|
Post by ontheup on Mar 13, 2014 20:10:17 GMT
Do the rules make specific reference to "3G"?
Also the rules regarding the ground, does this include the playing surface? Sounds silly but the way they are written seems to refer to the ground in relation to health and safety and the requirement to accommodate additional supporters?
Final question, you're not on the board at the conference are you?
|
|
|
Post by preciousstone on Mar 13, 2014 20:34:59 GMT
Hello OTU and Precious.
I return to my previous point - would you disregard a vote which has just been taken (so no ' that was ages ago' argument...) and which expressed overwhelming resistance to 3G by the very league which would be most affected? The Conference Rules do not allow for the introduction of 3G without a vote - on the contrary, Rule 2.3.3 clearly states 'a Club’s Ground must comply with the Criteria Document for the step in the National Leagues System at which the Club is playing'. The current criteria for all levels above Step 7 is that a League shall only obtain FA approval, for the introduction of 3G, following a majority vote in favour by the Members of that league.Rule 4.2 states that 'the Board shall have power to apply, act upon and enforce these Rules' - not power to completely disregard them and proceed without a vote (I can see nothing in Section 4 of the Conference Rules - 'Powers of the Board' - which would allow the Board to disregard a vote by the Members).Rule 20 - 'No alteration to the Rules shall be made until they have been approved by The FA' - whose rules currently require a majority vote.The only way to progress this, without an immediate Conference vote, is for the FA to remove the requirement for a vote at Step 6.That wouldn't in itself resolve things - it would place no obligation on the Conference to change its rules but, as I have already pointed out, it would put the Conference into a very awkward position.
I appreciate your frustration. Precious, but I think you just have to accept that the Conference have outplayed us on this.They've made it virtually impossible for the FA to change policy without appearing to ride roughshod over the clearly stated position of a league (doing that would certainly ring alarm bells at the Football League, who would no doubt defend the Conference's position - if it's the Conference today, it could be us tomorrow...) You think that it is coincidence that just as the FA were considering their policy towards 3G, and when they had no obligation to accept a Motion on 3G, they did so - one which even its proponents didn't speak in support of? The Conference Board knew that they had the vote 'in-the-bag', and just how useful that vote would be in keeping the adoption of 3G at bay.The Conference didn't need 3G 'brought to their attention' - they had clearly seen it, and us, coming.
OTU - interesting comment, as usual. Everyone is clearly playing 'hot-potato' with this - a strong 'supportive ' lead means 'we're not going to change our policy, and upset the Senior Leagues, but we'd really, really like you to get this through, somehow...' Meanwhile the Conference are saying 'we'd really quite like to do this, but you need to change your policy beacuse we're not going against an overwhelming vote rejecting 3G by our Members....' Each side would appear to be wanting change, as long as it's the other that it is seen to back down As I said, Catch-22.The 'steer from higher authority' is clearly code for 'if you remove the 'vote' requirement, then we'll take it in Step 6, but make it clear that it's only because of your policy change, not because we want it'.
I think the misconception about the powers of the Conference Board is from a misinterpretation of Rule 24 - yes, the Board have to approve it BUT only in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 i.e once there is a majority in favour, the Board still have to 'rubber-stamp' the decision (a vote, in itself, is not enough).
Understand what you're saying just don't agree! Conf rules do say ConfBoard can decide to allow 3G. End of story. Of course vote makes that awkward. But FA can argue vote was flawed. After all 30 Confclubs voted for. Surely something like this is possible given revolution in FA thinkung? I believe it is. something will be going on there behind the scenes. The club seem hopeful of compromise so am I. Let's see what happens...
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Mar 13, 2014 22:20:42 GMT
No problem with that Calais, and to me all your doing is highlighting the reasons why we should tread very carefully when it comes to the legalities of the situation. But it also proves how dated the rules are and how ridiculous this situation is.
And what price those rules have just been transposed from the Premier league rule book?
Personally, right now I think the conference as an entity is in turmoil and the vote has been used to gain some credibility and was never really about the playing surface. It seemed odd their main sponsor should pull out in the aftermath of the vote (although I have been assured it is totally unconnected) Especially when the sponsorship manager is also very vocal in his anti 3G stance.
Again, although I have been assured there is no link, I wonder how any prospective sponsors would view legal threats, lack of forward thinking,clubs dropping out because they can't afford maintain their conference north status, and at the same time refusing a club who have the 10th highest support in non league football because of the playing surface that Barcelona could play areal Madrid on. Not to mention the use of words like "blackmail" when a small club in Kent is pushing for common sense.
As a sponsor I imagine you would also want maximum exposure for your company, which is a bit difficult when games are being postponed left, right and centre.......
|
|
|
Post by preciousstone on Mar 14, 2014 10:30:57 GMT
Hello Precious and OTU
"No problems with your disagreement, Precious - although I'd appreciate it if you could advise which part of the Conference Rules you believe allows the Board to override the vote, and how you arrive at 30 clubs voting in favour?" don't want to be nitpicky but this is Rule 24 =" Competition matches shall NOT be played on any synthetic or artificial grass surfaces without the prior written approval of the Board." That's a rule isn't it? Don't see any mention that this rule has to be voted on after all it's a rule already, no?
As for 30 clubs didn't the club say that? It was a guess at 7 votes from Prmier clubs, and 4 from S and N, ie roughly half clubs in S and N, ie 22; 22+9 = (nearly!) 30. Never good at maths...
So hopefully FA pressure rather than Stones pressure will let conf find some way to approve 3G for S and N and not lose face or break rule. Hope I'm not wrong!
|
|