Ryman League.

[Smudge]

Could throw the C.C.L. into total disarray for season 10/11 if their proposed ban on groundsharing by their Member Clubs is imposed.Will Epsom and Ewell,Warlingham, be Homeless.Staines Lammas will be ok as the F.a. have moved Ashford Town (Middx) to Southern League which makes them safe.When will they make their Final decision on this matter,what input if any has the C.C.L. in these matters.

[NICE GUY]

Could throw the C.C.L. into total disarray for season 10/11 if their proposed ban on groundsharing by their Member Clubs is imposed.Will Epsom and Ewell,Warlingham, be Homeless.Staines Lammas will be ok as the F.a. have moved Ashford Town (Middx) to Southern League which makes them safe.When will they make their Final decision on this matter,what input if any has the C.C.L. in these matters.

 

QUE WHITELAW !

[lazarus]

All three Ryman clubs have appealed to the FA against the decision of the Ryman League, including Ashford, although in the case of Ashford and Staines Lammas, the ground share was accepted for next season anyway, due to the fact that it was originally approved in writing last August. As you surmise, the transfer to the Southern League has hopefully taken the problem away for the time being although the appeal will proceed if it is allowed to.

 

As far as I am aware (and I stand to be corrected) the ground share between Merstham and Epsom is not in peril, as Epsom do not have a ground of their own and that is the distinction drawn by the Ryman League.

 

There is not a great deal that the CCL can do at the moment other than to offer a statement of support to the clubs concerned if they ask us to do so. The only other practical method of assistance is to treat the matter as an "emergency" which would then allow the clubs affected some time beyond 31 May to finalise alternative ground share arrangements with clubs outside the Ryman League if they can and which they would be wise to attempt.

 

It all rather depends upon the outcome of the FA appeals.

 

I can confirm that there have been no official discussions as yet at Management Committee level concerning the constitutions for next season. It was only yesterday that it was confirmed that no club is being relegated into the CCL and everything stems from that, of course. It may be that the constitution will be delayed until all uncertainties have been resolved as, presumably, nobody wants to be told they are in one division and then find that the situation has changed.

Edited May 19, 2010 by whitelaw

[VPCTFC]

Could throw the C.C.L. into total disarray for season 10/11 if their proposed ban on groundsharing by their Member Clubs is imposed.Will Epsom and Ewell,Warlingham, be Homeless.Staines Lammas will be ok as the F.a. have moved Ashford Town (Middx) to Southern League which makes them safe.When will they make their Final decision on this matter,what input if any has the C.C.L. in these matters.

 

The Ryman League aren't banning groundsharing. They only have a problem with it when clubs already have grounds of their own. Lammas and Epsom apparantly have official Ryman league approval to play at other grounds.

There are far too many groundshares for the league to ban it completely. They're not going to chuck out the likes of Kingstonian.

 

It's all up in the air at the moment but I can't see this as a Ryman problem. If anything it's a CCL problem for allowing their clubs to play at other grounds when they have grounds of their own.

I'm sure it could be contested in a court as well. If club A want to hire their ground to club B but aren't allowed to do it then surely that's a restriction of trade. Before anyone says it's a rule of membership can I just say that, for instance, some golf clubs used to be able to ban women from being members. That's now been ruled illegal.

[Terrence Collina]

I think one of the problems the Isthmian league had is clubs groundsharing who have trouble getting their games in during the season, hence why Godalming/Badshot appears to be in jepordy.

[Krooner]

I am afraid you will be wrong there VP. The golf club is a form of discrimination and is against the law. Same with the BNP.

 

The Ryman League could say that you cannot have a groundshare to be a member of the league but it does not mean clubs cannot do it. They just have to find a different league to be members of.

 

Same as the rule coming in re number of home grown players in the Premiership.

[DT10]

Well I haven't been on here in a while and can't even remember my old log in but good to see some of the old faces still here and I see Krooner is still sitting on the fence with most posts! shame about PB going!!

[Krooner]

Is that the famous travelling footballer. No less than 2 clubs every month

[DT10]

Only two this season!! how are them burgers going down?

[Smudge]

Kroons is looking to play for a team next year D.T.10,any places in your side F.K.UTD.He fits the bill to a tee.

[Smudge]

Talking of which,was thinking of setting up a T.K.F.C. Team,with Brunty as skipper.Over 200 players to select from on this Forum alone.

[Terrence Collina]

Talking of which,was thinking of setting up a T.K.F.C. Team,with Brunty as skipper.Over 200 players to select from on this Forum alone.

 

Have you got the ground grading Smudge?

[Smudge]

No T.C. But the kit will be all GOLD,Once they have paid their £5 signing on Fee.

[VPCTFC]

I am afraid you will be wrong there VP. The golf club is a form of discrimination and is against the law. Same with the BNP.

 

The Ryman League could say that you cannot have a groundshare to be a member of the league but it does not mean clubs cannot do it. They just have to find a different league to be members of.

 

Same as the rule coming in re number of home grown players in the Premiership.

 

In the past I could have agreed with you but these days the FA direct teams into leagues. Take Maidstone United as an example - they share with Ashford. I doubt the FA would sanction Maidstone moving to the Southern League to get around the ground-sharing issue.

As an aside, it's also rumoured the Southern League may be getting tougher. There was talk they may not allow Almondsbury in for next season due to them groundsharing with, I think, Clevedon Town.

 

I also took on board what Whitelaw said a while ago about a load of new rules being forced on leagues within the pyramid for next season. I wonder if the rules on ground-sharing are being re-written which is why the Isthmian and possibly Southern Leagues are getting tougher.

[SurreyLegend]

Whitelaw. What makes this season any different to the year the CCL kicked out long serving clubs to replace them with ryman clubs. Surely this was an emergency case as is the current one.

[Krooner]

DT Burgers are good mate. Presume you must have been injured if you only had 2 clubs

 

So where were they ?

[Smudge]

All three Ryman clubs have appealed to the FA against the decision of the Ryman League, including Ashford, although in the case of Ashford and Staines Lammas, the ground share was accepted for next season anyway, due to the fact that it was originally approved in writing last August. As you surmise, the transfer to the Southern League has hopefully taken the problem away for the time being although the appeal will proceed if it is allowed to.

 

As far as I am aware (and I stand to be corrected) the ground share between Merstham and Epsom is not in peril, as Epsom do not have a ground of their own and that is the distinction drawn by the Ryman League.

 

There is not a great deal that the CCL can do at the moment other than to offer a statement of support to the clubs concerned if they ask us to do so. The only other practical method of assistance is to treat the matter as an "emergency" which would then allow the clubs affected some time beyond 31 May to finalise alternative ground share arrangements with clubs outside the Ryman League if they can and which they would be wise to attempt.

 

It all rather depends upon the outcome of the FA appeals.

 

I can confirm that there have been no official discussions as yet at Management Committee level concerning the constitutions for next season. It was only yesterday that it was confirmed that no club is being relegated into the CCL and everything stems from that, of course. It may be that the constitution will be delayed until all uncertainties have been resolved as, presumably, nobody wants to be told they are in one division and then find that the situation has changed.

 

 

Whitelaw,firstly thanks for your reply.I am a little bemused by your remarks that Epsom and Ewell are Homeless,and the Groundshare with Merstham will be allowed on these grounds by the Ryman League.However Badshot Lea,Warlingham,who by running Reserve Sides in the C.C.L. are not classed as Homeless but Rent Council Facilities are to be victimised,for wanting to better themselves.As regards affecting the playing surfaces of Ryman Clubs ,or getting games played due to overuse,this is a smokescreen.Take Whyteleafe F.C as an example,a very well run established Ryman Club,they spend within their means,and have come to the conclusion that running a Reserve Side at Church Road is unviable on cost grounds.So have invited Warlingham F.C. to Groundshare,bringing them in Revenue and taking away costs of running a Reserve Side.A turnaround of at least 10k in revenue,plus extra bar takings for them,and no further use of the pitch.Plus bringing better facilities to the C.C.L.,If the Ryman League push this through the C.C.L. is in my opinion doomed in the future,next step every Ground must be fully enclosed,must have 200 seats,covered standing areas behind both goals,which many in the C.C.L. Premier do not have.The C.C.L. should be giving full backing and support to the Clubs involved to resolve this matter,A.S.A.P. Final point I wonder if going to school with the Ex Chairman of the F.A.Lord Triesman helped Merstham get a yes,and Whyteleafe a NO,Surely not.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Smudge

[Non League Nigel]

Badshot lea ground hopped to acheieve promotion. Epsom and ewell are genuinely homeless.

Warlingham had a 2 year agreement with merstham and e&e have slotted in for the final year hence ryman league can't do anything

[Terrence Collina]

What is the required ground grading for the Suburban League?

 

Reason I ask (and I have mentioned it before) is that they way forward IMO is that clubs should start getting grounds together that have the required grading for Ryman/Zamaretto etc and then a second ground that has a fixed barrier and floodlights for reserve team football. This could work well for Ashford Town and Staines Lammas if Staines were granted permission to put lights in at their ground.

 

Therefore teams who struggle to get permission for the required grading can groundshare/co-own the better ground and use the lesser ground for reserve/youth team football. I tihnk a reserve team is important for obvious reasons (give youngsters experience of senior football, match practice for players on the fringe of the squad or returning from injury etc).

 

I feel that this could help teams like Epsom, Badshot, Bookham etc who obviously have difficulties with their local councils.

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

epsom and mvscr both got kicked out at little or no notice.

 

Dont clubs have to have some legal agreement for a couple of years to play in their grounds?

 

If mvscr had stayed at River Lane they wouldn't be coming up. Why were they kicked out?