[quote="Dr Bob"]I believe only eight votes against the motion are needed for Chester to be allowed to continue to stagger on - and it is not hard to imagine seven clubs as self-interested as Histon. The latest from twohundredpercent
http://www.twohundredpercent.net/?p=4573
now has Mark Wright involved as well, via his seemingly non-existent PR company which apparently brought the parties together.
The (sorry, one) irony here is that it is probably in Oxford's self-interest to vote to keep Chester going. Assuming we can go and get three points on Saturday, Stevenage took six points offChester but the two games only saw an aggregate 3-0 scoreline, already one fewer than us. Not that KT should vote against, of course.[/quote
I agree - it keeps Luton out the picture as well - that is assuming we beat them of course, haven't we played them before when they were bottom and we were top...............
Chester City again....
Re:
What you've neglected to mention is that they're only looking at the books from 2005-09, which is essentially pointless as the new company (Chester City 2004 Ltd) only started last summer and so their level of debt won't be included in those books, which would only go up to the CVA at best."Boogie" wrote: Their meeting on 6th March is to reveal what they find by looking at the books and discussing the way forward with the 500 who have paid their 100 DK.
seems to me that the only way they'll get kicked out is if there is if it inextricably proven that SVSr is involved with the danes - in which case enough chairmen might be sufficiently motivated to do away with them, otherwise no chance
Saying that, them surviving tothe end of the season would probably be the better option for OUFC - keppping Luton at bay for one thing
Saying that, them surviving tothe end of the season would probably be the better option for OUFC - keppping Luton at bay for one thing
In terms of whether Saturday's match goes ahead or not, might the vote on Friday be irrelevant? I thought two of the many problems were police refusing to police the match and players refusing to play - because both groups had not been paid. Is this likely to change between now and Saturday?
Oh - why was this vote organised for one day before a scheduled fixture rather than, say, today?
Oh - why was this vote organised for one day before a scheduled fixture rather than, say, today?
-
deanwindass
- Puberty
- Posts: 258
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:41 pm
- Location: Oxford
Re:
I thought that too but CW said in the post match interview that the Chester players (presumably the youth team, I don't think they have any senior pros left do they?) were preparing as if the match was going ahead and that we would do the same. Perhaps we'll play in a local park."Dr Bob" wrote:In terms of whether Saturday's match goes ahead or not, might the vote on Friday be irrelevant? I thought two of the many problems were police refusing to police the match and players refusing to play - because both groups had not been paid. Is this likely to change between now and Saturday?
Because Brian Lee's in charge and he's a complete fool."Dr Bob" wrote:Oh - why was this vote organised for one day before a scheduled fixture rather than, say, today?
Re:
Don't think so. I'd be surprised if the Conference teams vote to keep them in. The Conference board have recommended expulsion and my understanding is that the vote is merely to rubber-stamp that recommendation, as per the Conference rules."Mooro" wrote:seems to me that the only way they'll get kicked out is if there is if it inextricably proven that SVSr is involved with the danes - in which case enough chairmen might be sufficiently motivated to do away with them, otherwise no chance
Saying that, them surviving tothe end of the season would probably be the better option for OUFC - keppping Luton at bay for one thing
-
GodalmingYellow
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re:
Police won't be needed if the Conference make Chester play behind closed doors."Dr Bob" wrote:In terms of whether Saturday's match goes ahead or not, might the vote on Friday be irrelevant? I thought two of the many problems were police refusing to police the match and players refusing to play - because both groups had not been paid. Is this likely to change between now and Saturday?
Oh - why was this vote organised for one day before a scheduled fixture rather than, say, today?
Re:
It appears to have!"Boogie" wrote:Surely the betting market will not open on the match if it does take place?
10-1 On odds being offered by BETDAQ at the moment, money back if the game if off.
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/non ... win-market
-
recordmeister
- Middle-Aged Spread
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:34 am
- Location: London
Re:
No, their offering odds of 1-10. Big difference..."Snake" wrote:It appears to have!"Boogie" wrote:Surely the betting market will not open on the match if it does take place?
10-1 On odds being offered by BETDAQ at the moment, money back if the game if off.
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/non ... win-market
-
A-Ro
- Grumpy old git
- Posts: 2594
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:59 pm
- Location: Beset by fools and ne'er do wells.
Re:
Errrm 10-1 On is 1-10"recordmeister" wrote:No, their offering odds of 1-10. Big difference..."Snake" wrote:It appears to have!"Boogie" wrote:Surely the betting market will not open on the match if it does take place?
10-1 On odds being offered by BETDAQ at the moment, money back if the game if off.
http://www.oddschecker.com/football/non ... win-market
-
GodalmingYellow
- Senile
- Posts: 5178
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 10:22 am
Re:
Oh my. I don't recall the Conference Board checking to see if Mr Ladak was available for the meeting that he got into trouble about."Roo" wrote:According to BBC Oxford this morning the reason that the meeting is happening today instead of earlier in the week is.................... WAIT FOR IT.........................
Because Brian Lee was on holiday!
You couldn't make it up..............