Blyth statement

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: botrash, mikkyx, charlie, uncovered

spen666
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by spen666 » Wed May 22, 2019 4:03 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 3:59 pm
An employer can’t refuse a resignation whether it is a fixed-term or permanent contract. They will have to accept it and the employee will be legally required to work their notice period.

…..

Oh dear.... you seem to ignore the fact that the legal evidence shows you are wrong. I refer you once again to the case of Steve Bruce. The courts granted Crystal Palace an injunction to prevent Steve Bruce resigning and taking up a managers job at Birmingham


I also refer to the example of the transfer fee- the registration is irrelevant. The Bosman ruling proved that the registration fee is not a basis to prevent free movement. The fixed term contract is what stops plays walking out during the fixed term
Twitter: @spen_666

Darlofan97
Posts: 4121
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by Darlofan97 » Wed May 22, 2019 4:06 pm

The legal evidence is that legally a company can’t reject a resignation whether it is a fixed-term or permanent contract. Bottom line.

Please provide clear evidence where a resignation was refused on the basis that they were employed on a fixed-term contract?

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 428
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Wed May 22, 2019 4:06 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 3:59 pm
An employer can’t refuse a resignation whether it is a fixed-term or permanent contract. They will have to accept it and the employee will be legally required to work their notice period.
Which is why AA doesn't start until next week, he's "working" his week's notice.

It will be why we haven't signed anybody either - can hardly announce a signing from his old club when technically, he still works at Blyth.
TAFKAQ

@1883Of

Darlofan97
Posts: 4121
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by Darlofan97 » Wed May 22, 2019 4:07 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:06 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 3:59 pm
An employer can’t refuse a resignation whether it is a fixed-term or permanent contract. They will have to accept it and the employee will be legally required to work their notice period.
Which is why AA doesn't start until next week, he's "working" his week's notice.

It will be why we haven't signed anybody either - can hardly announce a signing from his old club when technically, he still works at Blyth.
Absolutely!

AndyPark
Posts: 11454
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by AndyPark » Wed May 22, 2019 4:36 pm

Fuck off Spen, two faced tosser.

Do one.
18/19 Season:
LDWDLDLWDLLWWWDDDDLLLLWDWWLWDLLDWDLDLLWLLWWWLD

*includes all cup games*

polarbear
Posts: 143
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 10:13 am
Team Supported: spennymoor

Re: Blyth statement

Post by polarbear » Wed May 22, 2019 4:49 pm

AndyPark wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:36 pm
Fuck off Spen, two faced tosser.

Do one.
Any need for that... spen is correct

Darlofan97
Posts: 4121
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by Darlofan97 » Wed May 22, 2019 5:34 pm

polarbear wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:49 pm
AndyPark wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:36 pm
Fuck off Spen, two faced tosser.

Do one.
Any need for that... spen is correct
No, he isn’t. It’s basic employment law that an employer can’t reject a resignation on a fixed-term or permanent contract.

Darlofan97
Posts: 4121
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by Darlofan97 » Wed May 22, 2019 5:48 pm

spen666 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:03 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 3:59 pm
An employer can’t refuse a resignation whether it is a fixed-term or permanent contract. They will have to accept it and the employee will be legally required to work their notice period.

…..

Oh dear.... you seem to ignore the fact that the legal evidence shows you are wrong. I refer you once again to the case of Steve Bruce. The courts granted Crystal Palace an injunction to prevent Steve Bruce resigning and taking up a managers job at Birmingham


I also refer to the example of the transfer fee- the registration is irrelevant. The Bosman ruling proved that the registration fee is not a basis to prevent free movement. The fixed term contract is what stops plays walking out during the fixed term
Spen, for your benefit I have done a bit of research on the Steve Bruce case. The High Court ruled an injunction on Steve Bruce’s move to Birmingham as he refused to work a 9 month notice period stipulated in his contract.

Crystal Palace did not refuse his resignation, they just asked Bruce to work his notice period which Bruce did not want to do and, as a result, he was in breach of his own contract of employment. No wonder the High Court ruled in favour of Palace, he breached the terms of his employment.

The AA case is different because he is actually working his notice period stipulated in his contract and Blyth cannot reject his resignation.
Last edited by Darlofan97 on Wed May 22, 2019 6:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

philly
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed May 22, 2019 5:49 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by philly » Wed May 22, 2019 5:52 pm


Darlo Dodger
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 9:50 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by Darlo Dodger » Wed May 22, 2019 6:42 pm

philly wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 5:52 pm
Interesting insight:

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/ ... ing-clubs/
This point is of interest (well to me at least)

“What happens if the clubs cannot agree an adequate amount of compensation?

If the manager moves between clubs and the clubs cannot agree on an adequate amount of compensation then due to the early termination of the contract the original club will be able to bring the following claims:

Breach of contract – by the manager
Inducement to breach the contract – by the club obtaining his services
It is likely that both these claims are to be heard by a disciplinary tribunal which will decide on the adequate amount of compensation to be paid.”

This presupposes that there is a fixed term contract which does not have any provision allowing either one, or both, of the parties to terminate the contract by giving a short period of notice (eg 1 week)

It seems to me that much of the debate on this thread, and the resulting differences in opinion, depend upon whether there is (or was if it has been terminated) a term in the contract between Blyth and AA allowing the contract to be terminated by a short period of notice.

I do not know what the provisions of the contract are so clearly cannot express any view on who is right or wrong but I think it is probably common ground that

1. If there is a term allowing the contract to be terminated by the employee giving 1 week notice then it is being validly terminated and there is no breach
2. If there is no such term then purporting to terminate the contract (if it is still subsisting at the time of giving such notice*) is, all other things being equal, likely to amount to a breach of contract rather than a valid (I.e. without breaking the terms and conditions) termination. This could give rise to a claim as indicated in the passage from the article posted by Philly.
3. One post indicates that no court would refuse to accept that a contract was terminated by the giving of notice. I think this is correct in, and to the extent that, no court would ever order an employee to continue under a contract when he or she has “resigned” and refused to return to the job in question. (Though I do seem to remember that in extremely rare cases, which need not really concern us here even if they are still valid law, courts have made such orders i.e. to continue with or grant an order for specific performance of the contract) but even if this never happens the fact that there has been a “resignation” does not preclude claims for damages for breach of contract or indeed the tort of inducement to breach of contract mentioned in the article above. Such claims can be decided by a tribunal but they might also be decided by a court.

On the specific circumstances of this case it seems to me that we have had some very experienced professionals dealing with the recruitment and selection process so I would be extremely surprised if they failed to check, and clear, the contractual position before making the appointment.

Note * We do not know what if anything occurred between Blyth and AA prior to the handing in of notice.

Phew
Apologies for long rambling post. I thought I was going to be brief and snappily to the point when I started this.

AndyPark
Posts: 11454
Joined: Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:08 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by AndyPark » Wed May 22, 2019 6:46 pm

polarbear wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:49 pm
AndyPark wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:36 pm
Fuck off Spen, two faced tosser.

Do one.
Any need for that... spen is correct
I couldn’t care less, the bloke is a prize bellend.

I don’t read any of him ramblings and don’t intend to. He’s two faced as fuck and needs to fuck off where he isn’t wanted.
18/19 Season:
LDWDLDLWDLLWWWDDDDLLLLWDWWLWDLLDWDLDLLWLLWWWLD

*includes all cup games*

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6052
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by loan_star » Wed May 22, 2019 6:57 pm

AndyPark wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 6:46 pm

I couldn’t care less, the bloke is a prize bellend.

I don’t read any of him ramblings and don’t intend to. He’s two faced as fuck and needs to fuck off where he isn’t wanted.
Technically he has already fucked off to where he isn't wanted, i.e. here!!
I suggest he should fuck off to where he is wanted, i.e. a spennymoor forum.

shildonlad
Posts: 369
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 9:53 pm
Team Supported: Newcastle united and gatesheas
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Blyth statement

Post by shildonlad » Wed May 22, 2019 7:11 pm

I think blyth will be more interested in getting a new manager as opposed to refusing to accept the present managers resignation. Lets say if he they did get an injunction so he could not manage elsewhere what good would that do hardly as if alun Armstrong would go back. For the record i dont have spens legal brain, just saying how i see it
I may not live in the north east anymore but i still support the north east teams

Quakers83
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:40 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by Quakers83 » Wed May 22, 2019 9:28 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 5:48 pm
spen666 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:03 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 3:59 pm
An employer can’t refuse a resignation whether it is a fixed-term or permanent contract. They will have to accept it and the employee will be legally required to work their notice period.

…..

Oh dear.... you seem to ignore the fact that the legal evidence shows you are wrong. I refer you once again to the case of Steve Bruce. The courts granted Crystal Palace an injunction to prevent Steve Bruce resigning and taking up a managers job at Birmingham


I also refer to the example of the transfer fee- the registration is irrelevant. The Bosman ruling proved that the registration fee is not a basis to prevent free movement. The fixed term contract is what stops plays walking out during the fixed term
Spen, for your benefit I have done a bit of research on the Steve Bruce case. The High Court ruled an injunction on Steve Bruce’s move to Birmingham as he refused to work a 9 month notice period stipulated in his contract.

Crystal Palace did not refuse his resignation, they just asked Bruce to work his notice period which Bruce did not want to do and, as a result, he was in breach of his own contract of employment. No wonder the High Court ruled in favour of Palace, he breached the terms of his employment.

The AA case is different because he is actually working his notice period stipulated in his contract and Blyth cannot reject his resignation.
:lol:

Spen, Spen, Spen, at least if you’re going to talk legal nonsense, don’t then try to back it up with a mute point of Steve Bruce refusing to work his notice period, therefore equalling a breach of his contract.

With all due respect, this has been said numerous times and will be said again. Your split personalities are beyond ludicrous, your intent is to cause issues, maybe not on here but certainly on Twitter.

Absolute WUM.

murtonquaker
Posts: 257
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 11:08 am
Team Supported: Mighty Darlo

Re: Blyth statement

Post by murtonquaker » Wed May 22, 2019 9:47 pm

polarbear wrote:
AndyPark wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:36 pm
Fuck off Spen, two faced tosser.

Do one.
Any need for that... spen is correct
Do us all a favour and crawl back under your Spendymong rock...And take Spen with you Old Fruit

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


spen666
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by spen666 » Thu May 23, 2019 12:42 pm

Quakers83 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:28 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 5:48 pm
spen666 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:03 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 3:59 pm
An employer can’t refuse a resignation whether it is a fixed-term or permanent contract. They will have to accept it and the employee will be legally required to work their notice period.

…..

Oh dear.... you seem to ignore the fact that the legal evidence shows you are wrong. I refer you once again to the case of Steve Bruce. The courts granted Crystal Palace an injunction to prevent Steve Bruce resigning and taking up a managers job at Birmingham


I also refer to the example of the transfer fee- the registration is irrelevant. The Bosman ruling proved that the registration fee is not a basis to prevent free movement. The fixed term contract is what stops plays walking out during the fixed term
Spen, for your benefit I have done a bit of research on the Steve Bruce case. The High Court ruled an injunction on Steve Bruce’s move to Birmingham as he refused to work a 9 month notice period stipulated in his contract.

Crystal Palace did not refuse his resignation, they just asked Bruce to work his notice period which Bruce did not want to do and, as a result, he was in breach of his own contract of employment. No wonder the High Court ruled in favour of Palace, he breached the terms of his employment.

The AA case is different because he is actually working his notice period stipulated in his contract and Blyth cannot reject his resignation.
:lol:

Spen, Spen, Spen, at least if you’re going to talk legal nonsense, don’t then try to back it up with a mute point of Steve Bruce refusing to work his notice period, therefore equalling a breach of his contract.

With all due respect, this has been said numerous times and will be said again. Your split personalities are beyond ludicrous, your intent is to cause issues, maybe not on here but certainly on Twitter.

Absolute WUM.

A mute point?

No, its exactly on the money. It is exactly what I was stating from the outset The injunction was granted to stop Bruce breaching the terms of his fixed term contract
Twitter: @spen_666

bga
Posts: 1215
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by bga » Thu May 23, 2019 1:20 pm

shildonlad wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 7:11 pm
I think blyth will be more interested in getting a new manager as opposed to refusing to accept the present managers resignation. Lets say if he they did get an injunction so he could not manage elsewhere what good would that do hardly as if alun Armstrong would go back. For the record i dont have spens legal brain, just saying how i see it
Plus that would mean they have to continue to play AA and a new manager at the same time that ain't going to happen is it?

Darlofan97
Posts: 4121
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by Darlofan97 » Thu May 23, 2019 7:41 pm

spen666 wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 12:42 pm
Quakers83 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:28 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 5:48 pm
spen666 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:03 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 3:59 pm
An employer can’t refuse a resignation whether it is a fixed-term or permanent contract. They will have to accept it and the employee will be legally required to work their notice period.

…..

Oh dear.... you seem to ignore the fact that the legal evidence shows you are wrong. I refer you once again to the case of Steve Bruce. The courts granted Crystal Palace an injunction to prevent Steve Bruce resigning and taking up a managers job at Birmingham


I also refer to the example of the transfer fee- the registration is irrelevant. The Bosman ruling proved that the registration fee is not a basis to prevent free movement. The fixed term contract is what stops plays walking out during the fixed term
Spen, for your benefit I have done a bit of research on the Steve Bruce case. The High Court ruled an injunction on Steve Bruce’s move to Birmingham as he refused to work a 9 month notice period stipulated in his contract.

Crystal Palace did not refuse his resignation, they just asked Bruce to work his notice period which Bruce did not want to do and, as a result, he was in breach of his own contract of employment. No wonder the High Court ruled in favour of Palace, he breached the terms of his employment.

The AA case is different because he is actually working his notice period stipulated in his contract and Blyth cannot reject his resignation.
:lol:

Spen, Spen, Spen, at least if you’re going to talk legal nonsense, don’t then try to back it up with a mute point of Steve Bruce refusing to work his notice period, therefore equalling a breach of his contract.

With all due respect, this has been said numerous times and will be said again. Your split personalities are beyond ludicrous, your intent is to cause issues, maybe not on here but certainly on Twitter.

Absolute WUM.

A mute point?

No, its exactly on the money. It is exactly what I was stating from the outset The injunction was granted to stop Bruce breaching the terms of his fixed term contract
No Spen, you have previously stated that an employer can reject a resignation and that’s why an injunction was taken out. I pointed out that this is not legal yet you still made references to the Bruce case. Now you’re back-tracking massively because you’ve realised that, despite working in a legal profession, your stance was completely wrong.

Dear me.

Darlofan97
Posts: 4121
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by Darlofan97 » Thu May 23, 2019 7:45 pm

spen666 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 3:48 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 3:36 pm
….

An employer can’t legally reject an employee’s resignation for one. Yet you say Blyth haven’t accepted AA’s, when legally they can’t not accept it.

…..

When there is a FIXED term contract the employer can refuse to accept the resignation.

There is a clue in the name ie FIXED Term Contract. I dealt with that in my earlier post when I contrasted a fixed term contract to the sort you or I are normally employed on.

If you were right, then there could never be transfer fees in football because for example Harry Kane could just say to Spurs, I'm leaving and sign for nothing the same day for Manchester City.

I even gave you the example of Steve Bruce resigning at Crystal Palace and being prevented by an injunction obtained by Palace from resigning to take up the Birmingham City job. clear evidence that an employer can refuse to accept a resignation on a fixed term contract.

There you go Spen, first line is wrong.

And like I pointed out, Palace did not reject Bruce’s resignation, they accepted it and asked Bruce to work his notice period which Bruce refused and thus was in breach of contract hence an injunction.

Blyth had no other choice but to accept AA’s resignation and ask him to work his notice period stipulated in his contract (1 week). They could not legally refuse this.

Quakers83
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 10:40 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by Quakers83 » Thu May 23, 2019 8:03 pm

spen666 wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 12:42 pm
Quakers83 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 9:28 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 5:48 pm
spen666 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 4:03 pm
Darlofan97 wrote:
Wed May 22, 2019 3:59 pm
An employer can’t refuse a resignation whether it is a fixed-term or permanent contract. They will have to accept it and the employee will be legally required to work their notice period.

…..

Oh dear.... you seem to ignore the fact that the legal evidence shows you are wrong. I refer you once again to the case of Steve Bruce. The courts granted Crystal Palace an injunction to prevent Steve Bruce resigning and taking up a managers job at Birmingham


I also refer to the example of the transfer fee- the registration is irrelevant. The Bosman ruling proved that the registration fee is not a basis to prevent free movement. The fixed term contract is what stops plays walking out during the fixed term
Spen, for your benefit I have done a bit of research on the Steve Bruce case. The High Court ruled an injunction on Steve Bruce’s move to Birmingham as he refused to work a 9 month notice period stipulated in his contract.

Crystal Palace did not refuse his resignation, they just asked Bruce to work his notice period which Bruce did not want to do and, as a result, he was in breach of his own contract of employment. No wonder the High Court ruled in favour of Palace, he breached the terms of his employment.

The AA case is different because he is actually working his notice period stipulated in his contract and Blyth cannot reject his resignation.
:lol:

Spen, Spen, Spen, at least if you’re going to talk legal nonsense, don’t then try to back it up with a mute point of Steve Bruce refusing to work his notice period, therefore equalling a breach of his contract.

With all due respect, this has been said numerous times and will be said again. Your split personalities are beyond ludicrous, your intent is to cause issues, maybe not on here but certainly on Twitter.

Absolute WUM.

A mute point?

No, its exactly on the money. It is exactly what I was stating from the outset The injunction was granted to stop Bruce breaching the terms of his fixed term contract
No, it isn’t on the money at all. You are now back-tracking as the point you were trying to make is absolutely irrelevant to this situation.

WUM.

User avatar
loan_star
Posts: 6052
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 9:01 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by loan_star » Thu May 23, 2019 8:31 pm

Quakers83 wrote:
Thu May 23, 2019 8:03 pm
the point you were trying to make is absolutely irrelevant to this situation.

WUM.
I would say that Spen is irrelevant to this board anyway. His twitter persona should get him a lifetime ban from here anyway.

User avatar
HarrytheQuaker
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:57 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by HarrytheQuaker » Thu May 30, 2019 8:09 pm

I

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk



biccynana
Posts: 535
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:38 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by biccynana » Thu May 30, 2019 8:56 pm

HarrytheQuaker wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 8:09 pm
I
Care to elaborate, Harry?
"I asked for a drink. That's a wet glass. Bring me a proper drink." Lt Cdr EKR S, March 1963.

LoidLucan
Posts: 2776
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by LoidLucan » Thu May 30, 2019 9:05 pm

They've issued a statement that says very little really.

User avatar
HarrytheQuaker
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:57 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by HarrytheQuaker » Thu May 30, 2019 10:15 pm

biccynana wrote:
HarrytheQuaker wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 8:09 pm
I
Care to elaborate, Harry?
I tried to put there statement on but wouldn't upload.. Load of bollox really

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk


eek
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 2:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by eek » Fri May 31, 2019 8:26 am

At this stage, the executive committee is focusing on appointing a new manager and securing additional investment to allow the club to continue on its success over recent seasons.

Once a manager is appointed, we will work with him to build a squad capable of competing in the National League North.
It's worth posting the last 2 paragraphs of Blyth's statement. Just so that we understand how lucky we are as a fans owned club - as I go and sign up for this years fundraising appeal.

JE93
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by JE93 » Fri May 31, 2019 8:33 am

Statement is pasted below:

The Blyth Spartans executive committee have issued the following statement:

The last few weeks have been testing times for the club and at the time of writing, we are unable to go into the full detail due to legal processes. This is the prime reason for our inability to give regular updates. We will disclose the full facts when we are free to do so.

We understand that the lack of communication is frustrating for fans, and in particular, we understand the frustration relating to a number of player departures over recent days.

This has led to rumours and half-truths on social media platforms. We can address some, but not all of these matters, in this statement.

The club is not in financial trouble, a budget has been set for the 2019/20 season.

The budget runs within our sustainable business model to ensure that this club exists on into the future. The chairman is still invested in the club.

The Executive Committee always endeavours to maximise on external investment and we have been working hard through this testing time to secure income and we will have an announcement in the next seven days.

As a part of the continued development of the club, we have entered a new partnership with Tyne Metropolitan College to enter a U19 team into the National League Youth Alliance as part of the process of creating a junior pathway to improve the club at a community level.

With regards to the vacant managerial post, we have received a number of applications for the role and the process to appoint a new first team manager is progressing. You will understand that this process has to be conducted confidentially and that an appointment will be made as soon as possible.

At this stage, the executive committee is focusing on appointing a new manager and securing additional investment to allow the club to continue on its success over recent seasons.

Once a manager is appointed, we will work with him to build a squad capable of competing in the National League North.

User avatar
don'tbuythesun
Posts: 1529
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 12:24 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by don'tbuythesun » Fri May 31, 2019 10:51 am

On a positive note there's a great story on Blyth's twitter about the Debenhams cup, one for all the anoraks!!

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 3865
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Fri May 31, 2019 11:11 am

Unfortunately Blyth have had to readjust to their current circumstances - it happens to all clubs from time to time and it's happened to us twice recently.

They need to accept reality and stop moaning on.
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

LoidLucan
Posts: 2776
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Blyth statement

Post by LoidLucan » Fri May 31, 2019 11:52 am

Bradford PA have been losing half-a-million a season and their rich owner has decided to rein it in. The consequence is that they've lost their top manager Bower and replaced him with a rookie while most of the squad that turned them into challengers have gone. It's a similar situation although maybe the losses are not the same.

Post Reply