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

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2014 10:14:36 GMT nws said:

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.

Your serious posts are seriously good.

[Deleted]

This is very bad news. The PFA , the Welsh team have all but destroyed our hopes. We need
to continue this fight as it takes a long while to change the conservative views that dominate in the upper echelons of our game. Look it has taken 40 years for drink driving &
smoking in public places to be frowned upon. This battle could last decades. Fight the good fight.

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2014 11:26:09 GMT sennockian69 said:

Nov 7, 2014 10:14:36 GMT nws said:

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.

Your serious posts are seriously good.

High praise indeed. the reality is that I may seem like an argumentative old so and so but I believe in education, education, education (as Tony Blair famously said before imposing loads of costs on everyone) and a reasoned approach. There are some persuasive people at the top of Maidstone United who can make headway on the subject, in time. It depends whether there is pressure from other quarters and screaming for success now! The true supporters will wait (some of them have been waiting a very long time already). It just depends on whether there are enough true supporters around. Only time will tell on that one. It may be that the Conference will allow it if Maidstone United get there this season, especially given the size of the attendances. If not then it gets interesting in, possibly, a not very good way.

[Deleted]

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.

Odd comment. On what grounds would we sue them?

[Deleted]

So basically nothing has changed since the Conference voted 'NO' back in January.So what was that statement of intention all about back in late July?.Why was it reported when the conference could have just kept quiet and said nothing?..Why did it specially mention the 2015/16 season in particular?.One thing for certain don't expect any further statements from the Conference to well into the new year.

[Deleted]

Chippy, to be fair to Dave U, without any sort of legal knowledge you could perhaps be forgiven for thinking legal action would be possible if the Conference Board stated 100% that artificial surfaces would be allowed next season, and then they did a complete U-turn and said "actually, sorry, we've changed our minds" especially if some teams, based on that statement, has started to prepare the way to lay a pitch, and modelled their business around it. With the weight of the 3G Alliance behind them, any Conference teams (or teams in lower leagues with a genuine chance of promotion) in that position might have a case.

However, it would appear the Conference don't have to legally stick to their statement of intent so that's that. Either they will, or they won't - time will tell.

Southwick 1, I believe at the time, the Conference Board had most likely been persuaded by the FA that leagues 1 & 2 would probably approve artificial pitches this winter; such would have put the Conference in an impossible position since, if they had dug their heels in and still said 'no', teams with artificial surfaces wouldn't be able to go up or down into their league. If that happened then I think even the Conference clubs would have to concede defeat on the grounds of practicality. As this hasn't happened, everyone is understandably nervous that the Conference board will see this as an opportunity to do another U-turn.

I think they should release a statement about where they stand sooner rather than later. If they do not, it is very unfair on any Conference sides already planning to install a 3G / 4G pitch, because they won't know if they are coming or going.

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2014 13:54:12 GMT @jayser100 said:

Chippy, to be fair to Dave U, without any sort of legal knowledge you could perhaps be forgiven for thinking legal action would be possible if the Conference Board stated 100% that artificial surfaces would be allowed next season, and then they did a complete U-turn and said "actually, sorry, we've changed our minds" especially if some teams, based on that statement, has started to prepare the way to lay a pitch, and modelled their business around it. With the weight of the 3G Alliance behind them, any Conference teams (or teams in lower leagues with a genuine chance of promotion) in that position might have a case.

However, it would appear the Conference don't have to legally stick to their statement of intent so that's that. Either they will, or they won't - time will tell.

Southwick 1, I believe at the time, the Conference Board had most likely been persuaded by the FA that leagues 1 & 2 would probably approve artificial pitches this winter; such would have put the Conference in an impossible position since, if they had dug their heels in and still said 'no', teams with artificial surfaces wouldn't be able to go up or down into their league. If that happened then I think even the Conference clubs would have to concede defeat on the grounds of practicality. As this hasn't happened, everyone is understandably nervous that the Conference board will see this as an opportunity to do another U-turn.

I think they should release a statement about where they stand sooner rather than later. If they do not, it is very unfair on any Conference sides already planning to install a 3G / 4G pitch, because they won't know if they are coming or going.

This is correct, it could be a case of equitable estoppel (although I don't think it is), but only claimable by teams who expended money in reliance on the Conference statement, not by us as we had already gone down that road without waiting for Conference approval.

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2014 14:53:38 GMT headstone said:

Nov 7, 2014 13:54:12 GMT @jayser100 said:

Chippy, to be fair to Dave U, without any sort of legal knowledge you could perhaps be forgiven for thinking legal action would be possible if the Conference Board stated 100% that artificial surfaces would be allowed next season, and then they did a complete U-turn and said "actually, sorry, we've changed our minds" especially if some teams, based on that statement, has started to prepare the way to lay a pitch, and modelled their business around it. With the weight of the 3G Alliance behind them, any Conference teams (or teams in lower leagues with a genuine chance of promotion) in that position might have a case.

However, it would appear the Conference don't have to legally stick to their statement of intent so that's that. Either they will, or they won't - time will tell.

Southwick 1, I believe at the time, the Conference Board had most likely been persuaded by the FA that leagues 1 & 2 would probably approve artificial pitches this winter; such would have put the Conference in an impossible position since, if they had dug their heels in and still said 'no', teams with artificial surfaces wouldn't be able to go up or down into their league. If that happened then I think even the Conference clubs would have to concede defeat on the grounds of practicality. As this hasn't happened, everyone is understandably nervous that the Conference board will see this as an opportunity to do another U-turn.

I think they should release a statement about where they stand sooner rather than later. If they do not, it is very unfair on any Conference sides already planning to install a 3G / 4G pitch, because they won't know if they are coming or going.

This is correct, it could be a case of equitable estoppel (although I don't think it is), but only claimable by teams who expended money in reliance on the Conference statement, not by us as we had already gone down that road without waiting for Conference approval.

In addition to this, Headstone, I believe only proprietary estoppel is actionable and proprietary estoppel can only be brought if there is a pre-existing relationship between the parties. As Maidstone united is not in the Conference I suspect this would be another thing that would rule out such an action. Is that correct?

[Deleted]

Don't ask me, nws, I was busking it before!

[harryhaddock]

This thread has become very depressing. Please all refer to Oliver's blog on the vote for a more positive viewpoint from a man really in the know. As Oliver says let's not let this distract from the fun of the weekend. The worst just might not happen!

[Deleted]

Oliver's blog was pretty much what I thought ( and posted ) before I got shot down in flames by Calais.

[harryhaddock]

Nov 7, 2014 18:56:34 GMT daveu said:

Oliver's blog was pretty much what I thought ( and posted ) before I got shot down in flames by Calais.

I think our two men with links to France (Oliver and Calais) are the epitome of glass half full and empty on this subject. I'll put my faith in the man who owns the club.

If a year ago we'd said the Conference would have made a clear statement of intent to allow 3G in 2015/16, the FA would have cleared 3G for use in all FA competitions and the Football League was 1 vote away from allowing its use in League 1&2 we'd have been delighted. Ultimately the direction of travel is clearly in our favour and the question with regards 3G is a when not if discussion.

Unfortunately some seem to only want to contribute at considerable length in relation to this topic. It is marked that the same level of contribution isn't made in relation to the reason we're all on this forum...the actual football. Anyway it is a forum so each to their own, but personally I'm a fan of positivity rather than negativity.

[Deleted]

Nov 7, 2014 19:20:47 GMT harryhaddock said:

Nov 7, 2014 18:56:34 GMT daveu said:

Oliver's blog was pretty much what I thought ( and posted ) before I got shot down in flames by Calais.

I think our two men with links to France (Oliver and Calais) are the epitome of glass half full and empty on this subject. I'll put my faith in the man who owns the club.

If a year ago we'd said the Conference would have made a clear statement of intent to allow 3G in 2015/16, the FA would have cleared 3G for use in all FA competitions and the Football League was 1 vote away from allowing its use in League 1&2 we'd have been delighted. Ultimately the direction of travel is clearly in our favour and the question with regards 3G is a when not if discussion.

Unfortunately some seem to only want to contribute at considerable length in relation to this topic. It is marked that the same level of contribution isn't made in relation to the reason we're all on this forum...the actual football. Anyway it is a forum so each to their own, but personally I'm a fan of positivity rather than negativity.

Priceless, Harry, priceless...such naivety

[Deleted]

Having now read Oliver's blog post, my preference is for that view over Calais'. I'm not saying that Calais' version doesn't make sense, but ultimately all that really matters from our narrow point of view is whether or not the Conference will accept 3G pitches from the 2015/16 season.

So what it comes down to is Calais' view that they might withdraw their provisional approval in light of the League's failure to approve 3G, versus Oliver's view that the Conference have taken a critical step forward and aren't likely to back-track on it (especially as the FL was only one vote away from approving 3G).

Calais might still be right, but my gut feeling is that Oliver's optimism is not misplaced.

Let's hope I'm right!

[Deleted]

The reality is that nobody knows.

However, remember the optimism of Woodcut Farm? Gulp! I'd cross everything you have.