|
Post by ontheup on Mar 9, 2014 9:00:30 GMT
So according to today's paper we are postponing the legal threat against the conference on the back of the latest announcement that the FA are set to re-write the laws on artificial pitches.
As we already knew the Ryman League will prevent us from playing in the play offs but Oliver believes there is still time for that to change.
He does however state we are backing off to see what happens next. If we have to wait a year then so be it.
I for one am quite relieved at this news and think it is the best way forward for our football club.
|
|
|
Post by daveu on Mar 9, 2014 17:11:58 GMT
So according to today's paper we are postponing the legal threat against the conference on the back of the latest announcement that the FA are set to re-write the laws on artificial pitches. As we already knew the Ryman League will prevent us from playing in the play offs but Oliver believes there is still time for that to change. He does however state we are backing off to see what happens next. If we have to wait a year then so be it. I for one am quite relieved at this news and think it is the best way forward for our football club. Not strictly accurate by Oliver there. It's FA rules that won't allow us in the playoffs, not the Ryman League. Can't remember the exact wording, but something like "any club in a playoff position and not eligible for promotion will be replaced by the next eligible team". I believe this applies to all leagues below the conference.
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Mar 9, 2014 17:37:28 GMT
Maidstone have "postponed" their legal threat.....there goes the lack of postponements argument then!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Mar 9, 2014 22:39:07 GMT
There is also an email from a Mr Philip Butler entitled "conference mustn't bow to 3G pressure" in which he goes on about certain clubs being bigger than the FA in certain cases, and are the conference going to allow clubs to dictate the rules?
He states that if Maidstone United land promotion then the league has two choices; either they stand firm or they wobble like jelly and go against the wishes of member clubs.
Perhaps Mr Bulter could enlighten us as to what the wishes of the member clubs are because listening to Bill Archer (darts chairman) live on television on Friday night it was interesting hearing him talk about the community club, with 3G pitch etc, all paid for by the council. Funny that he should vote against other clubs having the option of 3G and the same community club he is so proud of, even if those clubs are having to use their own money. Nothing to do with competition Mr Archer?
As for Maidstone being bigger than the FA, I wasn't aware we were asking for 3G to be allowed for us and nobody else, and at the same time I was totally oblivious to the fact we dictated the rules rather than FIFA and UEFA.
Sadly common sense and the law don't always see eye to eye but it would be good if the anti-3G brigade could offer a half decent argument, because this "wishes of the member clubs" stance is not stacking up when one of the individuals who voted against is promoting something he has just said "no" to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 9:52:08 GMT
At some point in the future 3G pitches will be allowed.
The only debate is how to get to that point from here.
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Mar 10, 2014 10:57:13 GMT
At some point in the future 3G pitches will be allowed. The only debate is how to get to that point from here. The irony being the Conference and it's members probably agree 3G pitches will be allowed in the future. Does make me laugh though when you hear the "cause's injuries" arguments and then you have both Rugby League and Rugby Union players playing on it live on Sky in front of more than a couple of thousand people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 12:14:29 GMT
At some point in the future 3G pitches will be allowed. The only debate is how to get to that point from here. The thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a 3g ban, right? And, in the future, there won't, right? So, there must be a moment when there being a 3g ban on goes away, right? And there being a not being a 3g ban on comes along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs?
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Mar 10, 2014 12:18:00 GMT
Again, as I have previously highlighted, the 'injury' argument cannot just be dismissed - the findings of several major research studies are indicating that whilst the overall incidence of injury is no different on grass or 3G, the 3G surface does have a higher incidence of certain types of injury.You may recall that the NFL are engaging with shoe manufacturers in an effort to resolve this issue.
The rugby argument must also be approached with caution.I can't comment on Union - I'm a League follower.The Vikings (Widnes) case is unusual - for them 3G was a given as the ground they play at is owned by the local Council, not the club, and they wanted an all purpose, community pitch.There is still much discontent within Super League about it - however, concerns about the pitch were more than outweighed by the desire to get the Vikings back into Super League.So there was an overarching imperative which made the pitch issue secondary - unfortunately for us, the pitch is the primary issue for the Conference.... I agree the "injury argument" can't just be dismissed but it's very difficult to validate it when the research is done in comparison to near perfect grass pitches. In his recent interview Luke Rooney described the pitch as quite simply the worst pitch he has ever played on, yet there would be no question as to whether this grass pitch would be allowed in the conference. The weather is now providing a convenient excuse as to why there has been so many postponements and actually clouding the fact so many grass pitches at non league level simply aren't good enough.
|
|
|
Post by moley on Mar 10, 2014 12:46:22 GMT
At some point in the future 3G pitches will be allowed. The only debate is how to get to that point from here. The thing is: The way I see it, these days there's a 3g ban, right? And, in the future, there won't, right? So, there must be a moment when there being a 3g ban on goes away, right? And there being a not being a 3g ban on comes along. So, what I want to know is: How did we get from the one case of affairs to the other case of affairs? We need a cunning plan
|
|
|
Post by islandstone on Mar 10, 2014 13:07:29 GMT
Baldrick! You've got it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 17:04:37 GMT
why don't Maidstone simply bite the bullet and say that if they gain promotion this year (unlikely as this looks at present) then they will agree to abide by the Conference rules. If this means installing a grass pitch in time for next season then so be it. I think that finishing in a play-off position this year but not being allowed to participate would have a detrimental impact on the club and could affect attendances and players next season as the same scenario could be repeated. As far as I am concerned promotion has to be the over-riding aim for the club otherwise it won't move forward. I expect there will be many disageements with this view but I think it's the best of a number of less than ideal options as it's difficult to see the Conference changing their rules by the time the play-offs come around in a few weeks time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 17:19:31 GMT
And where does the £2m+ to pay off the remainder of the cost of building the ground come from if we rip up the business plan?
|
|
|
Post by mikeking on Mar 10, 2014 17:21:14 GMT
There is ni way Maidstone will take up a 400k pitch which still has another 8 years use in it before it needs re laying. Plus the loss of revenue would impact on the running if the club. 3G is the way forward and we are taking the lead in bringing this to fruition. Something we should all be proud of.
|
|
|
Post by steveh21 on Mar 10, 2014 17:23:44 GMT
It's all a bit of a mess really isn't it?!?! Although the club can only do what it can. Ripping up the grass is not an option so it has to be a case of wait and see or the courts. As Binsey says it does leave the season rather flat which is a shame.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 17:30:16 GMT
And where does the £2m+ to pay off the remainder of the cost of building the ground come from if we rip up the business plan? Was it not £2m+ when the ground was finished? I also seem to recall them saying we were budgeting on crowds of 800ish. Surely that figures gone down by now what with how much 3g brings in (according to the clubs own presentations & figures) and crowds generally double than planned for? I'd also question the logic of signing £8.5k players if we were still owing a hefty wedge on the ground.
|
|