We are NOT amused down at the Lane !!!!!!!

[syd_lexic]

I do personally feel that Cockfosters & Holmer Green have been hard done by. We all know what the regulations are nowadays, but I know of clubs playing in the ESL at Step 5 that do not have covered seating for 200 people, & one club not a million miles from me, basically looks a carbon copy of Cockfosters ground !

The Kentish Town/Copthall situation does open another can of worms though & they can count themselves very fortunate to still be in the prem.

[HTFCew]

For grade F (step 5) only 100 covered seats are required.

[yam yam]

Originally Posted By: syd_lexic

The Kentish Town/Copthall situation does open another can of worms though & they can count themselves very fortunate to still be in the prem.

Why?

[Rhodes]

Originally Posted By: digby

I find it incredible that the League have swallowed the F.A dictat that Kentish Town will be allowed to continue to play at Copthall Stadium, claiming it as their

[lesbos]

two things we have learnt in the last few weeks-the SSML doesnt know its ar se from its elbow and rhodes has lost all credibility.

the pair of them are so out of their depth its embarassing.

[Loose]

Originally Posted By: richard193

two things we have learnt in the last few weeks-the SSML doesnt know its ar se from its elbow and rhodes has lost all credibility.
the pair of them are so out of their depth its embarassing.

Surely the SSML aren't all bad?

[yam yam]

Originally Posted By: Rhodes

Originally Posted By: digby

I find it incredible that the League have swallowed the F.A dictat that Kentish Town will be allowed to continue to play at Copthall Stadium, claiming it as their

[Spidermanor]

Originally Posted By: loosely

Originally Posted By: richard193

two things we have learnt in the last few weeks-the SSML doesnt know its ar se from its elbow and rhodes has lost all credibility.
the pair of them are so out of their depth its embarassing.

Surely the SSML aren't all bad?

Of course they're not all bad, after all they kicked the purple helmets into touch didn't they?

[Loose]

Originally Posted By: Spidermanor

Originally Posted By: loosely

Originally Posted By: richard193

two things we have learnt in the last few weeks-the SSML doesnt know its ar se from its elbow and rhodes has lost all credibility.
the pair of them are so out of their depth its embarassing.

Surely the SSML aren't all bad?

Of course they're not all bad, after all they kicked the purple helmets into touch didn't they?

Did they? Still haven't heard from them. That tells you how efficiently and responsibly they take their obligations.

Southill Alexander (the Purple Bishops) will be playing in the Beds County Football League. We couldn't be more pleased and we couldn't be more impressed with the professionalism of their communication thanks

[yam yam]

Originally Posted By: Spidermanor

Surely the SSML aren't all bad?

Of course they're not all bad, after all they kicked the purple helmets into touch didn't they?




what are 'purple helmets'?
was it a dress code for the committee?

[PeterPan1]

So does welwyn gc have the requirements now for this league as before there name was being thrown into this ring of not having enough sheltered seats.... and with regards to kentish town with all the money they were payin to use someones pitch last season if the same happens this year theyll be able to have built there own place surely!! any one no why kings langley were booted down to div 2 as well thought they had put flood lights up according to others posts else where? between div 1 and the prem what difference in fixtures do they hold? they both play in the vase, they both play in the fa cup and both playin under the same fecking league come on old men with your maroonie red ties sort it out!!

[lesbos]

i see that the SSML got over

[Rhodes]

Originally Posted By: Spidermanor

Of course they're not all bad, after all they kicked the purple helmets into touch didn't they?

Spidermanor - That's the first of your 592 posts on here that I have agreed with.

[onekeown]

All can say on the matter from the outside looking in. Broxbourne's two games v Cockfosters were in stark contrast. The first under Craigy, Cockfosters put 11 players behind the ball and played very little football and looked clueless, with only the two strikers looking like they had something about them.. The second game under Neil Ewing we saw them come at us for most of the game and with a young and promising team, which given another season together would have been easy mid table in 2010.

 

Its a shame that a club with no covered stand, but with a secretary, management team and chairman who do things right, loses out to a club with a shocking pitch, its stand miles from the pitch, that also tried to cheat by playing players that were ineligible numerous times, seems madness to me...

 

Originally Posted By: Reds76

I think the lesson to learn here is don't rely on other people/institutions to save your skin, do something about it yourself - and in good time. Yes, the rules stink, no one is disputing that, but as Wader pointed out, they have existed in the public domain for some time.

 

Cockfosters' anger is understandable, not least because all the hard work David Craig and his players put in finally getting the club promoted after 10 years of stagnation in div 1 has been undone overnight.

 

Colin Bell speaks passionately about Cockfosters' plight but I would question whether everyone at the club shares his level of disappointment at being relegated. And I think therein lies the problem with the club in general. Anyone who knows anything about the place will know what I'm getting at.

 

Bottom line is they're going to find it extremely difficult to get out of that division but, with the best will in the world, with what the club has to offer both in terms of playing/management resources and 'off-field' support it's probably where they belong.

[HTFCew]

Originally Posted By: richard193

i notice from their accounts that over

[Jonno]

Might as well add my two penneth!!

 

I feel sorry for Cockfosters as I would consider their ground far more suitable for football in the prem than that of Kentish Town and I think kentish Town have been "getting away with murder" over a number of issues for two seasons now.

 

I also agree that the FA have got their priorities wrong by forcing clubs to accomodate crowds that they just wont get, thus putting a huge financial burden on clubs. Being involved with Hoddesdon Town, I am well aware of the requirements and know how much time, effort and money, we as a club have put in to ensure our ground is up to scratch, should we find ourselves in a promotable position.

 

Which brings me to my next point.....

 

I also agree with Waders comments. We all knew the rules and the implications thereof, should we pass or fail with regards to ground grading. Therefore, as a club who have put all the required measures in place and jumped through more hoops than a bleedin performin seal for the FA and The SSMFL, it really gets ones goat when you see clubs like Kentish Town, Welwyn Garden City, Hatfield, Kings Langley, Hertford, St Mags and Haringey, all being allowed to play football at various levels when, at various times, their grounds have not ticked all the boxes outlined by the FA and the SSMFL.

 

This isnt a new thing folks. Ground requirements have been part of the conditions of entry to the SSMFL for almost as long as they have been ignored by the very people who are supposed to enforce them.

 

Ive said it before and I'll say it again. The SSMFL have been proudly making it up as they go along for a very long time now.

 

I applaud Mr Bell at Cockfosters for speaking out and whilst I do not agree with ALL of his comments, kudos to him for actually grabbing his balls and trying to do something about it.

 

My own Chairman, Roger Merton, is ridiculed by many on this forum, and in the wider footballing community for his annual pleas at the AGM for the SSMFL to actually abide by their own rulings. But such is the fear of being cast aside by the Burns, Owens, Mitchells, Rolts, Gilmores, and Ewens of this world, most clubs sit in silence and refuse to speak up against the blatant double standards employed by aforementioned "boys club".

 

I appreciate the hard work that the officers of the SSMFL put in to running the league but how they forget about their member clubs and the officers who work just as hard to run them.

 

Without us, the once proud and history strewn SSMFL will become a barren wasteland, overtaken by Johnny Come Lately's like Southill Alexander, willing to sell their souls to anyone who will take them (good job on turning them down by the way, Ill give credit where its due!)

 

having said all that, I think there is still a twist to come over all of this and the landscape will change again after Saturday night! Watch this space!!!

[Wader]

Let's try and clear up some smog drifting over this thread.

 

1) 100 covered SEATS is required for the grading (not 200 as claimed). They claim their gates have increased and they are now 4th best attended in the division, yet amazingly don't believe this points the way forward to providing reasonable facilities for those fans? Anyone who knows Cockfosters knows that they should never have been allowed promotion to the Premier in the first place without assurances that their 1 years grace in getting works finished would be met. That failed and so did the year after.

 

2) The FA, NOT The SSML create and now police the grading requirements. So to blame the league for this fiasco of Cockfosters own making (with a little help from their planning department) is scandalous if not libelous and they should think more clearly before making such allegations. They clearly do not know how the structure works and to blame their own league is totally naive. I'm sure the SSML have been fully supportive of Cockfosters, but the rules ARE the rules until someone makes new ones.

 

3) The Cockfosters rant is two fingers up at all the clubs who do make the grading requirements (like Langford for example), through hard work, fundraising and the decency of following the rules they signed up for.

 

4) Let's be perfectly honest here about the setup at Cockfosters. If there were 45 supporters in the ground and it started to pour with rain, 8 would get soaked if they all wanted to see the match. The 'Main Stand' is farcical and I'm amazed the local authority passed it fit for health and safety purposes. There is no 'hard' ground fencing with huge gaps in hedges, no Boardroom, unless you count the potential to curtain off a bit of the clubhouse, no directors box seats, no proper tunnel protection, a poor pitch, nowhere to park a car (the cricket club sometimes is available, mainly it seems not with players and officials having to ditch their transport a stiff walk away from the ground) and a whole host of other minor matters.

 

5) If by any chance Cockfosters found themselves staying in the Premier (as they seem to think they should) and winning the title, they could never go up to Step 4 with their current facilities under any circumstances whatsoever. Would they then claim that they should be allowed up? Or would again they make promises that they cannot keep? - surely by accepting promotion you are in effect promising to make good the grading by next March 31st? At what point in the pyramid would they think justice had been done in a refusal to allow them admittance with their current facilities - Conference National? The Championship? Champions League?

 

5) Perhaps the grading requirements do seem tough for some. But if they do not start their incremental steps at some level there will be a huge Beechers Brook of requirements building up somewhere in the pyramid structure. That would not be fair and cause a false wall to most clubs promotion aspirations. Dumbing down is not the way forward, capital project financing from restructured TV deals and FA income is a potential solution for Step 4, 5 & 6 clubs, and Cockfosters haranguing of their own league is purely a distraction from the nub of the matter.

 

6) The upshot and unbearable but glaring truth is that Cockfosters facility is currently Step 6. The sooner they admit that the better. I have no doubt they are all hard working, well meaning people who love their club. That is of course fantastic and laudable and in no way am I trying to demean that, but for pity's sake drop the pretence that your ground is good enough for Step 5. At the moment it simply isn't - and as 1 of the 8 in a crowd of 45 who weren't quick enough on their toes in the run for the apparantly adequate cover, I have the ruined trousers and shoes to prove it.

 

 

[Jonno]

Cant argue with any of the above Wader. Good points, well made.

 

Also bugged me that you cant walk all the way round Cockfosters pitch. Whatever happened to having to have a hard walkway all the way around the pitch, as well as perimeter fencing, mesh infill or otherwise?

[HTFCew]

Well said Wader - perhaps you should send that reply to all clubs and the committee?

 

Think I've visited the ground twice, and got wet twice.

[britman]

Originally Posted By: Jonno

Without us, the once proud and history strewn SSMFL will become a barren wasteland, overtaken by Johnny Come Lately's like Southill Alexander, willing to sell their souls to anyone who will take them (good job on turning them down by the way, Ill give credit where its due!)

Jonno,

What a sad statement. Too bad you feel that way.

I still think Cockfosters is hard done by. The SSMFL is run by an "old boys" club. And it will go stale with more of this happening.

I am not a supporter or either Cockfosters or Kentish Town, but if the FA deems it so, they should at least make KT move down as well.