National League EGM

Not an unexpected outcome from the vote. However perhaps the debate helps totbring about an opportunity to critically look again at the structures and governance of the National League as a whole.

I have been pondering as to what our (Chester FC) view would have been had we been well established in the NL rather than the regional division.

Can't really blame clubs in the NL for voting in their own interests, although they too have been poorly treated at times. I'm more interested in who the four bumsuckers in our division are. Probably York were one of them.

The NL's insistence that Step 2 only gets four votes per division seems unfair and arbritrary at the best of times, but surely for something as serious as a vote of no confidence, they have to treat each member equally? Whatever their idiosyncratic rules might be, they can't deny the fact that half the clubs they represent have no confidence in the league. That surely is something they have to listen to, but given they've stuck their fingers in their ears for the last 15 months, I won't hold my breath.

That's one way of looking at it, here's the National League's interpretation of that result -


National League Statement | EGM

An Extraordinary General Meeting has been held by The National League today at the request of 14 Member Clubs.

The meeting was called for all Member Clubs to consider and vote on the resolution: “The meeting has no confidence in the Chairman and the Board”.

The voting results were as follows:

Votes for the resolution: 7

Votes against the resolution: 22

Abstained: 2

Therefore, the resolution has not passed. Whilst the result is convincing, The National League Board acknowledges the importance of working collectively with Member Clubs to navigate effectively out of the pandemic.



We look forward to the conclusion of 2020/21 season and working with Member Clubs as we prepare for a successful 2021/22 campaign.

Bullshit. It’s like saying Boteham Wood are six times more important than historic clubs like Chester, Darlington or Hereford. Palpable nonsense.

Dear me, that is some woefully inaccurate BBC reporting. Saying that, the fact that such as misunderstanding can occur speaks volumes about the NL's illogical and unfair voting system.

Too much time on my hands maybe but I've just sent this to the BBC:

Hi,

I write regarding this story - www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57267267 - and the below passage in particular:

"An extraordinary general meeting was held on Wednesday, May 26 at the request of 14 member clubs, but only seven of 31 clubs backed the motion, with two abstaining."

This is inaccurate. According to this tweet from non-league journalist Ollie Bayliss, 33 clubs backed the motion and 29 opposed it, with 4 abstentions. This is from a total of 66 member clubs.

However, the National League, in a seemingly arbitrary way, only award four votes each to the National League North and National League South, whereas the National League itself gets one vote per member. The National League has therefore taken those 33 clubs' votes (all of them from the NL North and South) and worked them out as a proportion of the four votes those two leagues are allocated, hence coming to the conclusion that there were only seven votes in favour on the motion.

The National League may have declared a 31-7 result against the motion, but it is incorrect to say that only seven clubs backed it, and in the interests of balanced journalism, some explanation of the League's rather idiosyncratic voting system should be given in the article. Indeed, it is precisely because of this sort of lopsided logic that a motion of no confidence was called in the first place.

The BBC inaaccurate journalism, who would have thought it?

Over a week since I told the BBC their article was inaccurate and it remains unchanged. Thought I made it pretty clear what the problem was. Maybe they just don't care?