be presented as suitable - and might not be needed at all - with crowds back in the stadiums. The chances of crowds being back by April 1st now seems pretty negligible.
On the decision to continue the season (or not) chairmen will be seeing themselves as once again being asked to take a crucial step, that has potential for a major impact on their club's longer term future, 'blind' as to what its financial situation will be a month or so down the road.
3 Comments
Comments

Nick Hayward
Thanks for the info, what a farce
1

     · Reply
     · 1h

David Burnell
It’s not looking good in my opinion. You cannot run a business not knowing if your loan will become a grant but knowing that if it’s a loan you might not be able to pay it back.
What a choice.

     · Reply
     · 43m

Huish Hugh
Admin
Major divergences appearing amongst chairmen's views. Boston United (who happen to be in a play-off spot currently) chairman David Newton states it's "generous support"; that there's an "obligation" to continue the season; and implies there shouldn't be any vote, that the NL should simply order clubs to continue. He provides first details on the loan terms have seen, claiming it's: a four year repayment holiday followed by a fixed 2% interest rate over an extended period - which in certain circumstances might be up to 20 years. Meanwhile Concord Rangers (who happen to be down near the foot of their table) chairman Antony Smith is at the other end of the scale of opinion, stating that as a minimum the season should be suspended for four weeks (or longer if necessary) until all funding issues have been resolved, clubs know exactly what they are getting and whether a loan or a grant, and payments are arriving in club bank accounts; and comes close to hinting his club will refuse to play until this is sorted.

and from Chester (who are broadly supportive of the 16/17 clubs who issued the statement yesterday)

https://twitter.com/jimcgreen/status/1355113822143598595

Is there one vote for Step One and one for Step Two, or one combined vote?

Quoted from GrimRob

Is there one vote for Step One and one for Step Two, or one combined vote?

i think 'there's the rub'  - should be the 66 voting but it seems there's a strong possibility that north and south will vote to abort and the national league will vote to continue ; just our luck!