|
|
Post by gaggy75 on Jan 29, 2014 18:23:24 GMT
One question. What reasoning was it behind only giving conf south and north 4 votes each only whereas the prem got 24. Now the make up of probably a quarter maybe more of the prem are clubs that have been relegated from the football leagues over the years, so the structure they have in place is reasonably adequate to a certain degree. Teams in the south and north i would guess are probably not financially as well off,thus struggle when games are continually postponed. Southern and northern league teams all given a vote in my eyes would have changed the voting result in 3Gs favour so why was 4 a piece only given?  |
|
|
|
Post by Raymondo316 on Jan 29, 2014 18:32:05 GMT
Absolute farce!! Its good enough for International, Champions League, Scottish Leagues & other Euro leagues but not the Conference
This vote was always gonna go against us....the teams wernt voting for the good of the game they were looking out for them self
Teams like Dover & Ebbsfleet will be against it!! Maidstone in the Conference would lead to more competition in signing players, challenge in promotion & the worry of us actually over taking them
|
|
|
|
Post by moonboots on Jan 30, 2014 13:54:00 GMT
will we ever know what way each club voted |
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Jan 30, 2014 14:31:05 GMT
Following paragraph courtesy of the Havant & Waterlooville forum.
Just got home from the Conference EGM at Telford today when as another person said the vote was lost 21-11. What was most interesting was despite the vast amount of verbiage put out on this subject, the proposal was made by Sutton and seconded by Dorchester. However, neither club was prepared to speak in favour of their own motion. This was completely tinpot and totally gobsmacked me!
So it was no surprise that the motion was heavily defeated. They only have themselves to blame.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitmanhearn* on Jan 30, 2014 14:36:33 GMT
my understanding is that the clubs in conference national are trying to get into the football league where 3 g pitches aren't allow , so why would they vote in favour of something that has no benefit to them , on behalf of a club that aren't even in the conference south
dorchester don't have the money to put one in , and sutton don't have the finances or support to warrant having one as part of some new million pound stadium development
if we'd had a dry few weeks , you'd have had less than 11 votes , if you can't get it through when the weather is like this , how do you expect to get it through , honestly ?? just a humble observation
|
|
|
|
Post by Sennockian69 on Jan 30, 2014 15:04:01 GMT
my understanding is that the clubs in conference national are trying to get into the football league where 3 g pitches aren't allow , so why would they vote in favour of something that has no benefit to them , on behalf of a club that aren't even in the conference south dorchester don't have the money to put one in , and sutton don't have the finances or support to warrant having one as part of some new million pound stadium development if we'd had a dry few weeks , you'd have had less than 11 votes , if you can't get it through when the weather is like this , how do you expect to get it through , honestly ?? just a humble observation |
|
|
|
Post by gaggy75 on Jan 31, 2014 16:12:40 GMT
One question. What reasoning was it behind only giving conf south and north 4 votes each only whereas the prem got 24. Now the make up of probably a quarter maybe more of the prem are clubs that have been relegated from the football leagues over the years, so the structure they have in place is reasonably adequate to a certain degree. Teams in the south and north i would guess are probably not financially as well off,thus struggle when games are continually postponed. Southern and northern league teams all given a vote in my eyes would have changed the voting result in 3Gs favour so why was 4 a piece only given? Can anyone shed any light on this? |
|
|
|
Post by headstone on Jan 31, 2014 16:44:29 GMT
All too predictable I'm afraid. This was all about vested interests and had nothing whatever to do with real objections or the good of the game. Ah yes, hell hath no fury like that of a vested interest under attack!  |
|
|
|
Post by signalstone on Jan 31, 2014 16:57:00 GMT
my understanding is that the clubs in conference national are trying to get into the football league where 3 g pitches aren't allow , so why would they vote in favour of something that has no benefit to them , on behalf of a club that aren't even in the conference south dorchester don't have the money to put one in , and sutton don't have the finances or support to warrant having one as part of some new million pound stadium development if we'd had a dry few weeks , you'd have had less than 11 votes , if you can't get it through when the weather is like this , how do you expect to get it through , honestly ?? just a humble observation I think in a round about way that it might be in Conference national clubs interests to encourage as many 3g pitches as possible. If, for example, two clubs are in a dog fight for the title and promotion to the football league and one of those clubs has a 3g pitch. As the league don't accept 3g the club with the grass surface would be likely to be promoted and not have to win the Conference title. So in conclusion if they encourage more clubs to use 3g they would have more of a chance to be promoted. |
|
|
|
Post by ontheup on Jan 31, 2014 23:50:35 GMT
More scratching around for excuses tonight and I quote:
"For me it's never been about the surface, but you can't allow just 1 summer for us to research, apply and prepare"
Perhaps if you'd taken a look at your fans forum you would have noticed your fans hurling "plastic" abuse at us for the last 18 months, so to insinuate the vote rightly went against us because we haven't given you enough time is laughable.
Our owners did the research, our owners applied, our owners prepared, own owners raised the funds and you know what our owners took the gamble. In all that time our owners have been proving what a tremendous decision it was you have focused on the abuse, and now you're accusing us of not giving clubs time to catch up.
Now clubs are realising the positive impact of 3G they're accusing us of not sharing the knowledge !
|
|
