Doswell moaning again!!!

[Deleted]

Paul Doswell really does want to have his cake and eat it. Once again he is spouting off about how unfair The Football League are to ban 3G pitches in their competition.
"We know the rules, rules however are there to be challenged. We accept we signed something in the summer but we had to..we signed under duress"
Ahhh bless him, he goes on to say "It's a moral issue we've now got at this football club" And he wants an earlier decision from the EFL regarding them voting on 3G in June.
Sutton have also enlisted a top sports barrister, of what to do if they need to.
No barrister, no matter how good he/she is can find a legal loophole regarding the rule on 3G pitches in the EFL. Until their members vote to allow them, it remains illegal in their competition and thats that.
Sutton are NOT going to dig up their 3G, instead they plan to lay a grass pitch, using protective cover on top of the 3G ready to use again when it is voted in....note their word there....when, not if!!! How arrogant it that.
They moan it will cost them £500k they haven't got to replace the 3G, a problem also for Bromley and Maidstone in the future should the EFL continue to reject such pitches.
The question is I suppose, how much of a probability is it that the members of the ELF would reject 3G?
My thinking is this, there is certainly a logic as far as the 3G being used by the community and an extra revenue stream, I entirely get that 100%, but...there's always a but isn't there!!!
Cast your mind back to the recent teams from the ELF that have fallen through the trapdoor into the National League and the massive parachute payments they are getting. Now this shows just what kind of money is available even at League Two, plus Football Grants to improve stadia, including pitches. The majority of games nowadays are called off at the lower level purely when a pitch is waterlogged because of poor drainage, however that particular problem is gradually being resolved and I think most clubs would prefer to vote to remain using grass pitches, the money is there for such projects. I would bet that if 3G were allowed back as they once were, it would only be a few years before they reversed their decision due to seeing an unfair advantage, for one thing I don't ever see the Premier League accepting 3G, (Premier do not vote on this matter) I would imagine therefore 24 teams in the Championship will vote against 3G and at least half in League One who possibly can reach the Premier League, just think in the last 20 years teams in League One now playing Premier League, Brighton, Huddersfield, Swansea, Burnley, Watford, Leicester, Bournemouth, Southampton, and Manchester City... Almost 50%.
That last stat would be a clincher for member clubs to consider rejection of 3G. I think there has to be a complete level playing field, (excuse that pun!!) either all go 3G or an all grass competition in order to be fair and equal. For me, Sutton, Bromley, Maidstone and others have backed the wrong horse. I think they are extremely fortunate to be able to play 3G at this level.

[upthespitfires]

Really does take the biscuit. They knew the rules so no idea how he was ‘under duress’ when signing the agreement!

[taylov]

When the FL clubs vote NO, I assume Sutton's barista will be taking their case to the Supreme Court and following that to the European Court of Human Rights. At up to £500 a HOUR !!! I can't see their cup run money lasting too long.

[Deleted]

Feb 15, 2018 10:15:41 GMT taylov said:

When the FL clubs vote NO, I assume Sutton's barista will be taking their case to the Supreme Court and following that to the European Court of Human Rights. At up to £500 a HOUR !!! I can't see their cup run money lasting too long.

Only £500 an hour!!!! I saw one in London way back in 2008 for 75 minutes and he charged £2,650...I would think it might be £3.5k now. I can also tell you that in 2015 I saw a young slip of a girl who had just qualified at law, gave me advice over 1 hour and charged me £482 in little old Eastleigh!!!! Sutton are crazy to resort to using a barrister the money they cost. British law is only there for the rich nowadays...us ordinary folks can't afford justice!! ........... not the end of the world though eh.

[seatonspitfire]

That's a lot of coffee....

[Deleted]

Feb 15, 2018 10:56:49 GMT seatonspitfire said:

That's a lot of coffee....

Except I drink tea Mike!!

[upthespitfires]

Feb 15, 2018 10:15:41 GMT taylov said:

When the FL clubs vote NO, I assume Sutton's barista will be taking their case to the Supreme Court and following that to the European Court of Human Rights. At up to £500 a HOUR !!! I can't see their cup run money lasting too long.

I’m sure their legal bills could end up costing almost as much as replacing the pitch..... (ok slight exaggeration but just stating a point 😉)

[tenacres]

Its an interesting one.

Think it was always likely that Sutton/Doswell would try and push L2 to accept 3G next season should the situation arise (ie Sutton getting promoted). The legal challenge is probably just hot air, what grounds would they have? Restraint of trade?!

So I doubt the legal challenge itself would work, but the threat of it hanging over the FL might just work into allowing Sutton special dispensation for next season - clubs have a a little bit of time after promotion to bring their ground up to FL standard, could the FA shoe horn 3G into that somehow? Lets face it, they will be hoping Sutton do not get promoted!

As I've said before I am not particularly pro or anti 3G but I do think it is a question of when not if it is allowed in the football league.

[Deleted]

The vote involves all 72 member clubs Rendel NOT just L2 which is why it could well be rejected. As I mentioned on the initial thread, I doubt if it will ever be allowed at Premier League level and 9 clubs who have played L1 in the last twenty years are now playing Premier League.

Rather than debate 3G at their AGM they should be trying to get another 28 members in order to create a L3 from clubs in the National, National North and South. The main reason they won't of course is the matter of money, why would 72 clubs want their share split with another 28? It continues as always to be about self interest rather than the good of the game.

If they are not going to create a L3 then they should be made to agree that three teams are promoted to the EFL each season from the National, two automatically and one via play-offs. I don't see why they should have the right to have self interest BOTH times and stutter the growth of football clubs from reaching higher levels. The pyramid system is a fantastic set up but it has a blockade as we all know from National to L2 status.

And talking of legal challenges what I think would be a very good idea is for the FA, National Board, and the 68 member clubs of the National to notify the EFL that if they continue to block three up and three down from L2 and the National they would be faced with a legal challenge of restraint of trade.

[michaelefc]

Yes spiritofeastleigh I agree with you 100%.

[taylov]

I totally disagree with the idea of 3 up/down between the National League and FL2. At present the relegated clubs receive parachute payments - currently £400,000 in the first year and £200,000 in the second. There have been discussions that these payments should be greatly increased in future and the experience of LOFC and HUFC will not be lost on clubs in the lower half of League 2. If this happens it will massively distort the already un-level playing field that is the National League.

[unknownquantity]

It is I think interesting to note that Paul Doswell instigated most of the changes at the club that under his management enabled us to move from the Wessex League to the Conference South as a result of three successive promotions. If we had remained a Wessex League club I wonder how many of the current supporters would be following the club>

I think that Paul may be looking for legal anomalies, trying to explore all options and trying to do his best for his club.

People might have different views as to whether all matches shall be played on grass, but one advantage of Sutton's stance is the relatively few postponements which as we know this season can be costly, and by hiring it out they are both raising money and engaging the local community which is something that many clubs wish to do.

As regards the third promotion place I do not think that many leagues below the National League offer more than two promotion places and this season is the first season for many years there has not been a single representative in the 1st round proper of the F A Cup. However I think that a lot of people in non-league would like to see it introduced.

[tenacres]

I think you mean 3rd round unknown quantity?

I'm in favour of a 3rd promotion spot. I think clubs going up from the national league have often done well in the football league and so a 3rd place is warranted. Though in fairness if Eastleigh were struggling in L2 my opinion may change.

I think Dale Vince and FGR have been vocal in calling for 3 up, 3 down in seasons gone past, wonder if thats changed this season? :0)

[Deleted]

Its not that I don't think Doswell has the right to do his best for his club Malcolm, its the fact they knew what the situation was as regards 3G rules but went ahead with it anyway and are constantly moaning its not fair. Just what did he expect? They complain they don't have the £500k to relay grass and would probably require a bank loan, so despite knowing the present rules its a mess of their own making, they jumped the gun. If they vote to allow 3G in, they can count themselves extremely lucky it went the right way. As a business risk it's a very foolish one which may still backfire on them.

[Deleted]

Feb 16, 2018 12:19:38 GMT taylov said:

I totally disagree with the idea of 3 up/down between the National League and FL2. At present the relegated clubs receive parachute payments - currently £400,000 in the first year and £200,000 in the second. There have been discussions that these payments should be greatly increased in future and the experience of LOFC and HUFC will not be lost on clubs in the lower half of League 2. If this happens it will massively distort the already un-level playing field that is the National League.

I don't see the issue Tony about the parachute payments, if this had been say ten years ago I'd have agreed with you absolutely, but in reality the parachute payments does not distort the National League, the money for Hartlepool and Orient merely help them survive at the moment as neither are financially sound businesses, whereas Macclesfield, Tranmere, Aldershot, Wrexham, Flyde, Ebbsfleet, Dagenham, Eastleigh, Gateshead and Maidstone are. I'm not quite sure what has gone wrong at Forest Green this season, but that apart, all the teams I've mentioned will more than hold their own in L2 and they deserve to play in the football league. I don't think the parachute payments particularly bother clubs in our league, there are currently 6 former league clubs in the bottom 8 while the top four at the moment are also ex-football league, and those clubs are not receiving parachute payments any more.

Those parachute payments are a side issue to the bigger picture of the blockade of three up/three down and the self interest of clubs who vote for themselves. It is a scandal in this day and age that they are stopping progressive clubs, and indeed their own former members from getting back, which has 13 in our league and 6 in the National North, none in the South. We might even see 3 former league clubs relegated this season the way things are panning out.

I don't see the parachute payments ever ending, at this level you have to help clubs out........but I entirely agree Tony as regards those payments from the Premier League to the Championship does have a massive advantage in trying to get back up.....it just doesn't happen at our level to be an advantage on all the evidence, how many clubs have made it back at the first attempt? I know Cheltenham the other season were the first to return immediately as Champions, but overall first attempt back is probably only 2 or 3 clubs since the league format was changed to allow automatic promotion to the football league, followed by play offs for another spot.

There I think lies the answer to your disagreement Tony, but its a fair and valid point you make, its just that the proof of your disagreement is not there. I do concede though that the member clubs will see the experiences of both Hartlepool and Orient as a reminder to vote for themselves on whether a 3rd club is relegated each season.