Ahead of Ilkeston awaiting their fate, here is an overview of the current situation, and a few questions of my own of the situation at the New Manor Ground.

Firstly it is important to separate the two entities that are the FA and the Northern Premier League.

Ilkeston have no quarrel with the FA, indeed the FA are said to be ‘supporting’ Ilkeston at this time.

There are 2 issues currently facing Ilkeston. Firstly they have had their license revoked by the NPL, consequently leading to no football being played.

Secondly, they face a charge of ‘failure to fulfill fixtures, which is where things get interesting.

The self same committee of the NPL which banned Ilkeston from playing has now told them off for following this instruction, which has lead to some head scratching in the world of football, with Ilkeston being featured in the likes of BBC Sport online.

The most interesting part of this is what seems to be a deliberate rewording of the rules from the NPL. In a statement on their website, the NPL state the following…

“Rule 8.6 states that “… any Club … failing to fulfill an engagement to play a Competition match on the appointed date shall for each offense be liable to expulsion from the Competition and/or such other disciplinary action the Board may determine.”

The actual rule in full states; “Any Club without just cause failing to fulfill an engagement to play a Competition match on the appointed date shall for each offense be liable to expulsion from the Competition and/ or such other disciplinary action the Board may determine”.

An interesting omission of the phrase “just cause”, which Ilkeston clearly have. The league told them not to play.

The likely outcome here, is Ilkeston plead not guilty to the charge and appeal to the FA, who will then hold a hearing between the NPL and Ilkeston, which Ilkestons legal team will surely feel confident about.

Regarding the license being suspended, that’s anyone’s guess. However if this is, as speculated, relating the the transfer of Che Adams to Birmingham City, and Ilkeston receiving a payment due to his sell on clause, why haven’t the FA stepped in? This would be a football debt issue, which should be dealt with via FA sanction, which could then give Ilkeston a case against the NPL for the league overstepping their authority, and/or failing to implement their own rules correctly.

If this was to happen, it is entirely plausible Ilkeston could then sue the NPL for loss of earnings, as well as damages to reputation. This has never happened before, but it is entirely possible between the two limited companies.

On the subject of Adams, the contract between Sheffield United and Birmingham is between those 2 clubs. If the fee is undisclosed, details cannot be released by Ilkeston. The fee may well be much lower than quoted, and in installments. If this is the case, no one can expect Sheffield United to pay all of the Sell on upfront before being received and likewise Ilkeston cannot be expected to pay off creditors before they have received payment. If of course, this is indeed the problem.

Something else which bothers me, the committee which decided the fate of Ilkeston, and revoked the clubs license, has a member representing three local rivals within the league. Here I see a conflict of interests. Is it right that representatives who potentially have something to gain can vote on the punishments dished out to rival clubs? This looks especially worrying when we consider one of said clubs benefited from the decision to ban Ilkeston, by signing one of their players shortly after.

And what about consistency? Is it fair to ban Ilkeston due to a licensing problem, when other teams in the League have failed to meet the criteria and been allowed to continue playing? Sutton Coldfields ground did not meet the requirements for a license and were told to play their home games elsewhere. Shouldn’t they have been banned too under this uniform no nonsense approach, or have the league simply gone for the nuclear option first with Ilkeston?

Regarding the FA Cup match due to be played, with many questioning what will happen. I see no reason why it cannot go ahead. The NPL do not have the power to stop Ilkeston playing football, but simply to stop them competing in their own competition, the Northern Premier League. As already touched on the FA have not imposed any sanction or ban themselves, so logically would allow Ilkeston into their competition, which would put more pressure on the NPL.

The most obvious thing to me however, is that the league have stopped a company trading. If this is all to do with Ilkeston owing money, what good is stopping them trading going to do? If they’d been allowed to play from the start of the season, they could have chipped away at, or paid off some debt(s).

On the other hand, the league may well have given them time, not seen any improvement and taken action. The league may well have been in constant dialogue for many months with the club to no avail. Unfortunately details have been scarce.

So, to summarise…

1) Why have the NPL taken action, and not the FA?

2) Is it right to have rivals deciding the fate of a club, with a vested interest?

3) Will Ilkeston be playing in the FA Cup, and if not, why not?

4) What good is stopping a business trading going to do, how will they then pay off debts?

5) Does the league not believe Ilkeston has a just cause for missed games, and why was this phrase cut out of the quoted rule?