BBC reporting that their players refused to train on Wednesday and are threatening to not turn up for Sunday's FA Cup tie with Kingstonian, if they are not paid October's wages. This would obviously result in expulsion from the Cup, but would also see them expelled from next year's competition.

Although I am sympathetic to the fact that clubs at this level can experience cash flow problems, I really do think that those running the game have to get on top of this problem much sooner than they current do.

Macclesfield appear to have a chronic problem with paying their staff. I'm sure they probably aren't paying bills too. So at what point are those in authority going to step in and tell them to get their house in order pdq or they will be closed down?

Players seem to have downed tools. Only loan players in the team today alongside youngsters. Guess that gets them out of a suspension from next year's competition.
Some interesting games this afternoon, including County old boys (Chippenham) in action.

Bookies have spotted it, Macc are 4/1 at home with Kingstonian more or less evens.

Already 2-0 to Kingstonian.

Hammered at home to lowly Kingstonian.

Here we go again, another Bury?

Well, the players have clearly nailed their colours to the mast. What happens for their next league game. Do they turn around and say, OK we will play? I suppose if the wages get paid they have no option. Can't imagine their hearts are in it though. Maybe the suggested sale of the club will go through and everything will settle down.

Where does this go next? Do Mansfield get a freebie on Saturday against Macclesfield youth? Surely the EFL can't let the league table be skewed because some teams get to play against substantially weakened opposition. But if the youth players are registered, have Macclesfield broken any rules? Could end up with the referee refusing to officiate on an unmarked pitch? Surely it can't just go on and on like Bury.

I was just about to say if I were a player I'd want proof I was insured, then saw a report they have been advised not to play or train because they aren't.

excessbee wrote:
Surely it can't just go on and on like Bury.

Wanna make a bet?

Hmm ......... All bets are off on this one.

In almost every way, it is a different situation to the Bury/Bolton issues (with some similarities). With Bury, the EFL dug themselves a hole by (rightfully, in my eyes) postponing League fixtures from the start of the season, but then letting that run for five weeks before imposing a two week 'final deadline'. Postponements should start this weekend to prevent any team (starting with Mansfield) gaining an advantage by playing Macclesfield youth. It should also hurry along the financial issues which was Bury's fallback argument. However, the EFL set a precedent by allowing Bolton to start the season with a seriously weakened squad and lose 5-0 on at least two occasions. Only recently have they almost steadied the ship, but their early season opponents have stolen a march. With Bury they had no money and not enough registered players to field a team. Macclesfield have a squad, good enough to have got twenty points, but no money (or no will) to pay them. I read a message on the Macc forum suggesting that the interested party may be having second thoughts. What a mess!

A grim reminder that we’re only a bit of bad luck and poor performance (on and off pitch) away from a similar fate.

halfmoon wrote:A grim reminder that we’re only a bit of bad luck and poor performance (on and off pitch) away from a similar fate.

Don't agree with this. Both Bury and Macclesfield were/are owned by supposedly rich individuals. Bury's turns out to 'own' only the loans taken out by a previous owner. Macclesfield's seems to have entirely lost interest.

I'd still say the obvious answer is for the Football League to insist that each owner puts up a sum of money by midnight on 1st August each year to cover player and staff wages for the season ahead, to be held in escrow by the Football League. That way, no side can be in a situation mid-season where players and staff are refusing to work, and the league season can be played out in its entirety.

I'm sure there are challenges with such an approach - not least that any owner would need to come up with 12 months' worth of outgoings in one big lump - but frankly if the integrity of the competition is to be restored / maintained then it seems a worthwhile price to pay.