Cherries: Anxious wait for Marv (From Bournemouth Echo)

Following on from Danny article last week where he wont call on PFA yet. When will he then??
Molesley out for season due to playing when injured, Feeney earlier in season playing at DC, hardly walking yet cant be replaced due to embargo.
Saturday, credit to Marvin but risking your career is not the answer to our problems. He tried and obviously failed because he was being forced to play because of the incompetence of the FL, and now I believe the PFA.
If it was Fletch it could be career over?
Danny and Guyett. You need advice from PFA, because i for one would have rather have played with 10 men Saturday than watch Marv trying to play in obvious agony

As i said on the other thread about our home form, will the Echo get off their a**** and get onto the FL and the PFA and get us a real story to try and help our boys out?

Come on Neil, you are just trotting out the same non-news every day to fill column inches.

Get onto the people that matter and get a media campaign going.

Us fans whinging can't do much but you are in a position to make a difference so please do!!

I agree Molbol. One thing about them though, is that their sister paper is not allowed in St Marys. I would imagine that they have been told to although get the stories, to not cross the line as they cant afford to be banned from both local FL grounds. Know thats no excuse for getting us answers, because I could flick through the forums and other sites to pick up the stories. Just think they have been told to be careful.

I agree as well Molbol.

And while you're at it Neil get a quote from Tony Kleanthus Chairman of Barnet FC and ask him how he's got the gall to sit on the FL League Board and call himself Division 2 representative when he has to declare a conflict of interest and can't represent a Div 2 club on anything. Same goes for the other Divisional Reps.

The role just seems to have given him the opening, like most of the other Div reps, to be elected onto other FA committees.

Neil, your paper is supposed to be the ECHO. You're not living up to your name.

The whole Football League set up is not fit for purpose.

Thanks for your comments folks. As you know, the Football League do not comment on specific transfer embargoes. I spent most of last week speaking to one of the league's top men and this stance is not going to change. I also personally submitted a list of questions regarding the Dumbuya situation which were not answered.
I would like to point out that as well as the End the Embargo campaign in August, we have continually highlighted Cherries' plight in the paper - if you look back to last week's editions, you will see that virtually the entire back of the paper was dedicated to comment on the transfer embargo.
CherryChris - The situation at St Mary's makes no difference to us whatsoever and I can assure you we have not been told to 'be careful' by anyone. It's simply a situation that requires getting blood out of a stone. The league will not respond to our questions so all we can do is highlight the situation in the paper, which, if you look at last week, is exactly what we have been doing.
Neil Meldrum, Sports Editor.

Neil Meldrum wrote:
Thanks for your comments folks. As you know, the Football League do not comment on specific transfer embargoes. I spent most of last week speaking to one of the league's top men and this stance is not going to change. I also personally submitted a list of questions regarding the Dumbuya situation which were not answered. I would like to point out that as well as the End the Embargo campaign in August, we have continually highlighted Cherries' plight in the paper - if you look back to last week's editions, you will see that virtually the entire back of the paper was dedicated to comment on the transfer embargo. CherryChris - The situation at St Mary's makes no difference to us whatsoever and I can assure you we have not been told to 'be careful' by anyone. It's simply a situation that requires getting blood out of a stone. The league will not respond to our questions so all we can do is highlight the situation in the paper, which, if you look at last week, is exactly what we have been doing. Neil Meldrum, Sports Editor.

I, as do most others appreciate most of the coverage you put out as it gives us something to read on the club we love when we're not watching them.

However, with all due respect, you have only half answered the question - We know what the FL are like; god knows we have suffered enough at their hands, but what about the PFA - What's their view?
Also, if you're not getting answers why not publish as such? The FL may not discuss personal embargos but why not challenge their rule book on 'non-cost players'?
My understanding is that they don't have a ruling on this and as such you could challenge their failing to abide by the Human Rights Act under restraint of trade. They could answer that as that question as it is open ended and isn't specifically discussing us.
Let's face it, the national media love negative publicity - can't you take this up a stage and raise it with Sky for example? - It will raise your newspapers profile to a national level and maybe, just maybe, something can be done about this nonsensical situation.

Sorry for any typos and poor grammar in the above - If you've ever tried typing this up on an iphone when you're angry you'd understand!! LOL

molbol wrote:

Neil Meldrum wrote:
Thanks for your comments folks. As you know, the Football League do not comment on specific transfer embargoes. I spent most of last week speaking to one of the league's top men and this stance is not going to change. I also personally submitted a list of questions regarding the Dumbuya situation which were not answered. I would like to point out that as well as the End the Embargo campaign in August, we have continually highlighted Cherries' plight in the paper - if you look back to last week's editions, you will see that virtually the entire back of the paper was dedicated to comment on the transfer embargo. CherryChris - The situation at St Mary's makes no difference to us whatsoever and I can assure you we have not been told to 'be careful' by anyone. It's simply a situation that requires getting blood out of a stone. The league will not respond to our questions so all we can do is highlight the situation in the paper, which, if you look at last week, is exactly what we have been doing. Neil Meldrum, Sports Editor.

I, as do most others appreciate most of the coverage you put out as it gives us something to read on the club we love when we're not watching them.

However, with all due respect, you have only half answered the question - We know what the FL are like; god knows we have suffered enough at their hands, but what about the PFA - What's their view?
Also, if you're not getting answers why not publish as such? The FL may not discuss personal embargos but why not challenge their rule book on 'non-cost players'?
My understanding is that they don't have a ruling on this and as such you could challenge their failing to abide by the Human Rights Act under restraint of trade. They could answer that as that question as it is open ended and isn't specifically discussing us.
Let's face it, the national media love negative publicity - can't you take this up a stage and raise it with Sky for example? - It will raise your newspapers profile to a national level and maybe, just maybe, something can be done about this nonsensical situation.

Molbol,
At this stage, it would be wrong of us to start badgering the PFA. In the first instance, the club, or the PFA rep, should be approaching that organisation should they wish to. Once they had, we would then take it on and take it forward.
With regard to your further comment on the league, I take it on board and there may be something we can do on that front.
On the national media, most of what they report on clubs in the lower leagues comes direct from local papers anyway, so if they wanted to pick it up, it's there in black and white for them.
I fully appreciate you, and many others, are angry about the embargo situation, but while I am always happy to take on board criticism of what we are doing as a paper, I felt this time it was not justified... Especially taking into account last week's coverage of the embargo.

The blame for Marvin's continuing injury must be placed fairly and squarely in the door of the Football League.
I understand the reasons for the embargo and could even see the need for it at one time.
The Football League just seems hell-bent on the destruction of some lower league clubs, starting with AFC Bournemouth.

Neil Meldrum wrote:

molbol wrote:

Neil Meldrum wrote: Thanks for your comments folks. As you know, the Football League do not comment on specific transfer embargoes. I spent most of last week speaking to one of the league's top men and this stance is not going to change. I also personally submitted a list of questions regarding the Dumbuya situation which were not answered. I would like to point out that as well as the End the Embargo campaign in August, we have continually highlighted Cherries' plight in the paper - if you look back to last week's editions, you will see that virtually the entire back of the paper was dedicated to comment on the transfer embargo. CherryChris - The situation at St Mary's makes no difference to us whatsoever and I can assure you we have not been told to 'be careful' by anyone. It's simply a situation that requires getting blood out of a stone. The league will not respond to our questions so all we can do is highlight the situation in the paper, which, if you look at last week, is exactly what we have been doing. Neil Meldrum, Sports Editor.

I, as do most others appreciate most of the coverage you put out as it gives us something to read on the club we love when we're not watching them. However, with all due respect, you have only half answered the question - We know what the FL are like; god knows we have suffered enough at their hands, but what about the PFA - What's their view? Also, if you're not getting answers why not publish as such? The FL may not discuss personal embargos but why not challenge their rule book on 'non-cost players'? My understanding is that they don't have a ruling on this and as such you could challenge their failing to abide by the Human Rights Act under restraint of trade. They could answer that as that question as it is open ended and isn't specifically discussing us. Let's face it, the national media love negative publicity - can't you take this up a stage and raise it with Sky for example? - It will raise your newspapers profile to a national level and maybe, just maybe, something can be done about this nonsensical situation.

Molbol, At this stage, it would be wrong of us to start badgering the PFA. In the first instance, the club, or the PFA rep, should be approaching that organisation should they wish to. Once they had, we would then take it on and take it forward. With regard to your further comment on the league, I take it on board and there may be something we can do on that front. On the national media, most of what they report on clubs in the lower leagues comes direct from local papers anyway, so if they wanted to pick it up, it's there in black and white for them. I fully appreciate you, and many others, are angry about the embargo situation, but while I am always happy to take on board criticism of what we are doing as a paper, I felt this time it was not justified... Especially taking into account last week's coverage of the embargo.

Neil, what frustrates us is the lack of clarity on the issue. From my personal point of view, I still can't be certain exactly where the FL are coming from.
Their lack of response, in itself, is a newsworthy item and is something you could kick around. The same goes for the issue of players' injuries. The Echo owes the FL nothing but we supporters need you and you certainly need us to buy the paper in the first place.
Get stuck into the FL and if necessary, the AFCB Directors!

That is exactly what i was trying to say dc addict.

If the press and media want to they can turn 'no comment' into an admission of guilt. Saying nothing is not always the best policy hence the change in the law (police reading the rights) a few years ago. Not saying anything can (and often is) can be construed as having something to hide.

dc addict wrote:

Neil Meldrum wrote:

molbol wrote:

Neil Meldrum wrote: Thanks for your comments folks. As you know, the Football League do not comment on specific transfer embargoes. I spent most of last week speaking to one of the league's top men and this stance is not going to change. I also personally submitted a list of questions regarding the Dumbuya situation which were not answered. I would like to point out that as well as the End the Embargo campaign in August, we have continually highlighted Cherries' plight in the paper - if you look back to last week's editions, you will see that virtually the entire back of the paper was dedicated to comment on the transfer embargo. CherryChris - The situation at St Mary's makes no difference to us whatsoever and I can assure you we have not been told to 'be careful' by anyone. It's simply a situation that requires getting blood out of a stone. The league will not respond to our questions so all we can do is highlight the situation in the paper, which, if you look at last week, is exactly what we have been doing. Neil Meldrum, Sports Editor.

I, as do most others appreciate most of the coverage you put out as it gives us something to read on the club we love when we're not watching them. However, with all due respect, you have only half answered the question - We know what the FL are like; god knows we have suffered enough at their hands, but what about the PFA - What's their view? Also, if you're not getting answers why not publish as such? The FL may not discuss personal embargos but why not challenge their rule book on 'non-cost players'? My understanding is that they don't have a ruling on this and as such you could challenge their failing to abide by the Human Rights Act under restraint of trade. They could answer that as that question as it is open ended and isn't specifically discussing us. Let's face it, the national media love negative publicity - can't you take this up a stage and raise it with Sky for example? - It will raise your newspapers profile to a national level and maybe, just maybe, something can be done about this nonsensical situation.

Molbol, At this stage, it would be wrong of us to start badgering the PFA. In the first instance, the club, or the PFA rep, should be approaching that organisation should they wish to. Once they had, we would then take it on and take it forward. With regard to your further comment on the league, I take it on board and there may be something we can do on that front. On the national media, most of what they report on clubs in the lower leagues comes direct from local papers anyway, so if they wanted to pick it up, it's there in black and white for them. I fully appreciate you, and many others, are angry about the embargo situation, but while I am always happy to take on board criticism of what we are doing as a paper, I felt this time it was not justified... Especially taking into account last week's coverage of the embargo.

Neil, what frustrates us is the lack of clarity on the issue. From my personal point of view, I still can't be certain exactly where the FL are coming from.
Their lack of response, in itself, is a newsworthy item and is something you could kick around. The same goes for the issue of players' injuries. The Echo owes the FL nothing but we supporters need you and you certainly need us to buy the paper in the first place.
Get stuck into the FL and if necessary, the AFCB Directors!

dc addict,
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm with you in terms of the league's stance... Both myself and Neil P outlined our thoughts last week in print.
But the league's policy on embargoes and the press won't change, so no matter how much we get stuck in to them, a response will not be forthcoming.
I was chasing the league for most of last week regarding the Dumbuya deal, Marvin Bartley's injury and why the Premier League allowed Benjani's deal to go through despite late paperwork. But they won't play ball and we have, to be fair, made their 'no comment' stance pretty clear throughout all of this.

Neil, appreciate you coming on here, maybe had we been aware before about you guys being behind then maybe we as supporters and you as the press could have worked more together. This is all us supporters want. I'm sure you want the best for the cherries, so i'm sure you can see our point of view. We're chuffed to bits to be 2nd in league and the progress we've made. But Saturday watching Marvin having to come off after risking his career is so unfair. Also, what options did Eddie have to change the system or team to give a different approach. Cheltenham made substitutes to play for the draw, ours were enforced.
We just want to know exactly what needs to be done to get rid of the embargo. Sky or a National newspaper would be ideal to support as the FL are arrogant and wont listen to us, but hate negative press. With the Echo and our supporters it would make a good case for national support and understanding. Just how you can explain Schmeichel and Hughes's wages as being "level playing field" would be great to know also.

Neil, Can I suggest the following.
1. You dedicate an article to invite suggestions from us lot, regarding the whole embargo situation.
2. You cherry pick the best, in your opinion and publish it on a back page splash.
3. Send it all to the FL gin swillers.
4. Contact Sky Sports and Talksport and stir the whole thing up.

It'll be good publicity for AFCB whose directors can stay "clean". The Echo might make a few quid and you never know, the exact truth of the situation, plus the odd worm coming out of the odd can might unfold.
The FL might squirm but it will teach everyone to show a bit of respect to the most important element of football - the fans, because the FL have shown they don't give a monkeys about us currently.

Neil, Whatever may be said about The Echo, I'm always pleased to read about The Cherries in The Echo. There is an article of sorts every day which shows how important the Echo rates the Cherries.
It would be great for even an easing of the embargo, but I do appreciate the problems you encounter approaching the Football League.
(No, I don't work for the Echo and Neil is not related to me)

Barnet are here on the 23rd February and hopefully our Division2 FL Board representative will be in attendance. Their chairman, Tony Kleanthus is his name and he can't speak on any Div 2 issue at FL Board meetings because of conflict of interest.

But because of his position on the FL Board he does get the privilege of sitting on FA Committees!

Time for your guys Neil to buttonhole him.

Appreciate all your comments on this today. The fact remains, though, that the only way the embargo will be eased or removed is for the club to pay off its creditors. We'll keep highlighting it in the paper, though, and will, of course, always question the league even though we know what the answer will be.

Thanks Neil, appreciated