Put not thy faith in bunting......

[Deleted]

I think you're wrong about the conference. The conference board had already publicly stated that it will accept 3G in all three divisions, with no suggestion that there would be another vote. Furthermore, as had already been argued, there is nothing in the conference rules requiring such a vote. The previous vote was merely a delaying tactic.

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2014 23:28:37 GMT daveu said:

I think you're wrong about the conference. The conference board had already publicly stated that it will accept 3G in all three divisions, with no suggestion that there would be another vote. Furthermore, as had already been argued, there is nothing in the conference rules requiring such a vote. The previous vote was merely a delaying tactic.

In the meantime for all those clubs now playing on 3G or intending to do so shortly in non-league the main issue is 3G being allowed in Conference.

We will continue to provide assistance through 3G4US to clubs wishing to go down the 3G route and provide information to those seeking a greater understanding of all the positive features of 3G pitches and how they can help clubs build a sustainable business model.

www.maidstoneunited.co.uk/2014/11/football-league-vote-on-3g-pitches/

Doesnt seem like a sure thing like we were led to believe

[Deleted]

We'll if they go back on their promises now we just sue the hell out of them. The wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

[butlerisalegend]

I am becoming increasingly concerned about this.
The silence from the conference is deafening. And today's vote will certainly make it easier for the conference to make the same decision. Btw Calais the figure of 17 was given to me by Oliver.

[butlerisalegend]

Nov 6, 2014 23:34:50 GMT daveu said:

We'll if they go back on their promises now we just sue the hell out of them. The wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I don't see where the conference have promised anything?

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2014 23:40:19 GMT butlerisalegend said:

Nov 6, 2014 23:34:50 GMT daveu said:

We'll if they go back on their promises now we just sue the hell out of them. The wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I don't see where the conference have promised anything?

I think Dave means this www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28589474

The Conference havent said anything on the subject since that article

[Deleted]

Nov 6, 2014 23:50:43 GMT @calaisangleterre said:

Nov 6, 2014 23:28:37 GMT daveu said:

I think you're wrong about the conference. The conference board had already publicly stated that it will accept 3G in all three divisions, with no suggestion that there would be another vote. Furthermore, as had already been argued, there is nothing in the conference rules requiring such a vote. The previous vote was merely a delaying tactic.

Hello Dave - have you read my post???

Seriously, Calais, you do make me laugh

[frankinstone]

we will see when the 2015/16 rules of the conference league are published,,,in the meantime we have a match on Sunday in the FA cup,and come win or draw we have will the opportunity to play on our home surface ! so COYS

[Deleted]

Christ, Calais, this is depressing. I very much hope you are wrong (nothing personal).

[Deleted]

Its looking more likely the Conference havent changed there stance at all

No mention what so ever by the conference on the subject
No conference teams have come out and said they are installing a 3G pitch
The club are now saying 3G still needs to be allowed in the conference

everything is still up in the air

Football League saying NO has just given the conference a ''get out of jail free card''

[Deleted]

I argued at the start that Maidstone United needs to work by persuasion, persuasion, persuasion. 3G is used, quite successfully, in many other countries and it provides a good business model for clubs with lower gates and the need for addition income streams. These are the sorts of arguments that will, eventually, win the day. I don't think the 'we will sue you if you don't do what we want' attitude is the best way to win the football world over. You may think that some of the people voting against are doing it for selfish reasons. You may think some of the people voting against are archaic in their outlook. People are entitled to an opinion though. The key is to educate and slowly change that opinion through fact and reason. If finishing top or winning the play-offs puts Maidstone United in a position to go up then it may or may not happen. Whatever the outcome, the process that has started should not be aborted. I believe the additional income factor will, eventually, be the persuading point (it almost always boils down to money). I think that the PFA's stance against 3G was quite damaging, as these are the people or representatives of the people that actually play the game.

[Deleted]

Bunting still on hold. And getting creased.

[Deleted]

Look, everyone is talking about that old BBC article but the fact remains that the most important element is this statement from the Conference board, on their website at the time:


"Following recent dialogue with the F.A and Football League, the Football Conference’s Board intends to allow competition matches to be played on ATP’s in all three divisions from the start of the 2015/16 season. Such approval will only to be given where surfaces meet the standards of instillation and criterion for use, which are to be agreed by the respective authorities. Further statements will be made as and when the standards and criteria are agreed with all our football partners, ensuring a pragmatic and practical approach is made when considering applications for their use at Levels 1 & 2 of the National League System and associated Cup & Trophy competitions."

Now, I just looked up some legal stuff about this and what I found was interesting. A statement of intent, which the above effectively is, isn't legally binding - see here:

www.franciswilksandjones.co.uk/site/fwjsays/businessmoney/letter_of_intent.html

If you don't have the time or energy to read through that, the important bit is thus:

"LOIs [letters of intent] are similar to written contracts as they contain provisions that are binding, such as covenants to negotiate in good faith or non disclosure agreements. However, they are not usually binding on the parties in their entirety because they are expressed as subject to contract."

So, in other words, the Conference could now claim it isn't binding because it hasn't been written into their constitution, or indeed (crucially) agreed by the member clubs.

[Deleted]

Please read my last posting again as I have altered it to be more clear about the legal situation

[Deleted]

You have cut and pasted my original posting, not the revised one which says that legal action won't be an option as the Conference can go back on their word. To paste my original posting is now a misquote! Maybe you didn't refresh your browser and it came up with the same posting.