next season

[Green_Fingers]

I notice that other leagues have published details and can now confirm the following, all of which has been previously communicated to Club secretaries and chairmen.

 

There have been three definite applications to join the League next season. They are from Guernsey FC, Spelthorne Sports FC (Surrey Elite League) and Indian Gymkhana FC (MIddlesex County League). There is plenty about Guernsey's application elsewhere. Spelthorne Sports have been inspected and have some work to do before 31 March, which they hope to complete. They are at the top of the Elite League and look likely to finish in a promotion position. Indian Gymkhana, who currently play in Osterley, are in mid-table in the Middlesex County League and do not look likely at this stage to finish in a promotion position, so their application is currently in abeyance. Any club wishing to transfer to the CCL from another league, other than through promotion, has to apply to the National Leagues Committee of the Football Association, who will make any decisions. The League has no say in this.

 

The Management Committee feels that all clubs in Div 1 should now be reaching the required standards as laid down by the FA and intends to propose at the AGM that all clubs in Division One must meet the full requirements of Grade G, including floodlights, in time for the 2013-2014 season. In other words clubs would have two more seasons in which to fully comply, failing which they would be demoted. To avoid stagnation, new clubs, who meet the CCL's current reduced entry criteria would still be allowed in, but would then have two seasons from the date of entry in which to achieve lights and all other requirements. As always, everything is subject to FA approval.

 

VERY INTERESTING WHITELAW THANKS FOR THE RUN DOWN.

 

SO SPELTHORNE SPORTS HAVE GUARANTEED THE CCL TO HAVE LIGHTS WITHIN 2 SEASONS ? I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET LIGHTS FOR SOME TIME NOW AND HAVE BEEN FLATLY REFUSED BECAUSE OF RESIDENTS I BELIEVE (NOT 100% SURE) BUT I DO KNOW THEY HAVE HAD THEIR PLANNING PERMISSION FOR LIGHTS REJECTED.. SO WHATS CHANGED AT SPELTHORNE ? HAVE THE COUNCIL PERMITTED THEM LIGHTS NOW ? DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS WHITELAW ?

 

INTERESTING ...........

 

NiceGuy the way I read Whitelaws comments is that new Clubs like Spethorne can be accepted (no need for guarantees) provided they meet a reduced CCL criteria for Div 1 but they would then be demoted along with all other Div 1 Clubs if such Clubs didn't have lights etc installed within 2 seasons. Subject as always to FA approval of the CCL proposals.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2011 by Green_Fingers

[ellers]

I think ground sharing is pointless it should not be allowed in my opinion, i also think the CCL should realise exactly the level of football it is. It's not semi pro so why do the clubs need such decent grounds, it will kill clubs in the end and the CCL will lift then have to start letting in clubs without lights just to get a full quota of teams in the league..

[Krooner]

Not really the CCL's fault ellers. FA dictated again.

[ShiftyOnFire]

Agree Ellers on the "killing clubs" side of things, at Farleigh we ground share at Croydon Arena, don't get me wrong the pitch is lovely to play on & very rarely get a game called off but the social side is slowly killing off our original home ground. If we didn't have a strong reserve team with the amount of social players, and popular colts section on Sunday's I really dont know how Farleigh would survive.

Farleigh own their own ground and could potentially build & develop but funds are always hard to come by.

Edited February 26, 2011 by Smudge

[NICE GUY]

I think ground sharing is pointless it should not be allowed in my opinion, i also think the CCL should realise exactly the level of football it is. It's not semi pro so why do the clubs need such decent grounds, it will kill clubs in the end and the CCL will lift then have to start letting in clubs without lights just to get a full quota of teams in the league..

 

 

ELLERS, SORRY DISAGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS PERHAPS 'COS LAMMAS GROUND SHARE ?

 

EVERYONE I KNOW (INVOLVED WITH CCL) AND IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED ON THIS SITE, SAYS HOW MUCH THE THE CCL AND THEIR RESPECTIVE CLUB GROUNDS HAVE IMPROVED IMMENSELY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.

 

WHAT IS WRONG IN AN ORGANISATION TRYING TO IMPROVE ITS STATUS AND STANDARDS ? WORDS ARE OUT THAT THE CCL IS BETTER THAN THE KENT LEAGUE, WESSEX, HELLENIC, SUSSEX LEAGUES AND OTHERS AT CCL LEVEL.

 

THERE ARE CLUBS WITH AMBITION, WHATS WRONG WITH THAT ? LEVELS ARE MADE TO IMPROVE THE PYRAMID SYSTEM SO IF CLUBS CANNOT MEET THE CRITERIA, THERE ARE CLUBS OUTSIDE THE CCL THAT CAN. IF THE LEVEL OF REQUIREMENT LOWERS, THE LEAGUE CLUBS WILL NOT ATTRACT NOR HAVE THE BETTER PLAYERS IN THE CCL, THIS WILL THEN DETERIORATE THE CLUB THUS THE PAYING PUBLIC, WHICH HELPS SUPPORT THE CLUB, WILL GO ELSEWHERE, THEN THE CCL WILL BECOME A SUNDAY MORNING LEAGUE WHICH THEY ARE CERTAINLY NOT THAT AND DO NOT WANT TO BECOME THAT.

 

THINK AGAIN MATE OF THE CONSEQUENCES ............

Edited February 26, 2011 by NICE GUY

[Smudge]

I think ground sharing is pointless it should not be allowed in my opinion, i also think the CCL should realise exactly the level of football it is. It's not semi pro so why do the clubs need such decent grounds, it will kill clubs in the end and the CCL will lift then have to start letting in clubs without lights just to get a full quota of teams in the league..

 

 

Like it or lump it,Groundsharing is here to stay,the main reason is the planning laws in this Country,restrict Clubs from moving forward with their plans to improve their grounds.FARLEIGH ,WARLINGHAM,STAINES LAMMAS have all been thawted in their endeavours to improve their facilities,but at least they have made an effort.The current grounds they play at are probably in the Top 6 in C.C.L.add in South Park,Westfield,Knaphill,Eversley,Bedfont Sports,who are improving their grounds year on year,the C.C.L Stadia has never been in better shape,and the standard of Football has improved immensely in Div 1. I personally think that by allowing New Clubs in without Lights is a backward step.

[NICE GUY]

I think ground sharing is pointless it should not be allowed in my opinion, i also think the CCL should realise exactly the level of football it is. It's not semi pro so why do the clubs need such decent grounds, it will kill clubs in the end and the CCL will lift then have to start letting in clubs without lights just to get a full quota of teams in the league..

 

 

Like it or lump it,Groundsharing is here to stay,the main reason is the planning laws in this Country,restrict Clubs from moving forward with their plans to improve their grounds.FARLEIGH ,WARLINGHAM,STAINES LAMMAS have all been thawted in their endeavours to improve their facilities,but at least they have made an effort.The current grounds they play at are probably in the Top 6 in C.C.L.add in South Park,Westfield,Knaphill,Eversley,Bedfont Sports,who are improving their grounds year on year,the C.C.L Stadia has never been in better shape,and the standard of Football has improved immensely in Div 1. I personally think that by allowing New Clubs in without Lights is a backward step.

 

BLOODY HELL SMUDGY BOY WE AGREE ON SOMETHING............LOL !!!

[ellers]

So what happens in say two seasons time if Lammas get promoted but cant afford to groundshare any more or Ashford decide that don't want us there, our crowds have been really poor this season, would we be allowed to go back to Lammas and play? No! And if we got relegated to Div 1 would the CCL let us play at Lammas? No! So the club will be homeless and end up back in the surrey league. Because in my opinion, I don't think you should groundshare unless you have something in place for improving your own ground to meet the leagues criteria!

[VPCTFC]

So what happens in say two seasons time if Lammas get promoted but cant afford to groundshare any more or Ashford decide that don't want us there, our crowds have been really poor this season, would we be allowed to go back to Lammas and play? No! And if we got relegated to Div 1 would the CCL let us play at Lammas? No! So the club will be homeless and end up back in the surrey league. Because in my opinion, I don't think you should groundshare unless you have something in place for improving your own ground to meet the leagues criteria!

Edited February 26, 2011 by VPCTFC

[VPCTFC]

So what happens in say two seasons time if Lammas get promoted but cant afford to groundshare any more or Ashford decide that don't want us there, our crowds have been really poor this season, would we be allowed to go back to Lammas and play? No! And if we got relegated to Div 1 would the CCL let us play at Lammas? No! So the club will be homeless and end up back in the surrey league. Because in my opinion, I don't think you should groundshare unless you have something in place for improving your own ground to meet the leagues criteria!

 

It's wrong that grounds are more important than playing ability but that's the way it is now. It's nothing to do with individual leagues, it's a national system so that every team in the country knows where they stand. Gradings used to be a farce when the Southern League had a different system to the Ryman League. When teams switched leagues they found they had to do certain things to stay at the same level and other things they had done were no longer needed.

Teams have been relegated furthur up the pyramid because they didn't have the right ground grading. Last year it was VCD Athletic who finished 8th in Ryman 1N. They didn't get the required work done by March 31st so were relegated to the Kent League.

[The Fan]

So what happens in say two seasons time if Lammas get promoted but cant afford to groundshare any more or Ashford decide that don't want us there, our crowds have been really poor this season, would we be allowed to go back to Lammas and play? No! And if we got relegated to Div 1 would the CCL let us play at Lammas? No! So the club will be homeless and end up back in the surrey league. Because in my opinion, I don't think you should groundshare unless you have something in place for improving your own ground to meet the leagues criteria!

very strong thoughts, take it your not planning on staying at lammas. as you are not singing the same tune as the club. agree have visited 4 times this season, and crowds are awful.

[ellers]

No I'm staying at Lammas, the only reason I will leave is if a managers job comes available and I get the job. I just can't see no longevity in ground sharing.

[The Fan]

my thoughts are with sides like feltham, southall, epsom, even hendon. all sombodys club. made homeless, through no fault of the fans/players. these clubs are run by some good people. when you visit wembley, hendon have made themselves,at home. there are hendon signs everywhere, they have a club shop. in an ideal world, good player facilities, pitch etc. would come before, do we own the ground. this level of football is no differnt to any other, we are very tribal. in not wanting to share with our rivals. when bedfont green took over at bedfont it suited both parties. the green needed a ground and bedfonts commitee, where fed up of paying out. now the green have a home in there own area, that they can put money into and enjoy the fruits of there labour. cant be said of all ground shares, hayes gate is an example. went to watch them play early in season

think it was against farleigh, the landlord hanwell town, had not opened up just left them to get on with it. ellers i do understand your point. bit like buying or renting a house. good luck with your search for a managers post.

[Terrence Collina]

I have said before, groundsharing can work - take the Munich teams, Milan teams etc. What I think would work well at this level is one ground that is up to the required spec, and then next to it in the same complex, and toher good pitch which is enclosed and just has a fixed barrier (maybe a small stand) for reserve and youth games. Therefore the teams that gound share can both run a reserve and youth side without having to jepordise the first team pitch for both sides.

[Krooner]

Problem is TC there is no room for that sort of facility in our area and if there was the local NIMBYS would kick up a stink and the council would back them in case they lost some votes !!!!

[CW1975]

Two points to consider for next season with regards to Guernsey after this weekend, if it gets the go ahead.

 

1. Overnight rain caused havoc before Saturdays fixtures, so if the same was to happen when due to travel to Guernsey what would be the cut off time for a pitch inspection? If you have to leave before 10am but a pitch inspection is due at 11am you could be in the air when the game is called off.

 

2. VPCTFC points on another thread is that no game is definately 'on'. Therefore, what would happen if a team gets there and the ref deems the pitch too dangerous? Will Guernsey be prepared to pay for a team to visit twice?

 

These are two things that I have heard/read in discussions this weekend.

 

I am all for the trip over by the way, however Guernsey and CCL have much more to gain than any clubs.

[E&E Rich]

Time for a quick soapbox rant......

 

In my book there are two types of groundsharing.

 

1) You lose your ground and have nowhere to play.

2) You choose to leave your ground to play somewhere else.

 

Now as you might expect, as a long term Epsom and Ewell fan I sympathise greatly with those clubs in category 1. I have less sympathy for those in category 2, and would say in the words of a famous song that "you don't know what you've got till it's gone."

 

As for the play offs, NICE GUY, you do come up with some really dense ideas.

 

We are all missing the main point which is that this league, and Step 5 in general is stagnating because the FA haven't got their finger out with regard to sorting out a second promotion place. As a result teams like St Neots Town could miss out on promotion to Step 4 to Kings Lynn, despite being a massive club, while average clubs regularly get away with reprieves at Step 4. In our League you could say the same about both Chertsey and Camberley in recent seasons.

 

I think the main problem is 14 leagues into 12 promotion places, which needs to be 12 leagues into 24 promotion places pretty damn quickly, as we've been waiting since 2004 for this, and all that is happened was the removal of the RYman Division Two. I like Chris C's idea, but would go further and suggest that the Sussex, Wessex, Co Co and Kent Leagues are merged into three Step 5 Leagues, and for arguments sake they could be called the Southern Counties West, Central and East with a Step 6 league below each, with Step 7 to be sorted out in a few years. That also removes one of the 14 leagues, and you could arguably do the same North of the Thames by merging the Hellenic, Essex, South Midlands and Eastern Counties.

 

However, just because this problem is a constant thorn in our sides does not mean that we need to invent more contests. If it hadn't escaped your attention, it's been a bit wet recently, but even in the last two drier seasons the Premier DIvision required an extension. Where do you play these extra matches, with, it should be pointed out, just a prize of a meaningless trophy at the end of it?

 

One other thing which has really annoyed me this year, is that we and the FA obsess about whether clubs have sufficient ground grading, but no one cares about the green bit in the middle, which I think is kind of important. Certain clubs, and we all know who they are, regularly suffer postponements through the season when other clubs like Ash, Chertsey and Croydon always manage to play theirs. Instead of worrying about playing more matches, why not concentrate on ways of getting the ones played that we already have?

 

A somewhat radical idea (or two) would be that any team that has a game called off on a day when there are very few postponements in their division, say 3 or less, would have a mark put against their name, and if it happened three times, they would lose a point. Alternatively, the League could declare that some days that are really bad are "void" days, but if they have 5 postponements on other days, they lose a point

 

A little harsh, some might say, but if you add up the money wasted by players and supporters in travelling to games that are off over the course of the season and clubs that incur inspection costs, you might think it was a bit more reasonable.

Edited February 27, 2011 by E&E Ed

[Green_Fingers]

Time for a quick soapbox rant......

 

In my book there are two types of groundsharing.

 

1) You lose your ground and have nowhere to play.

2) You choose to leave your ground to play somewhere else.

 

Now as you might expect, as a long term Epsom and Ewell fan I sympathise greatly with those clubs in category 1. I have less sympathy for those in category 2, and would say in the words of a famous song that "you don't know what you've got till it's gone."

 

As for the play offs, NICE GUY, you do come up with some really dense ideas.

 

We are all missing the main point which is that this league, and Step 5 in general is stagnating because the FA haven't got their finger out with regard to sorting out a second promotion place. As a result teams like St Neots Town could miss out on promotion to Step 4 to Kings Lynn, despite being a massive club, while average clubs regularly get away with reprieves at Step 4. In our League you could say the same about both Chertsey and Camberley in recent seasons.

 

I think the main problem is 14 leagues into 12 promotion places, which needs to be 12 leagues into 24 promotion places pretty damn quickly, as we've been waiting since 2004 for this, and all that is happened was the removal of the RYman Division Two. I like Chris C's idea, but would go further and suggest that the Sussex, Wessex, Co Co and Kent Leagues are merged into three Step 5 Leagues, and for arguments sake they could be called the Southern Counties West, Central and East with a Step 6 league below each, with Step 7 to be sorted out in a few years. That also removes one of the 14 leagues, and you could arguably do the same North of the Thames by merging the Hellenic, Essex, South Midlands and Eastern Counties.

 

However, just because this problem is a constant thorn in our sides does not mean that we need to invent more contests. If it hadn't escaped your attention, it's been a bit wet recently, but even in the last two drier seasons the Premier DIvision required an extension. Where do you play these extra matches, with, it should be pointed out, just a prize of a meaningless trophy at the end of it?

 

One other thing which has really annoyed me this year, is that we and the FA obsess about whether clubs have sufficient ground grading, but no one cares about the green bit in the middle, which I think is kind of important. Certain clubs, and we all know who they are, regularly suffer postponements through the season when other clubs like Ash, Chertsey and Croydon always manage to play theirs. Instead of worrying about playing more matches, why not concentrate on ways of getting the ones played that we already have?

 

A somewhat radical idea (or two) would be that any team that has a game called off on a day when there are very few postponements in their division, say 3 or less, would have a mark put against their name, and if it happened three times, they would lose a point. Alternatively, the League could declare that some days that are really bad are "void" days, but if they have 5 postponements on other days, they lose a point

 

A little harsh, some might say, but if you add up the money wasted by players and supporters in travelling to games that are off over the course of the season and clubs that incur inspection costs, you might think it was a bit more reasonable.

 

24 promotion places from Step 5 means 24 relegation places from Step 4. That's the bottom 4 being relegated from each of the 6 Step 4 Divisions, but only room for 2 promotion slots from Step 4 - Step 3. Can you really see Step 4 Clubs buying that idea?

[johnnojudo]

Time for a quick soapbox rant......

 

In my book there are two types of groundsharing.

 

1) You lose your ground and have nowhere to play.

2) You choose to leave your ground to play somewhere else.

 

Now as you might expect, as a long term Epsom and Ewell fan I sympathise greatly with those clubs in category 1. I have less sympathy for those in category 2, and would say in the words of a famous song that "you don't know what you've got till it's gone."

 

As for the play offs, NICE GUY, you do come up with some really dense ideas.

 

We are all missing the main point which is that this league, and Step 5 in general is stagnating because the FA haven't got their finger out with regard to sorting out a second promotion place. As a result teams like St Neots Town could miss out on promotion to Step 4 to Kings Lynn, despite being a massive club, while average clubs regularly get away with reprieves at Step 4. In our League you could say the same about both Chertsey and Camberley in recent seasons.

 

I think the main problem is 14 leagues into 12 promotion places, which needs to be 12 leagues into 24 promotion places pretty damn quickly, as we've been waiting since 2004 for this, and all that is happened was the removal of the RYman Division Two. I like Chris C's idea, but would go further and suggest that the Sussex, Wessex, Co Co and Kent Leagues are merged into three Step 5 Leagues, and for arguments sake they could be called the Southern Counties West, Central and East with a Step 6 league below each, with Step 7 to be sorted out in a few years. That also removes one of the 14 leagues, and you could arguably do the same North of the Thames by merging the Hellenic, Essex, South Midlands and Eastern Counties.

 

However, just because this problem is a constant thorn in our sides does not mean that we need to invent more contests. If it hadn't escaped your attention, it's been a bit wet recently, but even in the last two drier seasons the Premier DIvision required an extension. Where do you play these extra matches, with, it should be pointed out, just a prize of a meaningless trophy at the end of it?

 

One other thing which has really annoyed me this year, is that we and the FA obsess about whether clubs have sufficient ground grading, but no one cares about the green bit in the middle, which I think is kind of important. Certain clubs, and we all know who they are, regularly suffer postponements through the season when other clubs like Ash, Chertsey and Croydon always manage to play theirs. Instead of worrying about playing more matches, why not concentrate on ways of getting the ones played that we already have?

 

A somewhat radical idea (or two) would be that any team that has a game called off on a day when there are very few postponements in their division, say 3 or less, would have a mark put against their name, and if it happened three times, they would lose a point. Alternatively, the League could declare that some days that are really bad are "void" days, but if they have 5 postponements on other days, they lose a point

A little harsh, some might say, but if you add up the money wasted by players and supporters in travelling to games that are off over the course of the season and clubs that incur inspection costs, you might think it was a bit more reasonable.

 

This sureley cant work but i do agree that maybe more money should be invested in the quality of the pitches rather than unused stands and other stuff.

 

Weather has a habit of not moving and at times there are isolated showers that are extremely heavy in just one area. How can you deduct a point from a team if there has been a sudden hammering of rain on a couple of occasions in just your area and generally nowhere else in the league? You are also relying on a referee's opinion on the state of a pitch and all it takes is for that referee to not fancy the game or landlords not making an effort to get the game on by not forking the pitch for example? We travelled to Merstham late Novemeber and the ref called it off when the pitch was far better than many we have played on this season. Some pitches are situated very near lakes or rivers so how can you punish them for their location?

 

Not a good idea in my opinion.

[NICE GUY]

Time for a quick soapbox rant......

 

In my book there are two types of groundsharing.

 

1) You lose your ground and have nowhere to play.

2) You choose to leave your ground to play somewhere else.

 

Now as you might expect, as a long term Epsom and Ewell fan I sympathise greatly with those clubs in category 1. I have less sympathy for those in category 2, and would say in the words of a famous song that "you don't know what you've got till it's gone."

 

As for the play offs, NICE GUY, you do come up with some really dense ideas.

 

We are all missing the main point which is that this league, and Step 5 in general is stagnating because the FA haven't got their finger out with regard to sorting out a second promotion place. As a result teams like St Neots Town could miss out on promotion to Step 4 to Kings Lynn, despite being a massive club, while average clubs regularly get away with reprieves at Step 4. In our League you could say the same about both Chertsey and Camberley in recent seasons.

 

I think the main problem is 14 leagues into 12 promotion places, which needs to be 12 leagues into 24 promotion places pretty damn quickly, as we've been waiting since 2004 for this, and all that is happened was the removal of the RYman Division Two. I like Chris C's idea, but would go further and suggest that the Sussex, Wessex, Co Co and Kent Leagues are merged into three Step 5 Leagues, and for arguments sake they could be called the Southern Counties West, Central and East with a Step 6 league below each, with Step 7 to be sorted out in a few years. That also removes one of the 14 leagues, and you could arguably do the same North of the Thames by merging the Hellenic, Essex, South Midlands and Eastern Counties.

 

However, just because this problem is a constant thorn in our sides does not mean that we need to invent more contests. If it hadn't escaped your attention, it's been a bit wet recently, but even in the last two drier seasons the Premier DIvision required an extension. Where do you play these extra matches, with, it should be pointed out, just a prize of a meaningless trophy at the end of it?

 

One other thing which has really annoyed me this year, is that we and the FA obsess about whether clubs have sufficient ground grading, but no one cares about the green bit in the middle, which I think is kind of important. Certain clubs, and we all know who they are, regularly suffer postponements through the season when other clubs like Ash, Chertsey and Croydon always manage to play theirs. Instead of worrying about playing more matches, why not concentrate on ways of getting the ones played that we already have?

 

A somewhat radical idea (or two) would be that any team that has a game called off on a day when there are very few postponements in their division, say 3 or less, would have a mark put against their name, and if it happened three times, they would lose a point. Alternatively, the League could declare that some days that are really bad are "void" days, but if they have 5 postponements on other days, they lose a point

 

A little harsh, some might say, but if you add up the money wasted by players and supporters in travelling to games that are off over the course of the season and clubs that incur inspection costs, you might think it was a bit more reasonable.

 

DENSE ? THANKS.

E&E YOU ARE MISSING MY POINT COMPLETELY.. AS THERE IS ONLY 1 CLUB BEING PROMOTED THERE ARE CHAMPIONS ELECT USUALLY BY THIS TIME EACH YEAR, ALTHO' THIS SEASON IS AN EXCEPTION I ADMIT.

 

MY CONCEPTION IS THAT AS 2ND PLACE DOESN'T GET PROMOTION, TO KEEP THE LEAGUE ALIVE AND INTERESTED FOR PLAYERS, MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORTERS ALIKE, I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A ''CCL PLAY-OFF CUP'' FOR 2ND, 3RD, 4TH & 5TH AS EXPLAINED BEFORE OF WHICH THE 'WINNERS DO NOT GET PROMOTED' THIS WOULD KEEP THE TOP HALF TEAMS OF THE LEAGUE REMAIN INTERESTED IN WINNING SOMETHING.

 

THESE MIDDLE ORDER TEAMS THAT CANNOT GET PROMOTED OR RELEGATED IN THEORY THEIR SEASON IS FINISHED PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT IN THE CUPS, THIS THEN MAKES THE LEAGUE WITH NOTHING TO PLAY FOR ONLY THE RELEGATION PLACES DO AND GENERALLY SUPPORTERS WOULD GO TO WATCH THOSE GAMES AS OPPOSED TO TWO TEAMS SAY LAYING 7TH & 8 TH WHO HAVE NOTHING TO PLAY FOR.

 

 

THE BASIC IDEA IS FOR THE CCL TO ORGANISE AND ARRANGE THIS ''PLAY-OFF CUP'' WITHIN THEIR OWN ORGANISATION TO SPICE UP THE LEAGUE.

 

IN THE CHAMPIONSHIP SUCH PLAY-OFFS KEEP CLUBS HOPES ALIVE AND KEEPS THE LEAGUE INTERESTING RIGHT UPTO THE END OF THE SEASON FOR ALL CONCERNED. I KNOW THE CCL PLAY-OFF CUP WINNERS WILL NOT GET PROMOTED BUT THEY DO WIN SOMETHING, SO I'M POSITIVE THIS FORMAT WILL HAVE A GOOD FEEL FACTOR AND MAKE THE MID-TABLE TEAMS HAVE SOMETHING TO PLAY FOR AND KEEP THEIR SEASON ALIVE UPTO THE END OF THE SEASON.

Edited February 27, 2011 by NICE GUY