BIG SHAKE UP IN CCL?

[Smudge]

Season 14/15 in the CCL,could see a lot of sideways moves for at least 5/6 CCL Member Clubs.Currently 6 ex CCL sides,plus Corinthian Casuals sit in Relegation places at Step 4,add in minimum 2 Promotees from Div 1.This makes 9 Clubs vying for 4 Maximum places.Windsor to the Hellenic maybe?Wembley to ssml ?Croydon to the SCEL?Horley to Sussex?South Park if they do not win the League to Sussex?AFC Croydon Ath if promoted to the SCEL,if they are still groundsharing at the Arena.The list is endless.

[duncs]

I think we had this topid a few weeks ago Smudge and i made a comment that this should be the end of groundsharing cos the league could now select a league of clubs with there own grounds

[CW1975]

Have to disagree this time duncs. Ground sharing is working even in the pro game with AFC Wimbledon and Kingstonions, it's a 'needs must' for most clubs. AFC would have not got so far without it.

 

I know it's different at our level but what you're saying is that you would be prepared to lose Badshot Lea, Epsom & Ewell and Mole Valley from the Prem, Badshot Lea and Epsom & Ewell have long long histories in football. MV have progressed well and require the ground shares to continue their progress whilst actively seeking a permanent ground, an ambitious club with hurdles in their way. We all know E&Es situation through the years and would be a great loss to this level of football with the history of the club.

 

Clubs in Div 1 being AFC Croydon, have to give credit to the current people at the club for trying to rebuild a club after the problems caused by individuals and needing a ground share whilst trying to get their ground back. Epsom Ath, another progressive club that find themselves in the same situation as E&E no doubt. Staines Lammas, problems with getting lights but with the ambition to push on so needed a ground share in order to do so. So in total we could lose six clubs from steps 5 & 6 football because they ground share.

 

We recently lost two clubs due to ground share issues and the enforcement of FA ground grading rules that has scared clubs off. Those clubs being Warlingham and Bookham, both of which have their own grounds but can not get the required lights etc for ground grading, they were and still are clubs with progress in mind. So my point is this duncs, we need more clubs with the ambition to progress for the sake of non league football. There has been a demise in clubs at this level shown by the number of cubs in the various leagues. Our own DIv one being down to 16 clubs. Now if clubs have the infrastructure and finances to be able to ground share then let them. Steps 5 & 6 football should be a transgression to semi professional football ( I do not class these levels to be at present although some deluded players think they are) and possibly on to the pro game for some. Ground grading should be relaxed at step 6 in order to attract clubs with ambition and the possibility to upgrade in the future and I believe that the grading for step 5 is correct. This way clubs could come in to step 6 with the chance to play senior football and progress to step 5 when they have the correct ground grading in place. We don't want park pitches with rope around them but there is an in between from that to some of the clubs currently at step 6. The FA grading rules will force more clubs to drop down and I believe that will have a negative effect on grass roots football. If we take out the six clubs currently sharing and the clubs in Div 1 that are currently without the correct grading we will be left with 19 clubs in Prem and 7 in Div 1, promote three to Prem to replace ground sharers and you have 4 clubs for Div 1. I can not think how this would ever benefit grass roots and makes the whole transgression for clubs from intermediate to senior level and then on to semi pro level almost impossible.

 

Let's encourage clubs rather than putting them off, most of the ground sharing clubs are at decent grounds anyway.

 

This is in no way detrimental to you or your views duncs.

[A town]

Well said YV , a true football man

[duncs]

I respect your opinion YV but it doesn't change mine, what you failed to mention and i know its in hinesight but how much has been spent by these clubs surely they could have state of the art facilities with what they have forked out so far,now is the time to give these clubs a deadline date and see what happens, I think i know dont you ?

[In The Know]

Duncs,I totally agree with some of what you are saying but speaking on behalf of my own club we have been held back by a lack of options being put forward by councils. You cannot magic facilities out of thin air. Epsom like us have no base, the only difference being they did have a facility that was sold. All we have had access to is a recreation ground with no hope of ever enclosing it or indeed putting up lights and a stand. We are very close to our dream and 2014 looks like being a massive year in terms of finally realising our ten plus year search. Catch 22 is what I would sum up what you are saying which is in all the years that we have been groundsharing @ Farnborough, Godalming and Ash we could have put that into a new ground but then how would we have played football in that time other than going back to Aldershot Senior League or equivalent and wait until we have the ground. We made the decision to do it in the way that we have and whether it's right or wrong is a matter of individual opinion. Catch up with you at one of our games soon.

Edited January 12, 2014 by In The Know

[duncs]

i knew you would have a say ITK but are you really gonna get a ground of your own cos it seems like you have been sharing for a long time,I still say a deadline should be set as it will help put a stop to this practice,why not do what YV suggets and ask the council to invest in a 3/4g pitch,surely its the way to go.

[Green_Fingers]

i knew you would have a say ITK but are you really gonna get a ground of your own cos it seems like you have been sharing for a long time,I still say a deadline should be set as it will help put a stop to this practice,why not do what YV suggets and ask the council to invest in a 3/4g pitch,surely its the way to go.

Groundsharing a 3/4g pitch has to be the way forward surely 

[Smudge]

How can any Club plan for the future,when they do not know for sure what League they will be in next year.Take last year alone,2 ex CCL Clubs Guildford City and Godalming Town were doing O.K. in Calor 1 Central,then the F.A. move them to Calor South West,both Managers and Players leave,due to extra travelling.Now they are struggling and looking Relegation in the face.

[CW1975]

Badshot Lea is a prime example, established in 1907 I believe and only got into senior football ten or eleven years ago and needing ground shares to get there. Yes it's taken a while but as ITK says they are close to getting somewhere and fair play to them as when they get it who knows where it can take them, an ambitious club fulfilling potential. The money they have spent can also now be justified and when they have a ground they can put it into that. I think it is testament to some clubs that they have that money to spend on ground sharing, however they get it. Other clubs have other issues but they are all based around getting somewhere in the first place, including transition from park pitch to enclosed ground. This is not easy for any club, however, offer a 3G ground for community use and maybe the councils will back it

 

Smudge, I understand what you're saying as some FA decisions have played a big part in how clubs have performed with moving them about, I'm not sure they would understand that however and you know they would not hold themselves responsible. I'm not sure they care too much about grass roots football otherwise they wouldn't implement the ground grading rules that will kill off clubs at steps 6. That decision alone has backfired as it can't happen unless they have clubs to come up and replace others, how many clubs below step 6 have the correct grading to survive at step 6, even after the two years grace they get?

Edited January 12, 2014 by Young Veteran

[Beano]

One of the biggest problems is that the South-East of England is the most densely populated part of the country, so there is tremendous pressure on land - it's difficult to persuade a council that devoting 3 or 4 acres of land to developing a senior football ground is better than building loads of houses. Even when a club has a ground, any improvements have to get planning permission and any planning application generates howls of protest from the local residents, who become convinced that allowing their local club to improve their facilities is a cast-iron guarantee that their area will be overrun by hooligans every Saturday afternoon (even if the club's average gate is 50!).

 

It took Ashford Town (Middlesex) the best part of ten years to get planning permission for the facilities currently available at the Robert Parker Stadium and, even then, the pitch had to be moved nine metres away from Short Lane - effectively rendering the ground three-sided - before floodlighting was approved.  Elsewhere in the same borough, Staines Lammas have a ground which is also a public park and is in a conservation area, meaning that they can't put anything permanent in place to improve it.

 

Now, if you ban groundsharing, Lammas would have to leave the CCL, would lose all their players and management and those officials who have put their heart and soul into developing the club might walk away too, meaning that the club could well cease to exist. Is that what you want, Duncs? A club that has been going since 1926 and has a thriving youth section simply wiped off the football map because they will never be allowed to improve their ground and there's nowhere else in their local area to build one?

 

Groundsharing isn't ideal, but it does provide one way of allowing clubs to progress, whilst simultaneously allowing the club who do have an available ground to generate additional revenue from their tenants. Down in Kent, when Erith & Belvedere's ground was badly damaged in a fire, they moved in permanently with Welling United and used some of the proceeds from selling their ruined venue to build a new stand, with their own bar and changing facilities, at Welling. Welling benefit from a significantly improved ground, Erith get to retain a base and generate income whilst also playing at a Conference standard facility. Where's the problem?

[Krooner]

It is a tough one to call for as you put up good examples people can provide bad ones.

 

I personally do not like ground sharing and am of the opinion that if a club wishes to groundshare there should be certain criteria.  This would include a say 5 year plan to be in their own ground.  That is my opinion but I don't have anything against any club that does ground share as they are all doing what they are allowed to do within the rules.

 

I do think a more important subject is clubs going bankrupt/restarting/going into administration.  Now that does get me hot under the collar.

[Beano]

Krooner, I absolutely agree with you about clubs defaulting on their debts and starting again as if nothing has happened. 

 

However, I think there are certain circumstances where a groundshare benefits both clubs and therefore the game as a whole and the idea of just banning the concept is completely impractical. If you do, clubs who cannot develop their own grounds will simply wither away and that can't be a good thing.

 

If it's good enough for AC Milan and Internationale, or Sampdoria and Genoa, or for numerous professional football and rugby clubs (of both codes) then why should it be banned in the English non-league game?

[duncs]

noone is wanting clubs to fold Beano but if these clubs that share already have a ground then they can either get it developed or play in the leagues where thier facilities are allowed,it is wrong to fast track senior football on the back of another club and i don't think that is what the groundsharing rule was made for.

[Beano]

Duncs, I think if you tell a club they can only play at Step 7 or lower, without ever having a chance of progressing, a lot of clubs in that sort of position will fold. After all, what's the point of trying to win matches if doing so is ultimately meaningless? Lots of clubs were already playing football at this level before the current grading rules came in - if their response to those rules is to comply with them by sharing with another club, then they are not doing anything wrong.

 

There is a difference between an established club making a difficult choice in order to continue playing at a level they have earned the right to be at and a new club rampaging through the leagues pumped up by someone's money and ego and piggybacking off another club's hard work to do it. However, it is a fact that, in many cases, groundsharing has been beneficial to both clubs and, for the reasons I've already mentioned, it won't ever be banned. 

[CW1975]

So by your 5 year rule Krooner, the clubs I mentioned earlier would no longer be at step 5 & 6 and therefore there would be a shortage of clubs. Maybe with the exception of AFC Croydon who have not been around for more than 5 years. Also they went bust because they had a chairman that stitched them up I believe leading them into having to reform or disappear altogether. It's not right what he did but the honest people at the club are the ones that restarted it.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Young Veteran

[Smudge]

Clubs at Step 5 cannot progress anyway,due to the ludicrous 1 up promotion rule.Step 4 and above is a closed shop.Presently Corinthian Casuals are bottom of Ryman 1 South,having often been in a relegation spot,but never relegated from the Ryman League.Anyone want a bet that if they finish bottom they will not be relegated,the F.A/Ryman work in mysterious ways.

[duncs]

so by what yhou are saying YV clubs are blackmailing the league by telling them if we have to go back to our grounds then we will fold then that is more unacceptable,it is only fair to teams that have the facilities and want to come into this league be let in,I bet that most of these clubs given a deadline date would come up with something 

[Smudge]

Teams lower do not have the facilities Duncs.FACT

[Smudge]

Can the League confirm that 3 Teams if having the grading,will be promoted from Div 1 to the Premier this year.Can the F.A.overide a League Rule,if to many ex CCL Clubs get relegated from Step 4.