Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support Fans Focus by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Enfield 1893

onebreast
 Share

Recommended Posts

coach et 64 Newbie

coach et 64

Posted
Posted

It looks like they can't appeal.It will cost them a fortune and no guarantee of success.To me it all seems like an astute move from the Rymans powers to re-instate some clubs up North or even a tremendous vendetta from some powerful Enfield Town supporters who know well someone in high chairs somewhere.As Onebreast said it's pure Karma so watch out Enfield Town.....you'll be paid back!!Let me go and put a fiver on them going down next year and Enfield coming up again!!!grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grounhopper Mark. Newbie

Grounhopper Mark.

Posted
Posted (edited)

What are you talking about 'The Horse's mouth'? The MAJORITY of Enfield 1893 supporters have been around for years/decades, well before the unfortunate happenings of the recent past. People like you p!ss me off with your rubbish.

 

I think most neutrals will agree this seems very harsh. Why do teams like Waltham Forest and Ilford get constant reprievals when there is a club with a fan base that would fit in nicely with Ryman Div 1 North refused entry despite major works being done on the ground in a very short space of time.

The FA must of known about this in the first place and should have made their decision back then if this was the case?

It is only the beginning of June and I have no doubt that sufficient work would have been carried out on the ground before the beginning of pre-season, according to the website photos it looks like the new stand was installed in little over a week! its just very sad in my opinion more time was not given.

 

If Enfield Town's ground is currently a building site? I don't know the progress over there but why are Enfield Town allowed to groundshare until whenever so they can get their ground up to standard?

 

Would Enfield be allowed to groundshare if that was a possibility?

 

 

I would imagine that if anyone looked at a lot of grounds in RLN they would find they don't comply fully with FA Ground grading Regulations step 4 in there entirety, and if anyone from Enfield 1893 took the trouble and took notes, they would have a cast iron case in any appeal.

 

IMO Enfield have been well and truly shafted by the Rymans, and like most fair minded people I wish them well if they decide to go to arbitration.

 

Well said Misunderstood and Football fanatic, i am 100% behind any appeal Enfield FC (1893) may have, i think it is disgraceful that Town fans have revelled in a situation not of their (Enfield Fcs) own making.

 

If you ever need help (Town) from the non league family, people will remember how you treated a team in trouble. Banter is banter fine, but this is beyond acceptable.

Edited by Grounhopper Mark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beachboys Newbie

Beachboys

Posted
Posted

What are you talking about 'The Horse's mouth'? The MAJORITY of Enfield 1893 supporters have been around for years/decades, well before the unfortunate happenings of the recent past. People like you p!ss me off with your rubbish.

 

I think most neutrals will agree this seems very harsh. Why do teams like Waltham Forest and Ilford get constant reprievals when there is a club with a fan base that would fit in nicely with Ryman Div 1 North refused entry despite major works being done on the ground in a very short space of time.

The FA must of known about this in the first place and should have made their decision back then if this was the case?

It is only the beginning of June and I have no doubt that sufficient work would have been carried out on the ground before the beginning of pre-season, according to the website photos it looks like the new stand was installed in little over a week! its just very sad in my opinion more time was not given.

 

If Enfield Town's ground is currently a building site? I don't know the progress over there but why are Enfield Town allowed to groundshare until whenever so they can get their ground up to standard?

 

Would Enfield be allowed to groundshare if that was a possibility?

 

I would imagine that if anyone looked at a lot of grounds in RLN they would find they don't comply fully with FA Ground grading Regulations step 4 in there entirety, and if anyone from Enfield 1893 took the trouble and took notes, they would have a cast iron case in any appeal.

 

IMO Enfield have been well and truly shafted by the Rymans, and like most fair minded people I wish them well if they decide to go to arbitration.

 

Got to say your post is total rubbish !

 

We all have grading so how can we pass if it is not up to standard ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
missunderstood Newbie

missunderstood

Posted
Posted

What are you talking about 'The Horse's mouth'? The MAJORITY of Enfield 1893 supporters have been around for years/decades, well before the unfortunate happenings of the recent past. People like you p!ss me off with your rubbish.

 

I think most neutrals will agree this seems very harsh. Why do teams like Waltham Forest and Ilford get constant reprievals when there is a club with a fan base that would fit in nicely with Ryman Div 1 North refused entry despite major works being done on the ground in a very short space of time.

The FA must of known about this in the first place and should have made their decision back then if this was the case?

It is only the beginning of June and I have no doubt that sufficient work would have been carried out on the ground before the beginning of pre-season, according to the website photos it looks like the new stand was installed in little over a week! its just very sad in my opinion more time was not given.

 

If Enfield Town's ground is currently a building site? I don't know the progress over there but why are Enfield Town allowed to groundshare until whenever so they can get their ground up to standard?

 

Would Enfield be allowed to groundshare if that was a possibility?

 

I would imagine that if anyone looked at a lot of grounds in RLN they would find they don't comply fully with FA Ground grading Regulations step 4 in there entirety, and if anyone from Enfield 1893 took the trouble and took notes, they would have a cast iron case in any appeal.

 

IMO Enfield have been well and truly shafted by the Rymans, and like most fair minded people I wish them well if they decide to go to arbitration.

 

Got to say your post is total rubbish !

 

We all have grading so how can we pass if it is not up to standard ?

 

 

You obviously know very little about the ground grading regs if you say I am posting rubbish.

 

Perhaps you could explain how Thamesmead passed GGRs when for the past two seasons they have been playing in a stadium with probably no more than 100 seats and no other covered terracing, when the regs quite clearly say clubs need a minimum of 150 covered seats, plus a terrace for another 150 under cover. Other clubs play in stadiums that don't comply fully, but nothing ever seems to happen to enforce them to comply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beachboys Newbie

Beachboys

Posted
Posted

What are you talking about 'The Horse's mouth'? The MAJORITY of Enfield 1893 supporters have been around for years/decades, well before the unfortunate happenings of the recent past. People like you p!ss me off with your rubbish.

 

I think most neutrals will agree this seems very harsh. Why do teams like Waltham Forest and Ilford get constant reprievals when there is a club with a fan base that would fit in nicely with Ryman Div 1 North refused entry despite major works being done on the ground in a very short space of time.

The FA must of known about this in the first place and should have made their decision back then if this was the case?

It is only the beginning of June and I have no doubt that sufficient work would have been carried out on the ground before the beginning of pre-season, according to the website photos it looks like the new stand was installed in little over a week! its just very sad in my opinion more time was not given.

 

If Enfield Town's ground is currently a building site? I don't know the progress over there but why are Enfield Town allowed to groundshare until whenever so they can get their ground up to standard?

 

Would Enfield be allowed to groundshare if that was a possibility?

 

I would imagine that if anyone looked at a lot of grounds in RLN they would find they don't comply fully with FA Ground grading Regulations step 4 in there entirety, and if anyone from Enfield 1893 took the trouble and took notes, they would have a cast iron case in any appeal.

 

IMO Enfield have been well and truly shafted by the Rymans, and like most fair minded people I wish them well if they decide to go to arbitration.

 

Got to say your post is total rubbish !

 

We all have grading so how can we pass if it is not up to standard ?

 

 

You obviously know very little about the ground grading regs if you say I am posting rubbish.

 

Perhaps you could explain how Thamesmead passed GGRs when for the past two seasons they have been playing in a stadium with probably no more than 100 seats and no other covered terracing, when the regs quite clearly say clubs need a minimum of 150 covered seats, plus a terrace for another 150 under cover. Other clubs play in stadiums that don't comply fully, but nothing ever seems to happen to enforce them to comply.

 

 

No i know naff all, But jussed passed Conference South C grade ! nobjockey !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smallsy Newbie

smallsy

Posted
Posted

can you pi ss off to the ryman forum rather then coming down here and showing off?

 

Cheers

 

:monkey:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jenko Newbie

Jenko

Posted
Posted

What are you talking about 'The Horse's mouth'? The MAJORITY of Enfield 1893 supporters have been around for years/decades, well before the unfortunate happenings of the recent past. People like you p!ss me off with your rubbish.

 

I think most neutrals will agree this seems very harsh. Why do teams like Waltham Forest and Ilford get constant reprievals when there is a club with a fan base that would fit in nicely with Ryman Div 1 North refused entry despite major works being done on the ground in a very short space of time.

The FA must of known about this in the first place and should have made their decision back then if this was the case?

It is only the beginning of June and I have no doubt that sufficient work would have been carried out on the ground before the beginning of pre-season, according to the website photos it looks like the new stand was installed in little over a week! its just very sad in my opinion more time was not given.

 

If Enfield Town's ground is currently a building site? I don't know the progress over there but why are Enfield Town allowed to groundshare until whenever so they can get their ground up to standard?

 

Would Enfield be allowed to groundshare if that was a possibility?

 

I would imagine that if anyone looked at a lot of grounds in RLN they would find they don't comply fully with FA Ground grading Regulations step 4 in there entirety, and if anyone from Enfield 1893 took the trouble and took notes, they would have a cast iron case in any appeal.

 

IMO Enfield have been well and truly shafted by the Rymans, and like most fair minded people I wish them well if they decide to go to arbitration.

 

Got to say your post is total rubbish !

 

We all have grading so how can we pass if it is not up to standard ?

 

 

You obviously know very little about the ground grading regs if you say I am posting rubbish.

 

Perhaps you could explain how Thamesmead passed GGRs when for the past two seasons they have been playing in a stadium with probably no more than 100 seats and no other covered terracing, when the regs quite clearly say clubs need a minimum of 150 covered seats, plus a terrace for another 150 under cover. Other clubs play in stadiums that don't comply fully, but nothing ever seems to happen to enforce them to comply.

 

 

No i know naff all, But jussed passed Conference South C grade ! nobjockey !!!

 

 

Brown envelope Ant? :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
missunderstood Newbie

missunderstood

Posted
Posted

What are you talking about 'The Horse's mouth'? The MAJORITY of Enfield 1893 supporters have been around for years/decades, well before the unfortunate happenings of the recent past. People like you p!ss me off with your rubbish.

 

I think most neutrals will agree this seems very harsh. Why do teams like Waltham Forest and Ilford get constant reprievals when there is a club with a fan base that would fit in nicely with Ryman Div 1 North refused entry despite major works being done on the ground in a very short space of time.

The FA must of known about this in the first place and should have made their decision back then if this was the case?

It is only the beginning of June and I have no doubt that sufficient work would have been carried out on the ground before the beginning of pre-season, according to the website photos it looks like the new stand was installed in little over a week! its just very sad in my opinion more time was not given.

 

If Enfield Town's ground is currently a building site? I don't know the progress over there but why are Enfield Town allowed to groundshare until whenever so they can get their ground up to standard?

 

Would Enfield be allowed to groundshare if that was a possibility?

 

I would imagine that if anyone looked at a lot of grounds in RLN they would find they don't comply fully with FA Ground grading Regulations step 4 in there entirety, and if anyone from Enfield 1893 took the trouble and took notes, they would have a cast iron case in any appeal.

 

IMO Enfield have been well and truly shafted by the Rymans, and like most fair minded people I wish them well if they decide to go to arbitration.

 

Got to say your post is total rubbish !

 

We all have grading so how can we pass if it is not up to standard ?

 

 

You obviously know very little about the ground grading regs if you say I am posting rubbish.

 

Perhaps you could explain how Thamesmead passed GGRs when for the past two seasons they have been playing in a stadium with probably no more than 100 seats and no other covered terracing, when the regs quite clearly say clubs need a minimum of 150 covered seats, plus a terrace for another 150 under cover. Other clubs play in stadiums that don't comply fully, but nothing ever seems to happen to enforce them to comply.

 

 

No i know naff all, But jussed passed Conference South C grade ! nobjockey !!!

 

 

Not that much difference between RPL and Con South, both leagues require 500 under cover, of which at least 250 must be seated. Conference South though is step B, and not step C so you are right, you really do know naff all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coupwotcoup Newbie

coupwotcoup

Posted
Posted

A fckng large one to get conf sth grading

 

I was a tad surprised to see Aveley given the okay for Connie South

when they appeared in the Ryman play-offs in 2010.

Personally I think ground grading is an anathema, with clubs being put under

too much financial stress to make so-called improvements.

Clubs should be allowed promotion regardless, then given a year to

get their ground in order or face demotion.

And a standardizing the rules countrywide may help too especially with

clubs being switched between Southern/Ryman and Southern/Evo-Stik

whose leagues have differing rules.

One classic case a few years back - can't recollect the club involved, but

was oop norf somewhere - when they had two stands of 200 seats but

were knocked back because they had to have one of at least 250.

And the only thing big about Beachboy Smiffy is his ego...Hi Ant... dance%20%282%29.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
missunderstood Newbie

missunderstood

Posted
Posted

A fckng large one to get conf sth grading

 

I was a tad surprised to see Aveley given the okay for Connie South

when they appeared in the Ryman play-offs in 2010.

Personally I think ground grading is an anathema, with clubs being put under

too much financial stress to make so-called improvements.

Clubs should be allowed promotion regardless, then given a year to

get their ground in order or face demotion.

And a standardizing the rules countrywide may help too especially with

clubs being switched between Southern/Ryman and Southern/Evo-Stik

whose leagues have differing rules.

One classic case a few years back - can't recollect the club involved, but

was oop norf somewhere - when they had two stands of 200 seats but

were knocked back because they had to have one of at least 250.

And the only thing big about Beachboy Smiffy is his ego...Hi Ant... dance%20%282%29.gif

 

 

The ground grading regs are standardized nationwide for whatever level a club is playing at, regardless of what league they are in. The minimum level of seats can be in a maximum of up to two separate stands, with a minimum of fifty seats in one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldTowner Enthusiast

OldTowner

Posted
Posted

It looks like they can't appeal.It will cost them a fortune and no guarantee of success.To me it all seems like an astute move from the Rymans powers to re-instate some clubs up North or even a tremendous vendetta from some powerful Enfield Town supporters who know well someone in high chairs somewhere.As Onebreast said it's pure Karma so watch out Enfield Town.....you'll be paid back!! Let me go and put a fiver on them going down next year and Enfield coming up again!!!grin.gif

 

 

 

Are you avin a laugh t

Why should Town slip from 6th to relegation, just because 1893.50 can't sort their ground out ?

 

1893.50 may well get up, as they will be there near the top.

 

Anyway they should appeal as they have done a lot of work in a short time PLUS there is now the re-gig due to Rushden etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coach et 64 Newbie

coach et 64

Posted
Posted

It looks like they can't appeal.It will cost them a fortune and no guarantee of success.To me it all seems like an astute move from the Rymans powers to re-instate some clubs up North or even a tremendous vendetta from some powerful Enfield Town supporters who know well someone in high chairs somewhere.As Onebreast said it's pure Karma so watch out Enfield Town.....you'll be paid back!! Let me go and put a fiver on them going down next year and Enfield coming up again!!!grin.gif

 

 

 

Are you avin a laugh t

Why should Town slip from 6th to relegation, just because 1893.50 can't sort their ground out ?

 

1893.50 may well get up, as they will be there near the top.

 

Anyway they should appeal as they have done a lot of work in a short time PLUS there is now the re-gig due to Rushden etc.

 

 

 

The curse can't be stopped now!It's too late and Enfield Town is gonna get it big time!grin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...