Non League Matters - The Continuation of Tonys english Football Site 



  Main Index MAIN
INDEX
Search Posts SEARCH
POSTS
Who's Online WHO'S
ONLINE
Log in LOG
IN

Home: Non-League Football Discussion: Restructuring Discussion:
Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


VP
Man City Transfer Target!


Jan 11, 2009, 9:05 PM

Posts: 10242
Location:
Team(s):

Post #51 of 66 (4214 views)
Shortcut
Re: [RRYFS] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Not sure that necessarily applies in the Isthmian though.


According to the maps on Tony's pages, last season Merstham had to travel 569 miles in the Combined Counties. This season in the Isthmian it's 615.
They do happen to be nicely placed in the middle of Isthmian 1S territory though.


Veteran
Man City Transfer Target!

Jan 12, 2009, 1:41 PM

Posts: 6228
Location:
Team(s):

Post #52 of 66 (4072 views)
Shortcut
Re: [acmold] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or


In Reply To
Interesting both Chalfont St Peter and Chalfont Wasps have applied, if both did get promoted whats the better one would be allocated to the Isthmian League and one to the Southern League, even to the Midland Division !.



Maybe someone at the FA might notice that Chalfont Wasps were promoted in the Hellenic completely against Pyramid guidelines only by virtue of arranging a brand new groundshare ?


Sarumio
Man City Transfer Target!

Jan 12, 2009, 2:22 PM

Posts: 6308
Location: Ilminster
Team(s): Salisbury

Post #53 of 66 (4055 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Veteran] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
Interesting both Chalfont St Peter and Chalfont Wasps have applied, if both did get promoted whats the better one would be allocated to the Isthmian League and one to the Southern League, even to the Midland Division !.



Maybe someone at the FA might notice that Chalfont Wasps were promoted in the Hellenic completely against Pyramid guidelines only by virtue of arranging a brand new groundshare ?


Im sorry I have to mention their evil name, but didnt Team Bath kinda do the same thing?


Richard Rundle
Man City Transfer Target!

Jan 12, 2009, 4:32 PM

Posts: 8469
Location:
Team(s):

Post #54 of 66 (3999 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sarumio] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Im sorry I have to mention their evil name, but didnt Team Bath kinda do the same thing?


No, they earned promotion at the University, and then moved into Twerton Park mid (early?) season.

--
Richard


Licensed Crank
Ballboy/girl

Jan 13, 2009, 3:35 PM

Posts: 8
Location: Northamptonshire
Team(s): Steeple Sinderby Wanderers

Post #55 of 66 (3815 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Veteran] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

Maybe someone at the FA might notice that Chalfont Wasps were promoted in the Hellenic completely against Pyramid guidelines only by virtue of arranging a brand new groundshare ?


Id be very grateful if someone could point me to the exact wording of this guideline.
It would be even better if someone could show me the FAs rationale for this guideline.


rainworthgord
First Team Star

Jan 13, 2009, 5:32 PM

Posts: 2112
Location:
Team(s):

Post #56 of 66 (3782 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Licensed Crank] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

This seems to have changed. Having just checked the FA website I found that the rule of ground sharing is: 'Ground sharing is permitted in accordance with the provisions of individual league rules and regulations'.

Previously the rule was that arranging a ground share in order to gain promotion was not allowed. Effectively you had to have been in the ground share for a season before you could be promoted. Nothing there about that now as far as I can see.


dave
First Team Star

Jan 13, 2009, 6:23 PM

Posts: 2352
Location:
Team(s): AFC Wimbledon

Post #57 of 66 (3764 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainworthgord] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

But isn't ANY groundshare thats done for ground grading reasons done to get promotion? Even if that never happens!


Veteran
Man City Transfer Target!

Jan 13, 2009, 6:26 PM

Posts: 6228
Location:
Team(s):

Post #58 of 66 (3760 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Licensed Crank] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or


In Reply To

In Reply To

Maybe someone at the FA might notice that Chalfont Wasps were promoted in the Hellenic completely against Pyramid guidelines only by virtue of arranging a brand new groundshare ?


Id be very grateful if someone could point me to the exact wording of this guideline.
It would be even better if someone could show me the FAs rationale for this guideline.



I'm not sure if this is/was the FA's rationale but if Club A spends all its money on its team and then gains promotion by organising a ground share is that fair on team B who have spent money on their OWN ground to reach the relevant grading standard but then missed out on the field ?

If the FA have now "watered down" the previous guidleine - SHAME on them MadMadMadMadMadMad They should have been enforcing it !


Richard Rundle
Man City Transfer Target!

Jan 13, 2009, 7:46 PM

Posts: 8469
Location:
Team(s):

Post #59 of 66 (3721 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Veteran] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
I'm not sure if this is/was the FA's rationale but if Club A spends all its money on its team and then gains promotion by organising a ground share is that fair on team B who have spent money on their OWN ground to reach the relevant grading standard but then missed out on the field ?

If the FA have now "watered down" the previous guidleine - SHAME on them.
They should have been enforcing it !


I don't say this very ofter, but sorry Veteran I don't agree. Why for instance would Chalfont St Peter need a separate ground than Chalfont Wasps. A ground share makes far more sense if it can be agreed amicably. Same goes for the likes of Bath City and Team Bath, or any number of similar combinations. I'm very much an advocate of sensible ground sharing, particularly in these troubled financial times.

It probably won't be too much of an "advantage" either, as the costs of renting the other teams ground and the fact that the sharer will have no bar income etc. will mean their costs will rise in the long run.

--
Richard


Veteran
Man City Transfer Target!

Jan 13, 2009, 11:01 PM

Posts: 6228
Location:
Team(s):

Post #60 of 66 (3674 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Richard Rundle] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or

I am not totally against ground sharing per se and I do agree it can make sense in certain locations, and Chalfont may well be a good example, and there are justifiable cases where clubs have sold their ground and are in the process of building a new one, or get flooded or locked out. But I still don't think clubs should be allowed to arrange a ground share just in order to gain promotion or avoid relegation, and several current ground shares are clearly based on that - to spot some of them just look at clubs not even playing in their own locality. The ultimate farce is when a club arranges a groundshare to play in a higher league, meanwhile renting out its own ground to another club, and then going back when relegated ! The "one year" requirement was in my opinion a very good way of testing whether the ground share was a "genuine" one or just a "marriage of convenience", very few of which have lasted long term in any case.


dave
First Team Star

Jan 13, 2009, 11:41 PM

Posts: 2352
Location:
Team(s): AFC Wimbledon

Post #61 of 66 (3650 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Veteran] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

And if the FA have ground grading criteria like they are at the moment, clubs will continue to get round it, and you can't blame clubs for doing that.


TB&G
Youth Team Regular

Jan 14, 2009, 11:01 AM

Posts: 235
Location: Outskirts of Romford Town
Team(s): Romford FC

Post #62 of 66 (3579 views)
Shortcut
Re: [dave] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Romford had their ground sharing at Aveley forced on them this season due to losing their Fords Rush Green ground which has been sold to West Ham United.


AndyE
First Team Star

Jan 14, 2009, 12:11 PM

Posts: 2386
Location: Rochester
Team(s): Chatham Town

Post #63 of 66 (3553 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TB&G] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

While that is absolutely right, Rush Green wasn't Romford's "own" ground either - clubs called Romford FC have been essentially nomadic since leaving Brooklands in the 70s. I suppose the nearest they've been to having a ground to call their "own" was Sungate (formerly Collier Row FC). Couldn't the club have tried a bit harder to get that ground up to scratch rather than leaving mid season and going wandering again?

I went there once, back when it was Collier Row who played there. IIRC, some of the seats in the stand were cinema seats.


TB&G
Youth Team Regular

Jan 14, 2009, 1:29 PM

Posts: 235
Location: Outskirts of Romford Town
Team(s): Romford FC

Post #64 of 66 (3506 views)
Shortcut
Re: [AndyE] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
While that is absolutely right, Rush Green wasn't Romford's "own" ground either - clubs called Romford FC have been essentially nomadic since leaving Brooklands in the 70s. I suppose the nearest they've been to having a ground to call their "own" was Sungate (formerly Collier Row FC). Couldn't the club have tried a bit harder to get that ground up to scratch rather than leaving mid season and going wandering again?

I went there once, back when it was Collier Row who played there. IIRC, some of the seats in the stand were cinema seats.



We couldn't apply for promotion at Rush Green because Fords would only give us a 'year on year' lease.

As for Sungate there was always (and still is to this time) a great deal of confusion as to who actually owned the ground when we were playing there. Us supporters could only believe what we were told by our owner at the time and this factor in turn, I suspect, had an effect in regard to updating the facilities .


(This post was edited by TB&G on Jan 14, 2009, 3:14 PM)


rainworthgord
First Team Star

Jan 14, 2009, 2:21 PM

Posts: 2112
Location:
Team(s):

Post #65 of 66 (3478 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TB&G] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

The other point is that if it is down to individual league' requirements we are back to a postcode lottery instead of a standard and equitable system for all.


AndyE
First Team Star

Jan 14, 2009, 11:49 PM

Posts: 2386
Location: Rochester
Team(s): Chatham Town

Post #66 of 66 (3324 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainworthgord] Confirmed Step 5 to Step 4 applicants [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

That's very true, and for sure not all of the leagues interpret ground grading rules and so on in quite the same way.

But those leagues which have the stricter rules aren't going to relax them. Partly because they don't want to, and partly because if they did they'd then get sued by clubs who lost out under the previous stricter interpretations. So the only way to even them up is to apply the FA regulations to the letter - and that would leave Steps 4 and 5 with some very small leagues indeed.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All
 
 


free hit counters

Search for (options) HOSTED BY SUMMIT SOCCER v.1.2.3