I HEARD IT THRU' THE GRAPEVINE........

[NICE GUY]

that ''allegedly'' Epsom & Ewell have financial problems in paying fines ...........so could be expelled from the CCL Premier if not paid ???

 

Interesting...............

[Big J R]

Another 'rumour' starts the rounds !!!

 

I've heard 'nowt'

 

 

[Dessie]

that ''allegedly'' Epsom & Ewell have financial problems in paying fines ...........so could be expelled from the CCL Premier if not paid ???

 

Interesting...............

After speaking to the chairman of the club,I can inform everyone that this particular rumour has no foundation at all,sorry nice guy but you need to think of something else now

[Agent Number 1]

Yet another club paying players when they haven't got a ground of there own, makes a mockery of other clubs doing things the right way.

 

I cant believe your manager is still at the club, good word has it that he applies for 2 or 3 jobs every preseason and never gets them! The commitee shouldnt be having that

[Non League Nigel]

theres a certain manager that left his post last season in div 1 that did the same every summer as well

[Smudge]

Yet another club paying players when they haven't got a ground of there own, makes a mockery of other clubs doing things the right way.

 

I cant believe your manager is still at the club, good word has it that he applies for 2 or 3 jobs every preseason and never gets them! The commitee shouldnt be having that

 

You obviously do not like groundsharing Clubs Agent, any reason?

[Agent Number 1]

I just think its wrong smudge and makes a mockery of clubs doing things the right way. Take Knaphill, South Park even Merstham as examples, all upgraded there grounds first then looked to procede to the next step

[NICE GUY]

I just think its wrong smudge and makes a mockery of clubs doing things the right way. Take Knaphill, South Park even Merstham as examples, all upgraded there grounds first then looked to procede to the next step

 

 

... and 'allegedly' a club who groundshares, owe fines which they struggle to pay, yet find the money to sign players on contract .......... baffling !

Edited July 6, 2011 by NICE GUY

[Smudge]

Do not necessarily disagree with you,but Clubs like Staines Lammas,Farleigh,Warlingham,Bookham,Mole Valley,Epsom and Ewell,Badshot Lea,have not had the help of their local Authority or the F.A. in upgrading their facilities or acquiring a ground that is suitable for C.C.L.Whereas the Teams you mention have,along with Eversley,Westfield,which is to be applauded.Although the Groundsharing Clubs do bring much needed revenue to other Clubs in the Ryman and C.C.L.

[Weeble]

Do not forget tho that The Lammas have a great facility in Laleham that they use for big events... ie the wedding etc..... and also I was there the other Sunday watching a dads tourno that was well attended... so they got there financial house in order before they started a groundshare which I think is a credit to them.

[Smudge]

I just think its wrong smudge and makes a mockery of clubs doing things the right way. Take Knaphill, South Park even Merstham as examples, all upgraded there grounds first then looked to procede to the next step

 

 

... and 'allegedly' a club who groundshares, owe fines which they struggle to pay, yet find the money to sign players on contract .......... baffling !

 

Here you go again,stirring the pot.With your worthless Alledged remarks,be a man for once,not a weazel.You are a great advert for the C.C.L. NOT!!!!!

[Dessie]

AGENT NUMBER ONE'S POST I just think its wrong smudge and makes a mockery of clubs doing things the right way. Take Knaphill, South Park even Merstham as examples, all upgraded there grounds first then looked to procede to the next step

 

In reply to your earlier post (Agent number one)Epsom sold there ground nearly 20 years ago because it was falling down,there only crime was to not secure some land in which to build a new ground,so apart from them folding there only choice was to groundshare with teams like Banstead or Merstham whilst they continue daily to find a new site, as for the money to still pay there players it cant be that much otherwise we wouldnt lose our better players to teams year after year

Edited July 6, 2011 by Dessie

[NICE GUY]

AGENT NUMBER ONE'S POST I just think its wrong smudge and makes a mockery of clubs doing things the right way. Take Knaphill, South Park even Merstham as examples, all upgraded there grounds first then looked to procede to the next step

 

In reply to your earlier post (Agent number one)Epsom sold there ground nearly 20 years ago because it was falling down,there only crime was to not secure some land in which to build a new ground,so apart from them folding there only choice was to groundshare with teams like Banstead or Merstham whilst they continue daily to find a new site, as for the money to still pay there players it cant be that much otherwise we wouldnt lose our better players to teams year after year

 

Dessie without prying, I can only assume the E & E made good money by the selling their ground some 20 years ago. It is somewhat surpising that over the last 20 years E & E couln't find any prospective land/area to buildt a football ground ? One can only assume that the money made from the ground is well invested (or should be) otherwise over these last 20 years a fair bit must have been chipped away from running the club, groundsharing, paying players and possibly management etc.,. So after all this time, do E & E now find themselves with insufficient funds to look and purchase a new ground, hence the continued groundshare and as such has the money dried up ?

 

But one could also argue tho' Dessie that money must be made available to E & E (Lyndon manager) to keep the likes, I assume, of Bedj Bedj, Stevens ? (last season), Marvell and the recent return of Burns who's been placed on contract...... to name a few !

 

Interesting ...............

Edited July 6, 2011 by NICE GUY

[bomaya]

It's not just about money tho is it NG? From what I recall Epsom & Ewell Council are one of the councils who make little or no effort to help football clubs. Every borough council or county council is different. You have some who are excellent and others who are awful. Look at Merton and the way Wimbledon have struggled for more than 20 years now!

 

E&E could maybe have a ground outside of E&E but they couldn't then call it E&E!!!

[NICE GUY]

It's not just about money tho is it NG? From what I recall Epsom & Ewell Council are one of the councils who make little or no effort to help football clubs. Every borough council or county council is different. You have some who are excellent and others who are awful. Look at Merton and the way Wimbledon have struggled for more than 20 years now!

 

E&E could maybe have a ground outside of E&E but they couldn't then call it E&E!!!

 

Groundshare I know, but who actually cared that E & E were based at Banstead and Mertsham which isn't Epsom or Ewell ?

[bomaya]

It's not just about money tho is it NG? From what I recall Epsom & Ewell Council are one of the councils who make little or no effort to help football clubs. Every borough council or county council is different. You have some who are excellent and others who are awful. Look at Merton and the way Wimbledon have struggled for more than 20 years now!

 

E&E could maybe have a ground outside of E&E but they couldn't then call it E&E!!!

 

Groundshare I know, but who actually cared that E & E were based at Banstead and Mertsham which isn't Epsom or Ewell ?

 

My point being that I thought the FA had a rule that a club had to be in a place linked to their name - and I assume that groundshares don't count under this rule. For instance, will Kettering have to change their name if they move into Rushden's stadium?

 

Plus I know the fans of E&E don't like having to travel outside of their borough to see home games!

Edited July 6, 2011 by bomaya

[NICE GUY]

It's not just about money tho is it NG? From what I recall Epsom & Ewell Council are one of the councils who make little or no effort to help football clubs. Every borough council or county council is different. You have some who are excellent and others who are awful. Look at Merton and the way Wimbledon have struggled for more than 20 years now!

 

E&E could maybe have a ground outside of E&E but they couldn't then call it E&E!!!

 

Groundshare I know, but who actually cared that E & E were based at Banstead and Mertsham which isn't Epsom or Ewell ?

 

My point being that I thought the FA had a rule that a club had to be in a place linked to their name - and I assume that groundshares don't count under this rule. For instance, will Kettering have to change their name if they move into Rushden's stadium?

 

Plus I know the fans of E&E don't like having to travel outside of their borough to see home games!

 

I wonder tho' now if E & E are still seeking to get a ground or intend/have to groundshare from hereon, 'coss after 20 years do they have sufficient funds for a new ground ?

 

VP and GF are you in the position to answer Bommies question about the FA ?

[Redrup No2]

Do not necessarily disagree with you,but Clubs like Staines Lammas,Farleigh,Warlingham,Bookham,Mole Valley,Epsom and Ewell,Badshot Lea,have not had the help of their local Authority or the F.A. in upgrading their facilities or acquiring a ground that is suitable for C.C.L.Whereas the Teams you mention have,along with Eversley,Westfield,which is to be applauded.Although the Groundsharing Clubs do bring much needed revenue to other Clubs in the Ryman and C.C.L.

 

"Hear hear smudge"!!

[NICE GUY]

Do not necessarily disagree with you,but Clubs like Staines Lammas,Farleigh,Warlingham,Bookham,Mole Valley,Epsom and Ewell,Badshot Lea,have not had the help of their local Authority or the F.A. in upgrading their facilities or acquiring a ground that is suitable for C.C.L.Whereas the Teams you mention have,along with Eversley,Westfield,which is to be applauded.Although the Groundsharing Clubs do bring much needed revenue to other Clubs in the Ryman and C.C.L.

 

Groundsharing. Any advantage ?

 

My observation when I go to watch teams who groundshare, they do not see it as home and just a place to play. These teams I notice never stay in the clubhouse after the game simply 'cos it's not classified as ''their'' club so leave after eating the sandwiches, as opposed other players who have ''home'' clubs where the comraderie appears understandably, on the evidence shown, to be so much better subsequently a better bond bringing better results.

 

So is it therefore any coincidence that only 1 possibly 2 teams have been promoted from the CCL Premier who groundshare ?

 

The club landlords clearly benefit financially from the revenue earned for groundsharing, and the little that comes over the bar whereas, the tenants only benefit in getting a game of football and staying in the CCL if good enough.

 

Interesting ...............

Edited July 6, 2011 by NICE GUY

[Krooner]

I think it is wrong when a club has its own ground. Not a dig at clubs who do it cos they play in the rules I just dont like it.