Response to NPL Written Reasons on Stockton Town Fixture

Please note that the Written Reasons provided by the Northern Premier League and our formal email response to the Northern Premier League can be found at the bottom of this page

FC United Response to NPL Written Reasons on Stockton Town Fixture

On Tuesday, the Club agreed to release a joint statement with the Northern Premier League (‘the League’) regarding the enforced change of venue for our fixture against Stockton Town on Tuesday 21st April. Alongside this, we agreed with Mark Harris (the League Chair) that we would provide further detail to our co-owners, privately, as we are duty-bound to do as a fan-owned club.

As per our agreement with the League, we understood that this would be the only public comment on this matter. However, the League has now signalled their intent to publish Written Reasons for the decision, which were provided to the Club at 11.41am yesterday.

Unfortunately, we believe that these Written Reasons contain a number of material inaccuracies and outline clear governance failures that we must now publicly address.

Background

We were informed by the League that they had received an application from Stockton Town that our home postponed fixture against them be moved to their ground, which was subsequently amended, after the League informed them that this was not permitted under League Rules, to a request that it be moved to a centrally-located neutral venue. We received no notice from the League that this was under discussion until we received their original decision on Wednesday 1st April.

The previous fixture, on March 24th, was unfortunately postponed due to localised torrential rain after Stockton Town had already travelled to Manchester. We apologised to Stockton Town’s Directors and management team on the evening. Though the postponement was due to extreme weather, we did not challenge their application under Rule 8.40 for reimbursement of travel expenses and this has been paid to them.

Rearranged Fixture

We recognise that there have been a number of postponements this season, and it is unfortunate that almost all of them have impacted this particular fixture. We also accept the challenge created by the fact that the only available date is in the final week of the season.

There is no dispute that the League has the power under Rule 8.7.2 to move fixtures. However, Clubs have a legitimate expectation that this power be applied reasonably and with proper consideration for all of the facts. We do not believe that this has happened in this case.

Rule 8.7.2 states that; “The Board shall have the power to decide whether a ground is suitable for Competition matches and to order a Club whose ground is deemed unsuitable to play its home matches at an alternative suitable ground.”

In support of its decision, the League cites (without providing any supporting detail) a number of claimed precedents. However, to our knowledge, these claimed precedents all vary significantly from this case by virtue of the fact that they were situations where the League declared the ground unsuitable for the next fixture, and subsequent fixtures.

In this case, following the League’s decision on April 1st, we were scheduled to play home league fixtures against Hednesford Town (Easter Monday, April 6th) and Hyde United (Saturday April 18th). The League has not decreed Broadhurst Park unsuitable for these fixtures, and the Hednesford Town game went ahead on Monday with no pitch issues.

We are unable to understand how the League can declare Broadhurst Park suitable for our next two home fixtures, but then suddenly unsuitable for the Stockton Town fixture, almost three weeks in advance of the fixture.

In their Written Reasons, the League cite the previous postponements of this particular fixture and the impact on Stockton Town’s players. We do not seek to minimise that, and we sympathise with that point. However, we cannot see how it can be considered material to a decision made under Rule 8.7.2.

The Rule is concerned with, and only with, whether a ground is suitable to host fixtures. That is an objective determination; a ground is either suitable, or it is unsuitable, on the facts. Unless the concern relates to spectator accommodation, the identity of the opposition is immaterial to that decision.

Furthermore, it is not the case that the club has fallen significantly behind in hosting home fixtures at any point during the season. At the time of writing (9th April), we have just two home fixtures to fulfil; the same as 9 other clubs in the division.

The League further discussed the impact on ‘sporting integrity’. We cannot see how this decision supports that premise in any way. In the case involving Dunston in 2024, one of the precedents cited, the League makes a clear statement that home fixtures are seen to be an advantage. This position was supported by the decision of the Appeal Board;

“The Appeal Board considers that what was said was no more than that if something was not done about the continuing postponements, other members may perceive the Appellant to be at an advantage if its final season run in consisted of mainly home games, which was exacerbated by the Appellant being in a play-off position. In the Appeal Board’s view, that is a perfectly reasonable and logical observation.”

Therefore it is hard to see how sporting integrity is not impacted by the removal of a home fixture. That impact is not limited to FC United; other clubs competing for play-off positions have all had to visit Broadhurst Park already this season.

The Original Decision

The Club was informed of the original decision on the evening of April 1st. This came as a complete surprise to us, as the League had not made the Club aware that this decision was being considered. We find this particularly disappointing given that, by their own account, the League had been in dialogue with Stockton Town over the issue. To be clear, we place no blame on Stockton Town for that fact; they are not responsible for who the League chooses to speak, or not speak, to. However, the failure to engage with, and seek input from, the Club for whom the decision affected most raises serious concerns over the fairness of the League’s process.

Reconsideration of the Decision

Following the notification of the original decision, we sought to immediately engage with the League, to understand why the decision had been made and why they had failed to engage with the Club in that process. Following telephone conversations with the League Chair, we submitted information regarding work that had been carried out on the pitch, and stated that we were open to providing any information that would help the League make an informed decision on the fixture.

As part of that, the Club presented a proposal to the League for considerations;

- Broadhurst Park would be retained as the first-choice venue for the fixture

- The Club would secure (at its cost) a suitable back-up venue in Curzon Ashton

- A joint-decision, based on a pitch report, a referee inspection and detailed weather forecasts, would be made on Monday 20th April. If the League were not satisfied that the game would be able to go ahead, it would be moved to Curzon Ashton

Decision Confirmed

We were informed by the League that they had unanimously agreed to dismiss our proposal, and that the original decision would stand – however that they had accepted Curzon Ashton’s Tameside Stadium as a suitable venue, rather than a 3G surface.

In our view, the reasons given by the League for rejecting our proposal do not stand up to scrutiny. Their ultimate conclusion was that they “deemed it unfair to delay the decision where the game would be played until the week of the fixture”.

It is important to note that Curzon Ashton, as a Grade 2 stadium, provides equivalent facilities to those at Broadhurst Park, with a high-quality grass pitch. It is approximately 3 miles from Broadhurst Park, meaning an essentially identical travel time for Stockton Town. We do not believe there would be any detriment to Stockton Town if the fixture had to be moved.

It must also be noted that this is far from a hard-and-fast rule that the League applies. In the case of Trafford in March 2026, one of the precedents cited, the League permitted a Saturday home fixture to be moved (due, we understand, to a floodlight issue) to a neutral ground approximately 4 miles away on the Friday afternoon. They then permitted the fixture to be moved back to the original home ground on the morning of the match, including moving the kick-off time forward by one hour.

The League has also raised the fact that Broadhurst Park is due to host the Manchester Premier Cup final on April 15th, and asserts that this ‘had not been addressed by FCUM in correspondence’. In fact, this point was never raised by the League in our discussions, despite their now-apparent concern over it. We accept that the weather can still be poor in April, but statistically, the likelihood of weather that would lead to postponements is notably lower in April than earlier in the season. To be clear, we would not have confirmed the hosting of that fixture if we thought it would impact on our league programme at such an important juncture in the season.

We had serious misgivings over the decision, for many of the reasons already stated. However we, reluctantly, decided to not appeal the decision to the FA, following a conversation with the League Chair where we were advised that the prospect of success in such cases is extremely low.

Governance

Turning to governance, we note that the League cites their 2024 Governance Review. To our knowledge, this document has never been shared in full with member clubs, only extracts from it.

It is a general principle that in disciplinary hearings that directors who are aligned with clubs in the same division do not sit on the panel making the decision (so for a Step 3 club, it would be heard by a panel made up of directors representing Step 4 clubs and/or independent directors).

We believe the League are drawing a false dichotomy between ‘disciplinary cases’ and ‘operational matters’. The decision to remove a home fixture is, by definition, punitive to the club involved, and the League themselves recognise that sporting integrity is impacted by the balance of home and away fixtures.

In practice, it has hard to see how there is any difference between a ‘disciplinary cases’ and an ‘operational matter’ such as this. That the Step 3 club-aligned directors are from clubs who are not involved the play-off race is immaterial; they would not be permitted to take part in a disciplinary case, and the same should have applied in this case.

To be clear, we are not suggesting wrongdoing on the part of any individual, but the League must surely recognise that avoiding any perception of a conflict of interest is as important as avoiding an actual conflict of interest.

Other Considerations

Following the League’s decision, we wrote to the League asking for further clarification on a series of points related to the rejection of our proposal. These concerns have not been addressed privately. It is als important to note that whilst the League, in their Written Reasons, have presented these as verbatim questions put forward by the club, this is not how our correspondence was presented to them.

In the spirit of transparency, we are also publishing the email that was sent. We believe that this shows that certain points have not been addressed, whilst others have been oversimplified to the point of being misleading.

However, it is important that we now address the points by the League as written.

1) Why were FCUM not contacted for their thoughts after you received the complaint from Stockton? As part of the claim for travel received from Stockton, FCUM was asked for their observations surrounding the postponement. A response was received from the Club on 28/03. This information was considered by the League.

We consider this response to be both frivolous and misleading. The query we raised was why the League had not chosen to engage with us before making their original decision to move the fixture. The observations we were asked for related solely to the previous postponement and the question of travel expenses. At no point were we informed of the ongoing discussion with Stockton Town regarding moving the venue of the rearranged fixture (again, for the avoidance of doubt, this fault does not lie with Stockton Town).

2) Why was no consideration given to the commercial interests of FCUM? Consideration was given to this factor, but it was secondary to the necessity to have the game played on time to maintain the integrity of the whole League.

The only reference we made to this in our request for clarification was noting that as this was our home fixture, and that it had ‘significant financial and sporting implications’ for the Club, that we were disappointed that the League had not chosen to engage with us. The question as presented is misleading.

3) Do you feel it is appropriate that FCUM’s voice was not heard as part of your evidence gathering to reach your original decision? We had received the observations of FCUM on 2^nd April as part of an application to revisit the original decision. This correspondence of 02/04 provided much more detail and some photographic evidence, again this was circulated and duly considered by the directors.

The League’s response here attempts to completely sidestep the point of the question they themselves raise. We made the point to the League that we felt that it was unfair that we were not given the opportunity to provide input and observations before the League made their original decision. It is ridiculous for the League to try and absolve themselves of this by referring to observations that we were only able to provide after the original decision had been made – that being the first time that we had even been made aware that this was under consideration.

4) Do you not feel that there was clear conflict of interest in board members associated with Clubs in the same division being involved in the decision-making process around FCUM’s counter proposal? No. None of the Clubs the directors represent will be involved in the play offs. Furthermore, this was not a disciplinary hearing but an operational decision in accordance with rule 8.7.2. As with all League decisions, the Club were advised of the right of appeal to The Football Association. No appeal was lodged.

We have addressed this point previously in this response. We do not believe the League’s response here, or in previous sections, addresses the concerns raised. The League state that their primary concern is sporting integrity. Accordingly, we cannot see how this can simply be dismissed as an ‘operational matter’.

Summary

The fundamental issue is the decision-making process followed by the League.

We have been upfront throughout the season with the League over some of the pitch challenges the club has faced over the course of the season (something that is far from unique to us, as this news article demonstrates: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0d598r1x1o). Therefore we find it very odd that they chose not to engage with us at a time when it would have made more sense than any other to have those conversations. The Northern Premier League exists for the benefit of its member clubs, and we have always indicated our willingness to work collaboratively with the League to further that mission.

The proposal we submitted mitigated the risk of the April 21st fixture suffering a postponement as much as it is possible to do so. The fact that the League has accepted Curzon Ashton as a suitable alternative venue demonstrates this. The outcome, and the risk, is the same in both the solution we proposed and what the league have decreed; the match being played at Curzon Ashton. The only difference is that the League’s decision has taken away any opportunity for supporters to attend an important fixture in our home ground, for no appreciable benefit to anyone.

The League cannot simply dismiss concerns over governance by stating that there are no problems with governance.

Governance is not just about people; it is also about process.

In this case, it is hard to reach any conclusion other than that the process was fundamentally flawed.

Response to NPL Written Reasons on Stockton Town Fixture

FC United Response to NPL Written Reasons on Stockton Town Fixture

CONNECT WITH US

GET IN TOUCH