|
Post by butlerisalegend on Jun 6, 2014 17:49:50 GMT
Football league to allow 3G from 2015-2016 Come on conference you are next!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 18:12:10 GMT
The example has now been set and I can't see how the conference can deny it now.
Now for the conspiracy theorists that we intentionally didn't go up this year to save the conference any awkwardness and embarrassment on the understanding they'd allow it for next year.
I have a suspicion that ontheup may have a word or two to say on the subject
|
|
|
Post by butlerisalegend on Jun 6, 2014 18:24:06 GMT
Ha ha! I was thinking the exact same thing. yep conference will have to follow suit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 18:26:17 GMT
They have to. What if a side has 3g in League 2 and gets relegated?!
"Sorry, you can't be relegated because your pitch isn't eligible for our league"
|
|
|
Post by Tstone on Jun 6, 2014 18:35:13 GMT
But then what happens when a league 2 side with 3G tops the league or gets to the play offs?
|
|
|
Post by butlerisalegend on Jun 6, 2014 18:37:31 GMT
But then what happens when a league 2 side with 3G tops the league or gets to the play offs? They will be ok as it is to be allowed in league 1 too!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 18:42:42 GMT
Softly softly catchee monkey.
|
|
|
Post by chappers on Jun 6, 2014 18:48:53 GMT
It has not been rubber stamped yet
|
|
|
Post by russc on Jun 7, 2014 8:15:09 GMT
Football league to allow 3G from 2015-2016 Come on conference you are next!!! What's your source on that? I can't find anything beyond a request for further analysis by the Football League ready for a discussion later in the year
|
|
|
Post by butlerisalegend on Jun 7, 2014 9:55:36 GMT
Ok let me rephrase. It has been agreed in principle for league 1 and league 2. Yes I guess they can change minds. Oliver has wagered 5 houses on conference now allowing clubs with 3G to be promoted. Sounds pretty promising. Tide is turning.
|
|
|
Post by preciousstone on Jun 7, 2014 10:41:24 GMT
It has not been rubber stamped yet By all means be cautious and don't crack open the champagne yet. Having said that this is another mAssive change in 3G thinking: thanks Greg Dyke! I can't see Conf can stop the 3G juggernaut now
|
|
|
Post by tooloow on Jun 7, 2014 19:59:56 GMT
Tweet from the conference in relation to todays AGM....
"FOOTBALL CONFERENCE @conferencefooty
Members receiving 'independent' presentations on the subject of grass and synthetic surfaces. Board earlier received update on F/League view"
|
|
|
Post by headstone on Jun 9, 2014 18:14:20 GMT
If we are talking about Articles of Association, it suggests the Football League is a limited company (I can't be arsed to investigate, though). If so, they are a public document available from Companies House, probably via its website.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2014 22:15:34 GMT
It'll be allowed if we get promoted next season, f**king hell.
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Jun 10, 2014 12:12:57 GMT
Whilst mulling over the 3G debate I've been reading the debacle that is the "Conference" over the last week or so and in particular the "will they wont they get the money" saga surrounding the likes of Hereford,Salisbury, Macclesfield etc.
When the 3G vote went against us all you could hear is "rules are rules", "they knew the rules" etc etc, so why aren't these rules being applied in this instance? I have a degree of sympathy for these clubs and in particular Hereford who were forced to spend £300k on ground improvements rather than waste money they didn't have on bringing in players, although they clearly spent money they didn't have. It was the same last season with Farnborough (sorry Ant) and will probably be the same next season. The conference seem to have little regard for the other clubs this seems to impact and so the claim of "protecting" it's member clubs seems laughable, and the likes of Hayes,Chester, Tonbridge are trying to prepare for the new season not knowing what league they will be in (and yet they're the ones who have abided by the rules)
The 3G vote in truth was pathetic, and of course any club who wouldn't benefit from saying "yes" would by default vote "no". Yet, the FIFA approved playing surface is not a risk to member clubs the way "clubs finances" are proving to be, if you take the other end of the scale, what causes more damage to football in this country, 3G pitches or rich "sugar daddy's" coming in and splashing their cash?
And this comes right from the top, not just your Ebbsfleets, Eastleigh's, Margate's etc......look at Chelsea, Man City et al.
I have no issue with wealthy individuals coming in and "saving clubs" but are they for the good of football in this country? What chance of local talent making it into the Margate 1st team?
If the conference had a vote "should "sugar daddy" chairman be allowed in the conference?"" I reckon we know the clubs who would vote "yes"......but in truth, their is nothing to stop it.
A business model which makes a club sustainable, brings local talent through it's ranks, has a FIFA approved pitch that is proven to enhance technical ability is rejected?
Whether 3G gets approved by the conference or not remains to be seen, but the vote against has simply invited the FA to question the integrity of the conference and decide whether they should be in control of the top tier of non league football in this country.
They have no sponsor, they have clubs in financial trouble, they have clubs resigning from them to save themselves, they have clubs being relegated because they stick within their means, and yet they are giving more time to the clubs who don't play by the rules.
|
|