|
Post by durkiboy on Apr 27, 2017 12:48:27 GMT
So, Poole Town won't be in the play-offs, would have been interesting to see what would have happened if they had won the league.....
bbc.in/2q84sC3
|
|
|
Post by back4more on Apr 27, 2017 13:23:18 GMT
Once again the National League makes a mockery of its own competition. What are these clubs supposed to be playing for? How can any small club get bigger if they don't have the chance of gaining promotion and the bigger support that brings (as we ourselves have seen)? Poole have shown their credentials and intent by finding the funding to bring their ground up to National South level this season and should be given the chance to try to reach the next step. The whole situation stinks of something. Perhaps Poole Town's owners don't have the right connections.
|
|
|
Post by willk on Apr 27, 2017 13:59:07 GMT
Pathetic decision. Ground shouldn't matter on a teams playing performance and aspirations to play at a higher level. As I've said before I couldn't care less about the facilities at a ground. I've found Brentford, Portsmouth, Turf Moor and Fulham far more interesting experiences than the plastic corporate world of modern day stadia. At least Coventry, Rotherham and Sundererland all have nice grounds eh...
|
|
|
Post by hantslondoner on Apr 27, 2017 14:02:00 GMT
The rules seem quite simple - 500 seats have to be in place by the inspection on 31 March, plus a whole list of other criteria. None of the teams mentioned in the article met all the criteria. I know there have been cases before e.g. North Ferriby where the rules have seemed to have been interpreted otherwise - hence the appeal. No point in having them in the playoffs if they weren't going to meet the promotion criteria.
Poole were struggling to raise the cash to make the improvements anyway.
Some (including myself) might say this is a harsh rule, and that some teams can't make the investment in the facilties until they know if they're going to make the playoffs. Some might even say they should be given until 31 March the following season to make the changes (when they might have some more money as a result of their promotion), or else they will be demoted (which happens in some leagues).
I gather the rule is going to be reviewed.
|
|
|
Post by michaelefc on Apr 27, 2017 14:12:51 GMT
The rules are all stated before the season begins, everybody knows them. How can it be right for a club which had made all the improvements, to be denied promotion, because another team didn't follow league rules and spent the money on players instead? I am all for the leagues and their insistence on proper grounds to play football in. The National league is effectively a professional league, with some clubs charging £20 or so for entry. These grounds need to be safe, comfortable and provide all necessary facilities for everyone to watch the game (including disabled people and anyone with any impairment). Okay some of you people are quite happy to watch football in a run down ground - fine do so, there are plenty of clubs with very basic facilities, go watch football there, but if you want to watch games in our league, we will expect, and we will get, an appropriate ground to watch it from.
Watching Eastleigh in our rapidly improving stadium has become a much more pleasurable experience. Long may it continue.
|
|
|
Post by willk on Apr 27, 2017 15:35:03 GMT
Your opinion. As stated I have always found away trips to 'squalid' old grounds such as Fratton Park, Turf Moor, Craven Cottage and Griffin Park far more entertaining, relaxing and pleasurable than to sanitised modern grounds with rule books as long as your arm. The atmosphere is undoubtedly better. It all depends what you mean by pleasurable I guess, if sitting in a wake of a ground where young fans and drummers/trumpeters are told to move on is your kind of things then you really need to be munching on the prawn sandwiches in the hospitality boxes or watching croquet/indoor bowls. I lot of people like 'real' football teams, 'real' football grounds supported by 'real' fans.
|
|
|
Post by nobadspitfire on Apr 27, 2017 17:29:52 GMT
Willk, the thread is not about league grounds, all of which you mention have modern facilities. However, at least 3 of those clubs have or are looking to move or substantially improve their stadia.
At non-league level, all clubs should be looking to improve their facilities steadily in the long term as a mark of respect to its supporters. The provision of seating, cover, terraced standing, food and drink outlets and very importantly pleasant toilet facilities is essential for any club in the NL and to my mind the league is right to insist on clubs conforming to certain standards.
|
|
|
Post by spitfires123 on Apr 27, 2017 17:34:00 GMT
Unfortunately rules are rules!! It's sad to see this. Wealdstone also failed the grade along with Hungerford. It looks like it could be Hampton and Richmond for that last spot.
|
|
|
Post by back4more on Apr 27, 2017 18:11:51 GMT
Willk is right on this one in my opinion - in essence. The league grounds might not be strictly comparable but the point being made (I think) is that football can be at least as enjoyable with inferior stadium facilities and sometimes more so. 500 seats under cover? How does that improve your supporting experience? I would apply the following requirements for eligibility to participate in National League North and South play offs.
1. Compliance with reasonable "due diligence" requirements. 2. A business plan which provides for development of suitable spectator facilities within the first season in the National League 3. Decent pies, if not already covered in point 2.
Given the success Poole had in funding the NL South improvements, even though as pointed out by others this was difficult, I'd say this was proof of their ability to achieve difficult targets.
So many initiatives are lost based on red tape and bureaucracy. Don't let the motivation and aspiration of these progressive clubs be stifled by vested interests and dodgy networks.
|
|
|
Post by tenacres on Apr 27, 2017 18:34:08 GMT
The thing is to be in the national league you have to have the capacity to deal with 1000 away fans (as we did within weeks of going up). Could Poole do this?
As far as I can gather their ground is comparable to Winchester City & not massively better than our ground was pre 2004 in the old Wessex league days.
Is this really suitable for hosting national league games & professional teams on a regular basis? I would suggest not. In fact I think its probably a testament to the leniency of the Conference South grading that they have been allowed to compete in the conference South (of course credit also to Poole for doing the considerable amount of work to do this).
If their ground is deemed OK for national league, where is the line drawn? Is rope around the pitch & some hard standing deemed OK?!
At the risk of praising the Conference (controversial I know!) I think they have it about right. In the 2013-2014 season with a capacity of 3,000, no terracing & a little over 500 seats our ground was deemed good enough for Conference entry level - presumably it was not much better. For our first few months in the conference after the installing on the "Exeter terrace" we were allowed to compete with a reduced capacity of 2,700.
|
|
|
Post by back4more on Apr 27, 2017 18:43:55 GMT
I understand your impeccable logic Rendel but I really want to see some imagination in these seemingly arbitrary decisions. In the Poole Town captive area afc Bournemouth is totally sold out. Poole are the next best thing for anyone in that conurbation who wants to watch senior football at a professional level. If they got to the National League there would be a host of sponsors flocking to support Poole and a big support guaranteed. They have far more potential than some of the current National League clubs. As I have said the little clubs just don't get an even break.
|
|
|
Post by RapidDecline on Apr 27, 2017 19:54:48 GMT
I understand your impeccable logic Rendel but I really want to see some imagination in these seemingly arbitrary decisions. In the Poole Town captive area afc Bournemouth is totally sold out. Poole are the next best thing for anyone in that conurbation who wants to watch senior football at a professional level. If they got to the National League there would be a host of sponsors flocking to support Poole and a big support guaranteed. They have far more potential than some of the current National League clubs. As I have said the little clubs just don't get an even break. I agree about the big club / little club mentally that applies to Football authorities. You only need to ask our opponents this Saturday & how they got treated after the rules 'changed' what seemed like overnight some 13 / 14 years ago - it wasn't a "phase in after say 2 or 3 years" - if I remember, it was a change the following season - and for clubs that were struggling to make ends meet, it would be impossible for them to turn it around in 12 months. With all the money at the top of the game, it just seems mad, that the clubs at the other end of the scale don't see any or very little big brother support.
|
|
|
Post by willk on Apr 27, 2017 21:43:12 GMT
These "better" facilities of course mean vastly increased ticket prices normally. I wonder what the lifelong fan who stood on the stretford end , north bank, the kop, shed end, kippex etc for years and years thinks of the " improved" facilities now in those grounds? Oh that will be nothing, he hasn't been able to go in the last 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by willk on Apr 28, 2017 6:12:03 GMT
It also amazes me that the craving for better "facilities" now seems to be some peoples reason for going to football. The primary reason we go is surely the football not the opportunity to guzzle beer, stuff hot dogs down your mouth have a bet or watch sky sports-all things I can do at home. Only thing bothering me would be what's my view like and how much was my ticket.
|
|
|
Post by michaelefc on Apr 28, 2017 6:53:34 GMT
The primary reason we go is surely the football not the opportunity to guzzle beer, stuff hot dogs down your mouth have a bet or watch sky sports-all things I can do at home.
Just look at how many people are watching the game at the start of the second half! That tells you that many peoples primary purpose is not necessarily to watch the football. It is, however not for us to judge other peoples reasons for attending games.
I am not asking for arbitrary deadlines to impose huge requirements to improve grounds, and I think there is an argument to give teams until the April of the season after they have got promoted to get the work done. The fact is a nice ground with pleasant facilities, will encourage people to attend games who wouldn't otherwise do so. My girlfriend Chris has now started to attend games at EFC, her grandson has attended a couple of games, my daughter has been, and I am certain that with the new facilities on offer, I can bring others next season. We might not like it but times change and football has to change with it. I am all for tradition, but in 2017 we have to meet certain standards, and that isn't going to change; nor should it.
|
|