+ Visit Crewe Alexandra FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Macclesfield

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    541
    Quote Originally Posted by AstonAlex View Post
    I can see Macc being wound up, sadly, but the Bolton thing was rather different. On that occasion it was the club that refused to fulfil the fixture saying that their academy players were too physically immature to plat Saturday, Tuesday, Saturday, Tuesday over 3 or 4 consecutive weeks, ie putting player safety at risk. This is the players refusing to play. In my opinion Bolton were quite right to do what they did (they had no experienced older professionals, other than Luke Murphy and a couple more and were prevented by the EFL from signing any more), whereas it is within Macc’s control to pay their players and thus fulfil the fixture.

    Regarding Sol Campbell. So, he’s wealthy, but that doesn’t alter the fact that he’s owed 180,000 by the club! They negotiated his contract and, against the odds and most people’s expectations, he kept them in the League. If it were 10 or 20 grand I might agree but why should he be expected to work for nothing?
    The other Bolton game was not different - players unpaid and wouldn't play against Brentford last day last season - I think Brentford were awarded 3 points and a notional 3-0 win for that, and seems Crewe will ask for the same if Macc don't turn out a side.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    797
    Fair point, Shrop, although the EFL wanted the match played and I suspect they would have insisted had it not been the last match of the season and irrelevant to the final position.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    678
    I'm afraid, AA, that you've missed my point. No, of course Campbell shouldn't work for nothing but by winding up the club he probably still won't get anything. So the action is just one of spite. In the meantime, those who are not wealthy and therefore need an income face the prospect of losing everything if the club goes bust. In that situation SC gets his revenge but others lose their livelihood.
    Also, the 1000+ Alex fans who have bought tickets for the game also lose their money as they will be deemed low-level creditors. When these situations arise, it's always the richest (and the Inland Revenue) who get any kind of recompense.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    797
    I have to disagree, gazan, sorry! The individuals you describe will lose out whether Sol joins in or not. If anyone is guilty of greed it is PL clubs not filtering enough money to grass roots and EFL clubs. This is the third club this season living beyond its means (and you could probably add several more close to it that HMRC continue to take to court) and it makes one grateful that our Board are somewhat more circumspect in spending money we haven’t got.

    Sol did not instigate the legal proceedings, he just said he supported them. Maybe he shouldn’t have taken the job on in the first place if he’d done his homework about the likelihood of not getting paid, but if he hadn’t taken the job then I would suggest they would now be in the National League and, quite likely, out of business.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    678
    I have to agree with your point about the PL. The amount of wage/transfer inflation that has taken place since the introduction of the PL has greatly contributed to the problems of football lower down the order.
    However, re: Campbell, it seems to depend on what source you read - the one I read suggested he instigated the winding up order. If this is not strictly true, then of course, my point is lost. I have a little niggle about Campbell though, it's not the first time he's been in this situation. Remember how quickly he scarpered out of Notts County. I also remember his egotistical comments to Macc players when he first arrived. However, I shouldn't let these things colour my judgement. I also don't go along with the idea that Macc only survived because of him. He just got a lot of attention from the media as he was a big name, apparently 'slumming it' in the lower reaches. Let's see how he does at Southend.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    797
    Sol does have an unfortunate habit of stepping out of the frying pan and into the fire! Not sure Southend was the wisest move in either a financial or footballing sense. However, nobody else wants to give him a gob, where fellow former England regulars like Terry, Lampard and Gerrard walk into pretty prime positions - and we can’t forget that Paul Ince had to start at, yes, Macclesfield. The degree of racism in English football management is a disgrace when you look at the percentage of players that are black compared with the number of managers. 5 at the last count, if you include Maamria, in permanent positions.

    A little off topic, sorry, but I think it puts some of Campbell’s issues into context.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    181
    Match suspended.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    678
    Aston A, I had a feeling that would come up. Yes, the current state of play in terms of black managers is scandalous. Institutional racism is still rife in the boardrooms. However, Campbell has issues on a personal level and the fact that he is black shouldn't have any bearing on whether he is a good manager or not. Incidentally, Ince was never successful but, again, he got a lot of media publicity as a 'celebrity footballer'.
    The other point to make here is that there is an issue about Terry et al walking into top jobs and that is that although there is high visibility, they are walking into a 'ready-made' job. I would like to see how those individuals (and even Guardiola) would cope with taking on a Macclesfield or Morecambe as I think these jobs are much harder. So, in that sense clearly the difference between the treatment of Terry et al and that of Ince and Campbell raises questions about football at board level.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    678
    In the meantime...... I am really disappointed that there is no game this weekend. What are EFL going to do about it? More blanket penalties against the club as a whole will only compound the problems. Are they going to do anything about the owner?
    I hope the game does take place soon or else I worry that we may never see it.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    797
    The match will be played some time next year, assuming Macclesfield don’t go out of business which must be a huge assumption now. As regards what the EFL does about the owner that’s not really up to them. He has been on the Macc board for over 10 years and became the majority shareholder whilst they were in the a National League so not under their jurisdiction. Rather.like the Bury case the fans were quite happy with him when they were gaining promotion to League 2, and it is worth pointing out that, unlike some recently promoted clubs, they did so without spending wedges of money on player salaries, ground improvements and the like but appeared to live within their means and were very unexpected winners that year.

    Since they got back, though, they seem to have gone from one crisis to another which is clearly heart breaking for the fans and costly for the players and oft forgotten other staff. It would seem that they just don’t have the crowds to support a League 2 side and unlike, say, Morecambe, have too much local competition with the Manchester clubs to get more people through the turnstiles. Very sad but hopefully they will survive, even if it means dropping a division or two to do so.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •