Relegation Battle

[E&E Rich]

Yes it can be sorted if you have the right people in charge and / or the right council to back you. We currently don't do well on those two counts, and this has been the case for many years, hence the long-standing exile.

 

I understand duncs' view and if the FA had brought in a rule that said you had to have your own ground or drop, then we'd have to abide by it. Fortunately they haven't. However, the club is still suffering from a number of decisions made back in the late seventies and early eighties. Why should a group of supporters and players still be paying for that now, but we still are. We didn't leave our ground by choice, to "borrow" someone else's to play at a higher level, like maybe a Badshot Lea, Staines Lammas or even Bookham appear to have done in recent years. However, I wouldn't criticise them, as it is their club, so their choice. If the rules allow it, then there's no point whining about it here, even if it may seem unfair to a club that has a ground. It is most definitely not a lifestyle choice I would recommend for a club, trust me!

 

We have been a senior status club since 1924 and have had much success in that time, and if people here think we should just fold because we haven't got a ground then it does a massive disservice to those who did so much for the club in its past. To those who think we should drop down, I would point out that we actually have done, as we were a fairly successful Ryman League status club until we left West Street and for a few years after that.

 

The football club recently released a statement relating to the twenty years away from home, along the lines of it being a credit to the people who run the club that we are still here. I don't entirely agree with that either as with exception of just keeping the club going, the current Committee have achieved very little, me included, over recent years. While not going into massive detail about finances we have been drip fed from the revenue from our sale by the Holding Company that bought the ground on the club's behalf in the seventies, so successive Committees have not really been given that much responsibility anyway. 

 

I have stepped down from the Committee in recent months and this is because I don't believe they fully realise how serious the position now is and lack the drive and ambition that I want to see from people in a position of responsibility. Like many clubs our Committee are just a group of loyal supporters that want to see the club survive, but I feel that we should be aiming higher than "just surviving" because as a result we are not planning ahead, but must do so. An example of my point has recently been made by Alton Town. By massive publicity they have bought themselves a bit more time and possibly a future, whereas we have been almost embarrassed to point out how good a season we've been having "in case it upsets some of our opponents who think we're billy big b*llocks" I wish! How do potential sponsors in our town find out about how well their "out of town" home club is doing when we won't even self-publicise?

 

However, I believe there are still some cards left to play in our dwindling hand, and whilst I would say that Powelly's quote about "if you're not getting a new ground in that time then you're never getting one" may well prove to be true, talk is cheap and while there is still a chance then why give up? We are not talking about a Sunday league club that has been around for five years. We've played and even beaten some massive sides in our history, won many titles and appeared at Wembley Stadium. 

 

As for Bookham at Dorking, I'm sure it wasn't that much money being paid, obviously we have had some strong connections with Bookham in recent years so you hear bits and pieces. This is why we also have some dual registered players with them, as we have no Reserves so some players struggling for a place or coming back from injury can play at a club with people we know well.

Edited May 2, 2013 by E&E Fred

[Chris Clapham]

Form table for April - http://www.football.mitoo.co.uk/LeagueTabMonth.cfm?TblName=Matches&DivisionID=5333&LeagueCode=COMC2012&FormDate=2013-04-01&MPeriod=1

[frustin]

I think the other thing people on here fail to mention and forget is the financial benefit it brings the club who owns the ground that is offering a groundshare.

 

My club would love to have our own ground (in fact we did once at river lane) I won't go into that cos it just makes me angry.

 

We are continuing to try and get our own suitable ground.

 

We now currently groundshare with Cobham who came in and saved our playing level status and we will always be grateful to them for that, but we have also helped Cobham by sharing with them.

 

The previous Cobham owners put Cobham into a serious amount of dept to which at one point the club was on the verge of folding.

 

Our money and time spent helping doing work at the ground has helped them balance the books and kept them afloat.

 

So all you haters can moan that we share but we have helped keep a fellow CCL club in existence by working with them on and off the pitch.

 

Still we will continue to get stick lol.

[frustin]

Also if Dorking was receiving as much money from Bookham as people have quoted on here, where has all the money gone?

 

It certainly hasn't gone on the team because they have been down the bottom of the prem season after season, either hanging on and just about getting out of trouble or getting reprieved by the league cos no one can come up.

 

The money must have gone on the ground and bills which again must of surely been helping to keep them afloat.

[frustin]

People don't like groundshare's but also at the same time wouldn't want to see a club who owns a ground go under cos they can't afford to keep it running on their own.

 

It does make me laugh.

Edited May 2, 2013 by frustin

[danielpjn]

Does it not create a problem when the ground share expires though?

 

As you state,perhaps the club which owns the ground requires the additional money to stay afloat. When the club hiring the ground leaves,the club will then face financial issues again.

 

It's a complex issue and the fact we are all discussing it,suggests there is no obvious or easy solution.

 

The fact some councils are much better at assisting clubs than others,means it's unlikely that one solution will fit all either.

Edited May 2, 2013 by danielpjn

[E&E Rich]

I suppose you'd have to ask the individual clubs that question.

 

When we left Banstead they hired the pitch out to a few other teams, one of which I think was AFC Wimbledon Reserves, so you could justify from this, that they either still desperately needed the money, or it made good financial sense to receive the extra income, which frustin has already alluded to.

 

We then went to Merstham, replacing Warlingham, so it kept Merstham's "bonus income" at a similar level. I don't believe anyone shares there currently, but certainly from their league position, you could argue that they appear no worse off. They were a very well organised and decent group of people there so I'm sure they were able to find a way around the problem.

 

Let's reverse this. How many clubs with their own ground would hire it out for cup finals etc? Most I would imagine. Well, a groundshare is the same, but on a larger scale with a bigger income, and I would think that many clubs would jump at the chance to get that extra income, with the only loss in return usually being that of a Reserve side.

 

At Chipstead, some supporters weren't happy that they folded their reserve side, but if you look at the final league position, maybe our income actually kept them up. It's all speculation, but if Ash are taking on Badshot as I saw in a rumour on here the other day, then  Ash must have concluded it was for their benefit or they wouldn't have done it. Ultimately, unless you are very loyal to your club and you have lost your ground with no new one to go to, you really don't know what it's like.

[Krooner]

I dont think it is right a side should be allowed to Ground Share when they have their own ground. 

 

But as Fred says them are the rules and I certainly hold nothing against clubs who do the above when they are within the rules and certainly wouldnt fall out with them about it. 

 

The problem in the South East is planning and available land.  Add into that the number of Senior Clubs in just Camberleys area and that is a bit stupid.  There should be less clubs at our level and it makes absoulete sense for a number to merge and make stronger clubs out of it.  Camberley/Frimley Green is a prime example.  the borough then of Surrey Heath then has 1 senior football club to support and only one ground to find and develop.  Would I support "Surrey Heath United".  I honestly do not know the answer to that.  Would it attract more people and would the council get behind it.  Again who knows. 

 

We have too many clubs, not enough land and too many wallys putting money in at this level.  All of them are problems.

[Big J R]

Also if Dorking was receiving as much money from Bookham as people have quoted on here, where has all the money gone?

 

It certainly hasn't gone on the team because they have been down the bottom of the prem season after season, either hanging on and just about getting out of trouble or getting reprieved by the league cos no one can come up.

 

The money must have gone on the ground and bills which again must of surely been helping to keep them afloat.

 

 

 

I don't know where you get your information from, frustin, but it is totally false.

 

I have been asked by Dorking F.C. to state the facts regarding the ground-sharing arrangements between us and Bookham F.C.

 

At the time they pulled out of the CCL , the quoted ground-share fee was £10,000 per annum and NOT £15,000 as you alledged earlier.

 

By request and on negotiation and as a gesture of goodwill, this was REDUCED to £8,000 per annum.

 

This amount is still, or in part outstanding to Dorking F.C., and legal proceedings have been instigated to recover the outstanding amount are on-going, in court, if necessary.

 

I trust this suffices and puts yet another rubbish rumour to bed.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Big J R

[frustin]

I don't know where you get your information from, frustin, but it is totally false.

 

I have been asked by Dorking F.C. to state the facts regarding the ground-sharing arrangements between us and Bookham F.C.

 

At the time they pulled out of the CCL , the quoted ground-share fee was £10,000 per annum and NOT £15,000 as you alledged earlier.

 

By request and on negotiation and as a gesture of goodwill, this was REDUCED to £8,000 per annum.

 

This amount is still, or in part outstanding to Dorking F.C., and legal proceedings have been instigated to recover the outstanding amount are on-going, in court, if necessary.

 

I trust this suffices and puts yet another rubbish rumour to bed.

All your post proves is that you clearly don't read what I wrote.

 

I never once gave any figures on what money has changed hands.

 

You mentioned it's £10,000 rather than the £15,000 I mentioned earlier.

 

Any chance of showing me where I mentioned that exactly lol

 

All I said was that clearly no money had gone on your team because you always seem to struggle every season in the league.

 

If they still owe you money then you have been unlucky at dealing with a club who have let you down.

 

You surely can't disagree that the money they was due to pay you would of helped your club financially.

 

Don't make out you only let them play there to just do them a favour lol

[Big J R]

All your post proves is that you clearly don't read what I wrote.

 

I never once gave any figures on what money has changed hands.

 

You mentioned it's £10,000 rather than the £15,000 I mentioned earlier.

 

Any chance of showing me where I mentioned that exactly lol

 

All I said was that clearly no money had gone on your team because you always seem to struggle every season in the league.

 

If they still owe you money then you have been unlucky at dealing with a club who have let you down.

 

You surely can't disagree that the money they was due to pay you would of helped your club financially.

 

Don't make out you only let them play there to just do them a favour lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2013 by Big J R

[Big J R]

My sincere apologies, frustin. It was Powelly1....

 

QUOTE:- "The money they spend is crazy. Bookham were paying Dorking £15k for last season." UNQUOTE.

 

However, there was a question asked as to what we did with the money.

 

How could we spend money we haven't received ?

 

Anyway - It's all in the hands of the 'Legal Eagles' now.

[Smudge]

The money they spend is crazy. Bookham were paying Dorking £15k for last season. Let's say 20 home games last year meaning £750 a game then work on £5 to get in meaning they'd need 150 people through the gate to break even. Add to that no bar or food revenue and it's impossible to make that work. I think Bookham did the right thing and went home and play in the Elite. Although get this - apparently they have players dual registered with another homeless club in E&E! As I've said before these clubs should go down and play at a level where they can compete without having to share. The FA should sort it - not allow sharing for more than three years. If you're not getting a new ground in that time then you're never getting one. Alton are getting kicked out of the Bass ground but have arranged another year there in which time Anstey park will be made ready with 3G. That shows how quickly it can be sorted.

Powelly a bit of a harsh statement,alas you forgot the extra 29 supporters needed to pay the Officials.Presume your Club has a state of the art,Council owned ground that they have inherited,with very little financial loss to the club.Probably you still have to pay  in the region of £5k a year rent.Count yourself lucky,do not knock others when their passion is their Football Club.Mergers between Clubs will never happen,just imagine Knapfield FC being formed which Club would be built on?Although Camberley Green has a certain appeal.

[VPCTFC]

I dont think it is right a side should be allowed to Ground Share when they have their own ground. 

 

But as Fred says them are the rules and I certainly hold nothing against clubs who do the above when they are within the rules and certainly wouldnt fall out with them about it.

 

The non-league ground sharing rules were re-written for this season. I assume it was at the request of the Isthmian League as they were kicking off about this issue a year or two back.

You can't enter a groundshare now if you have use of your own ground unless you can show you've applied for planning permission for any work to meet the gradings and they've been refused.

[Chris Clapham]

Congratulations to Tony Mark Dean Vikrant Steve Sue Ollie Henry Duncan Bob and everyone else for all their efforts for CWUFC this season.

No ground for over half of the season, little income and players leaving throughout the season.

Those players that saw it through - legends ALL OF YOU.

Roll on July!

[Chubby Brown]

Surely you can still finish 3rd from bottom though Chris?

[Green_Fingers]

Surely you can still finish 3rd from bottom though Chris?

Maths not a strong point Chubby? Sandhurst & Dorking can finish on 41 points, Ash Utd are finished on 42. Colliers already have 43.

[Chubby Brown]

Ha...never has been a strong point!!! Think I was looking at an old table to be fair.

[frustin]

Congrats to CWU for avoiding the drop with all the ground flooding problems they have had to go through this season.

[bomaya]

We then went to Merstham, replacing Warlingham, so it kept Merstham's "bonus income" at a similar level. I don't believe anyone shares there currently, but certainly from their league position, you could argue that they appear no worse off. They were a very well organised and decent group of people there so I'm sure they were able to find a way around the problem.

 

I seem to recall the figures Warlingham/Epsom & Ewell paid Merstham were a lot less than those quoted abotu Bookham/Dorking so overall I think it was a lot smaller percentage of the overall revenue for Merstham. I think it's helped the club have a better pitch but that's about all as they still didn't have a reserve side.

 

I must say I have a lot of sympathy for E&E and MVSCR. One are beholden to a council who are perfectly happy to have NO senior football clubs in the borough which is just ridiculous. And the other had their ground stolen from them by Mole Valley and Leatherhead FC. Some of the other boroughs in Surrey don't know how lucky they are with their councils.