I do feel on refection that I was wrong at the time to make my stand defending Weymouth. To be fair I was just looking at their situation from a fans point of view and was mindful how close we came to losing our own club under Roberts.
Actually, Dave, I think you were right to defend them and use the Roberts parallel. The difficulty about this - from a moral angle - is that we suspect the strategy was in the hands of
dubious people rather than honourable ones. It's a story which - with other personalities and motives - might have been seen as noble and heroic. Also,
we may have viewed it differently had we not been in the same league.
At the time I also believe you said something about your son pointing out there's nothing in a league's rules about being liable for expulsion through having a crap team or struggling to raise a side. The bottom line - in such circumstances - is usually fulfilling your fixtures through to the end of the season. By doing so Weymouth may well sacrifice their BSP status but will probably save themselves from the fate of dropping down to the 4th level of non-league football. We know that Weymouth's failure to compete - just like Lewes (for different reasons) and Fisher in Conference South - has damaged the
integrity of the league but, in terms of the rulebook, I don't know if this counts. The argument that Weymouth's situation has affected the league table - and the outcome of the season - is obvious and compelling but,
technically, every result in normal circumstances has an impact on how the table stands.
The moot point is whether they've broken any
league regulations and - if they
have done so - has the league ignored the offence or taken unneccessarily lenient action? I stand to be led and corrected on that one. If no rule has been broken, what could have been done?
Equally, I accept the
possibility that another league - such as the Football League - may have taken preventative action at an earlier stage or, possibly, may have
extra rules in place for such an eventuality. Of course it's possible the Conference may lack some of those rules as a result of a decision-making process (over its three divisions) which involves a majority of
semi-professional clubs. The culture may be different as a consequence and it will be interesting to see if there are any Conference rule changes as a result of the Weymouth saga.
It's also possible the Conference was treading carefully because of this season's points deductions involving Crawley, Oxford, Mansfield and Bognor. The odd thing is I can't remember any
serious speculation about the possibility of Weymouth being expelled for any reason other than administration.
I suspect any likelihood of this happening may have come in the wake of that Rushden defeat when the club's professional players were technically still
registered if not actually available. Other than that - and I really, really don't know the answer to this - do any leagues or associations have rules about the non-payment of contracted professionals?
The final grey area is the extent to which the club's owners were seriously negotiating with prospective buyers once their troubles became apparent before Christmas. My suspicion is that there were plenty of smokescreens but, again, I don't know to what extent - and
when - this becomes an issue for a league. Maybe it's only at the point of
transfer of ownership that the league becomes involved?
