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

[spy]

Wow, pretty sure Merstham don't charge anywhere near these figures. Spy might know otherwise and maybe I'm misremembering......

Warlingham paid £8k + vat for Merstham and it was contracted to rise to £9k + vat had they stayed for year two, but i think the price was dropped for E & E but don't know. Warlingham as you know moved to whyteleafe for a significantly lower price, but as they are still there I'm not willing to post that.

Bookham were paying £10k for Dorking I'm led to believe

Edited July 10, 2011 by spy

[In The Know]

Here we go again the negativity around groundshares and certainly a lot of miss information as usual around it.

 

We at Badshot Lea certainly do not want to groundshare but without farnborough and godalming we would still be in Intermediate level football. We have been working very closely with Waverley Council over the past 6/7 years and I am pleased to say that there does seem to be light at the end of the tunnel and a potential new ground is on the horizon.

 

I am not prepared to put figures on this messageboard of what we pay Godalming as that would be unprofessional. What is still apparent is there seems to still be a growing number of anti-groundsharers attached to this league and all I would say to any of you is that it is here and I would expect in the current economic climate more clubs come together to develop and play out of facilities in the future otherwise we sadly will see more teams folding.

 

Anyway I must go as I am off to clean the club ferrari........................................

[newby marvel]

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.

 

An a loaded chairman weebs .............

[Krooner]

sorry In the Know I disagree with you. work with the council and when you have your ground that is great and good luck to you I hope you get it. You have a gournd that is available to you and you should play there. Buying (Cannot dress it up anyway because that is what is) your way to Step 5, for me, is wrong and should not be allowed. You are from Badshot Lea and should play in Badshot Lea. I do not hold it against any club that does groundshare as they are playing within the rules I just think it is wrong. We will never agree but I reckon we could have a right few beers over the subject and still remain on talking terms

[Green_Fingers]

sorry In the Know I disagree with you. work with the council and when you have your ground that is great and good luck to you I hope you get it. You have a gournd that is available to you and you should play there. Buying (Cannot dress it up anyway because that is what is) your way to Step 5, for me, is wrong and should not be allowed. You are from Badshot Lea and should play in Badshot Lea. I do not hold it against any club that does groundshare as they are playing within the rules I just think it is wrong. We will never agree but I reckon we could have a right few beers over the subject and still remain on talking terms

 

Now I know why Teffs always calls you a Kent Kroons

 

Wonder how many AFC Wimbledon supporters share those views

[Krooner]

Proof of the pudding there GF. Me and Teffs disagree, have had a few beers and still hate each other

 

Dont see where AFC Wimbledon fit in here ?

 

 

[Green_Fingers]

Proof of the pudding there GF. Me and Teffs disagree, have had a few beers and still hate each other

 

Dont see where AFC Wimbledon fit in here ?

 

 

 

They were admitted to the CCL cos they (originally) had a groundshare agreement at Kingstonian (not Wimbledon)

[Redrup No2]

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.

 

An a loaded chairman weebs ........

 

 

and you leaving saved us alot of cash i.e fines!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Krooner]

But no ground of their own GF. That is where it differs from Badshot Lea, Bookham, Warlingham, Staines Lammas et al.

[In The Know]

Dont get me started on this one.........

 

Buying our way to Step 5, that is a good one. You are beginning to sound exactly like the Ryman League. We do not and never have had a security of tenure (lease on a ground) we also do not have a central site ie a place where paying members use a social club etc. Our youths as well as ourselves play at 4 different sites in Badshot Lea, Weybourne, Farnham and some other schools as well as Godalming. What you are saying is that we should of stood still back in the days that we were in Hellenic One but we decided as a committee that we owed it to the players and management to at least seek alternative grounds in order for us to progress. We approached the then Farnborough chairman Tony Theo and the rest is history. I agree it has been a case of chasing the dream but please dont hang us for such an offence. Our groundshare is not the first and it certainly will not be the last I can guarantee you of that.

 

Your views are shared by others but I get fed up hearing people talking about groundsharing as being such a negative. This is clearly one of the main reasons why all of us groundshares are viewed as vermin by many and not liked by many member clubs.

 

Anyway know doubt we will see you over at Godalming at some point during the season

[lazarus]

I would like to put a point in on this discussion as it touches upon the arguments I put forward in an appeal to the Football Association two seasons ago when the Ryman League were threatening to bar ground shares but only in those instances where the tenant club had a ground of its own. The appeal still waits in abeyance as Ashford was transferred to the Southern League who, like the CCL, have no great problem with ground sharing.

 

The point we made was that the distinction being made as to whether or not the sharing club had a ground of its own, was a false basis for making such decisions. We argued that leagues had to look at why those clubs who did not have grounds of their own were in that situation, as it could be argued that many of them did have a ground of their own once and then lost it either through a deliberate decision, financial mismanagement, over spending or, in some cases, through false optimism in moving out of their own ground before a new home was available (and then finding it was never going to be ready!). I am sure most of us can think of examples of all of them.

 

Why should such clubs be favoured over a club like Staines Lammas, for example, whose situation I am obviously quite close to and will use as an example. They have a pleasant ground and excellent facilities in Laleham but, being in a conservation area, have struggled without success to obtain planning permission to put up the lights which they had even gone out and bought. Is there anything wrong in that situation with ground sharing, if they feel they can sustain it, when they have done their best to develop their own facilities but have been thwarted at every turn? Should they be held back because of the rigid restrictions of planning laws? I suspect the same or a similar story applies to Badshot Lea, Warlingham and others in the CCL who find themselves in this situation and it can be argued that such clubs are more deserving of being allowed to ground share than some other clubs (not all, of course), often of much higher status, who have lost their own ground for one or other of the reasons mentioned.

 

The bottom line, we argued (Ashford, this is) was that ground sharing has to be accepted or not in its entirety. It cannot be OK for some and not others, especially if based solely upon the somewhat misleading criteria of a tenant club having or not having a ground of their own.

 

I am aware that there are some very diverse opinions on the matter and should stress that this is a personal view written with my Ashford hat on as I am sure that some of my colleagues on the Management Committee might disagree with me!

[In The Know]

Thanks Whitelaw...............................

 

It looks like we have at least one like minded person making very valid points supporting groundsharing.

 

 

 

 

[Redrup No2]

I would like to put a point in on this discussion as it touches upon the arguments I put forward in an appeal to the Football Association two seasons ago when the Ryman League were threatening to bar ground shares but only in those instances where the tenant club had a ground of its own. The appeal still waits in abeyance as Ashford was transferred to the Southern League who, like the CCL, have no great problem with ground sharing.

 

The point we made was that the distinction being made as to whether or not the sharing club had a ground of its own, was a false basis for making such decisions. We argued that leagues had to look at why those clubs who did not have grounds of their own were in that situation, as it could be argued that many of them did have a ground of their own once and then lost it either through a deliberate decision, financial mismanagement, over spending or, in some cases, through false optimism in moving out of their own ground before a new home was available (and then finding it was never going to be ready!). I am sure most of us can think of examples of all of them.

 

Why should such clubs be favoured over a club like Staines Lammas, for example, whose situation I am obviously quite close to and will use as an example. They have a pleasant ground and excellent facilities in Laleham but, being in a conservation area, have struggled without success to obtain planning permission to put up the lights which they had even gone out and bought. Is there anything wrong in that situation with ground sharing, if they feel they can sustain it, when they have done their best to develop their own facilities but have been thwarted at every turn? Should they be held back because of the rigid restrictions of planning laws? I suspect the same or a similar story applies to Badshot Lea, Warlingham and others in the CCL who find themselves in this situation and it can be argued that such clubs are more deserving of being allowed to ground share than some other clubs (not all, of course), often of much higher status, who have lost their own ground for one or other of the reasons mentioned.

 

The bottom line, we argued (Ashford, this is) was that ground sharing has to be accepted or not in its entirety. It cannot be OK for some and not others, especially if based solely upon the somewhat misleading criteria of a tenant club having or not having a ground of their own.

 

I am aware that there are some very diverse opinions on the matter and should stress that this is a personal view written with my Ashford hat on as I am sure that some of my colleagues on the Management Committee might disagree with me!

Great post alan and us at lammas should not be held back!! Were doing our utmost best to get a facilites to to the right grading!!

[Smudge]

Camberley know how hard it is with local Councils in their attempt to get better facilities,for their Club and the Communites use.Find it strange that a lot of people denegrate Ground Sharing,they are like the people at the F.A.,got their heads in the clouds.

[In The Know]

Well done Smudge. Thanks for your support.

You are always welcome at Badshot Lea. Hope to see you at Godalming this season.

 

 

[jertzee]

As a Wimbledon fan for 35 years I think I have been affected by groundsharing more than most, not that it makes my opinion any more, or less, valid than anyone elses.

 

Firstly let's get the Ryman league out of the way. From my experience they are driven more by rules than commone sense so I will ignore them.

 

There are two sides to every ground share but the common element in all is that one team always benefits, if not two.

What is also common is that one team who does benefit doesn't think they do benefit.

Other teams in the league who are not directly affected by the groundshare also, commonly, feel they are hard done by.

 

All of the above is true when I have read all the posts on here.

 

Let's take Wimbledon...

Groundsharing at Selhurst Park....

Plus points - bigger crowds, more gate income.

Downside - less affiiliation with the bigger crowds to Wimbledon, rent, no other income other than gate receipts plus others.

Trust me - it didn't help us being at Selhurst.

 

What about AFC Wimbledon?

Well, it is our ground, legally, if not actually our home in Wimbledon.

But have we benefitted from it?

No! We have a massive loan on it, that we pay interest on to Barclays and whereas other teams that have their own ground don't have this debt, having Kingsmeadow has not helped us other than being able to prevent some unscrupulous businessmen moving our club. We pay to maintain it, we pay to improve it and at the end of the lease we will have nothing as Kingston council owns the land.

The best thing about the groundshare is we helped save Kingstonian. I dont want thanks for helping save their club, they may have saved it themselves, but they get a ground rent FREE and they get the bar takings from their home matches, making it as good as if they owned the grounds but without the maintenance costs...and it is the geographically correct ground too.

 

If anything, rather than moan and bitch about Wimbledon for stealing their ground, it is the other Ryman teams that should be pissed off about us being their tenants as ti makes them better off thanmost other clubs.

 

The point I am making is that every scenario is different.

I hated Selhurst, and Kingsmeadow is still not our home as long as it is not in Merton and not in yellow and blue (our volunteers paint it each year in red and white - rarely does a K's fan ever help out).

 

Everyone likes their own ground.

I wouldn't pop along to Raynes Park Vale if they shared Banstead's ground, anymore than I would watch Banstead if they played at RPV should they ground share at GrandDrive.

But sometimes you can't get what you want for planning reasons, unscruplous owners reasons etc etc.

 

What all clubs should do is have a plan to get back to the area they represent but how that could be tracked is nigh on impossible.

 

There is no simple answer is all I have managed to work out, but to say it should be stopped is not the answer.

Wimbledon wouldn't exist without it, and I don't think K's would either.

[Big J R]

Wow, pretty sure Merstham don't charge anywhere near these figures. Spy might know otherwise and maybe I'm misremembering......

Warlingham paid £8k + vat for Merstham and it was contracted to rise to £9k + vat had they stayed for year two, but i think the price was dropped for E & E but don't know. Warlingham as you know moved to whyteleafe for a significantly lower price, but as they are still there I'm not willing to post that.

Bookham were paying £10k for Dorking I'm led to believe

 

 

I'm not going to get embroiled in the Bookham discussion, other than to say, YES they have access to a ground and wanted to bring it up to CCL Prem standard. For reasons that have little to do with their Clubs administration, it couldn't be. I'll leave the rest for you to work out, but here's a couple of clues. DFC's court experiences of a couple of years ago, and some occurences regarding River Lane ground, a club in Leatherhead and a club in the CCL Prem at present.

 

I personally, have no axe to grind regarding ground-shares as long as the League and FA sanction such groundshare arrangements, so here's a reverse scenario.

 

Bookham were relegate last season to Division 1. Dorking survived for various reasons.

 

JUST SUPPOSE Dorking had got relegated. Would a club who had earnt promotion but could not go up because of ground-grading expect DFC to boot Bookham out of Meadowbank so that they could apply for groundshare using DFC lights and facilities - I THINK NOT !

 

It's all in the hands of the League, so lets leave it that way ! After all, Clubs do have the right to propose changes at the AGM's !!

Edited July 11, 2011 by Big J R

[Non League Nigel]

I've nothing against groundshares for clubs that genuinely have moved heaven and earth to try and and upgrade their facillities. However I do not agree with these flash in the pan clubs that appear out of nowhere and groundshare with step 5 facillities ( or above) before running out of money after a season or two.

 

Also were Bookham tempted at all to save a good few grand and move back home whilst they were in division one?

[Krooner]

Dont get me started on this one.........

 

Buying our way to Step 5, that is a good one. You are beginning to sound exactly like the Ryman League. We do not and never have had a security of tenure (lease on a ground) we also do not have a central site ie a place where paying members use a social club etc. Our youths as well as ourselves play at 4 different sites in Badshot Lea, Weybourne, Farnham and some other schools as well as Godalming. What you are saying is that we should of stood still back in the days that we were in Hellenic One but we decided as a committee that we owed it to the players and management to at least seek alternative grounds in order for us to progress. We approached the then Farnborough chairman Tony Theo and the rest is history. I agree it has been a case of chasing the dream but please dont hang us for such an offence. Our groundshare is not the first and it certainly will not be the last I can guarantee you of that.

 

Your views are shared by others but I get fed up hearing people talking about groundsharing as being such a negative. This is clearly one of the main reasons why all of us groundshares are viewed as vermin by many and not liked by many member clubs.

 

Anyway know doubt we will see you over at Godalming at some point during the season

 

You will and not going to hang you just yet As I say I have nothng against clubs who do it because they play in the rules I just personally dont like it but not sure the rules will change so will just have to put up with it . The fact is that each of these clubs have dedicated people who put in many hours for their local club and will never knock any of them for that.

 

Very good post by Whitelaw that makes some excellent points and actually this has been a decent thread with different views expressed and excellent points put across. And so far no-one has resorted to silly name calling.

[The Fan]

Sloane FC have looked at a new ground in West London.

 

Can't say any more!:coffee (2):

 

chris who does the ground across from the wibadune. belong to?