Relegation and Champions

[CHUFC]

Crikey marvels me that CHUFC want more teams in Div 1,now of course they are a Premier side.When they struggle year on year to complete any fixtures due to their Playing surface.Personally think that there should be 22 teams in the Premier Division,just to keep it strong,why should the likes of Chertsey Town and Hanworth Villa be relegated,because of the FA's decision to move 2 teams in,that are on either end of the CCL Catchment area.Will be an interesting AGM for sure,then certain clubs will know who their Friends are

FYI smudge we had 9 home games called off this season due to a waterlogged pitch, 2 of them were fixtures that had been rearranged from the previous week, hoping for no more rain. 1 of them were due to the fact we had a fire at the club and the fire brigade flooded the top goal mouth and corner. So you could reduce that number to 6 games.

 

We had 9 AWAY games called off due to waterlogged pitches.....the same amount as home games.

 

We also had an away game at Worcester Park at the start of the season postponed due to a cricket game being played on the Saturday.

 

We also had 1 game abandoned AWAY at Staines.

 

So when you look at the facts, we had more AWAY games postponed away than we did at home.

 

I wouldn't say we struggled to get all our fixtures in this season even with all of the postponements.

 

Like every year we request more home games mid week at the start of the season but we never get extra games.

 

The season starts in August, but in August, September & October we did not have 1 home midweek fixture, but we did travel to away games mid week.

 

We are not asking for special treatment but just a little bit of common sense, everyone always goes on about Chalky Lane but nothing is done to help us out. In other cases clubs do seem to get treated differently.....AFC Croydon played 11 away fixtures at the start of the season due to their ground not being playable. So I ask, why can't we be given 11 home fixtures at the start?

[Smudge]

Good points CHUFC,ask the League Secretary he may oblige,if you dont ask you dont get.

[BSFC Fan]

Happy to say we will be a Prem side next season !!!

[Smudge]

Happy to say we will be a Prem side next season !!!

 

Let us in on your secret!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited May 28, 2015 by Smudge

[Tel]

Happy to say we will be a Prem side next season !!!

That must mean Chertsey to be reprieved aswell, can't see the point with running with an odd number of teams again.

[BSFC Fan]

22 in the Prem, 16 in Div 1

[E&E Rich]

Numbers in Division 1,will never drop the reason more Reserve sides from Step 4 Clubs will be put in to bolster the numbers if needed.

 

20 Teams in the Premier will help Epsom and Ewell financially as they Groundshare.Plus 2 home games less saves the prefered Clubs £300 minimum in Officials Fees for starters.Where as the Division 1 sides will have to pay £250 minimum extra,is that fair.

 

Is there anything in the league constitution regarding specified numbers if not why not.I feel sorry for Chertsey Town and Hanworth Villa,put yourself in their shoes,do they prepare for Step 5 or Step 6.In my opinion the League should post their proposals for the proposed Constitution immediately.No one moaned about 21 teams last year,in fact many welcomed it.

 

Beano and E&E Rich would of course back 20 teams as it does not affect them.

Smudge, please get your facts right before posting. Or were you just bored when you wrote this? 

 

Firstly our groundshare is a seasonal fee, so actually Chipstead would benefit by getting more per game from us. Our outlay wouldn't be affected. You have no idea how we work, so please don't guess or assume

 

Also the CCL were able to elect two Reserve teams to Division One if I recall correctly, yet only one has applied. That would indicate that there is nothing to suggest there would be more teams next season so I wouldn't count on it, as you appear to be.

 

I stick by my earlier post which is constructive and recommending something that would help balance the leagues instead of insulting other people who have suggested quite logically why there should be twenty teams. Are clubs only allowed to comment  on the subject when they are below a certain point in the league now? And if they were they'd obviously vote against it, which is why a vote requires ALL clubs, many of whom won't be at the wrong end of the table. Both myself and Beano are entitled to our opinions and nothing is gained by smearing just because you don't like the viewpoint.

 

I got moaned at the other month for criticising a ground just because the club I support doesn't have one. Having been to over 500 I'm as entitled as anyone and more qualified than most to make that viewpoint. Simon Inglis wrote some great books on grounds in the nineties. Just as well he was a Villa supporter instead of a Wimbledon one at the time or he would have probably received a similarly Neanderthal response.

 

I like going to Hanworth Villa and although I personally have less time for Chertsey because of their "here today, gone tomorrow" supporters (except their Secretary Chris who is fine), the ground and club should really be at Step Five. However, from next season we should be looking to implement my suggestion as already advised earlier in the thread, WHOEVER is down there.

 

Maybe instead of being so negative Smudge, you might actually DO something for a change. Anyone can sit on their backside and tap in a few words. We're not all just here for your benefit.

Edited June 1, 2015 by E&E Rich

[Smudge]

Rich a little bit of a bite by you for sure.Dont be upset at not getting everything right in your predictions it happens.Have you proposed 20 teams in the Premier for 16/17,will it be on the 15/16 A.G.M.Agenda?

 

If I had not been sitting on my backside being so negative,you would not of posted the above reply,in fact if I had not posted the original topic thread would anyone of been posting at all about it.

 

Of course the 22/16 format has to be sanctioned at the 15/16 AGM,I suppose E&E will be voting against such a preposterous idea,along with many others from the Premier Clubs 

[E&E Rich]

You didn't read my thread Smudge, even though I put one bit in bold to make it clear. Something along the lines of not dropping to twenty this year as the League had not given any indication it was thinking of doing so.

 

So, no, my club will be voting for the constitution as recommended. As for proposing the other idea of dropping to twenty for next season I'm not exactly sure of the procedure but if another club is interested in seconding this, please drop me a PM and we'll see what we can do.

 

I do bite occasionally Smudge, but only when idiotic posts are placed. I've given credit for your posts before but just not this time.

[Big J R]

Very succint, E&E !

[Stanley Wainwright]

 

Smudge, I'm intrigued by the quote about 22 teams "just to keep it strong". The number of teams in the league carry no relevance to the strength of the league. Mathematically you could say it does the opposite, by retaining two clubs that qualified for relegation. We have a very competitive league but someone has to finish down there and hard decisions sometimes need to be taken.

 

Additionally, as Beano implies, this has nothing to do with the FA decisions. This is purely and simply down to that little black line that you need to stay above. I wouldn't change my view even if Epsom were down there.

 

However, I will concede that it would be harsh for the League to drop to 20 this season as there has never been any indication throughout the season that they intend to do so.

 

Now, for 2016/17 I'd like to propose a reduction to twenty clubs in the Premier, unless of course we have a mass influx of new clubs into our Division One, but this seems highly unlikely if Farleigh, Sheerwater, Worcester Park (and presumably Staines Lammas?)  will presumably be without floodlights at the end of the next season and will remain vulnerable to a F.A. demotion.

 

If the league make it clear that we will drop to 20 for the start of the 2016/17 season I am certain it would still be able to be worked out without anyone above the black line being vulnerable anyway. Only at the end of 2013/14 in recent years have we had the full complement of three teams relegated and although I don't know about Abbey Rangers and obviously have little idea of player personnel at each team this early, I would have thought Farleigh and possibly Lammas as they return home, would be very likely to be in the top three next season, as would Worcester Park, presumably blocking a promotion space or two. 

 

So my proposal would be something like: "For 2016/17 the Premier Division is intended to comprise of 20 clubs should it be possible to do so without relegating any club that finishes above 20th place and assuming also that this does not leave us with an odd number of clubs in the Premier Division following F.A. allocations."

 

This way, once we know the FA allocations from above around this time next year, the League could sit here and work it out. Using this year as an example it would be simple to do as Chertsey and Hanworth would drop. Everyone would have had a season's notice and no cause for complaint because they finished below the line.

 

One more thing. If this proposal or something similar does come in, watch out for next year's relegation battle. This year's was mad enough but might not be a patch on the one we might get!

 

 

Why would it be harsh now to drop to 20 teams now. This rule was in place before the start of the season and the teams knew about it because they voted for it. The rule has been used already to drop Ash into division 1 when it didn't even exist during the season. I would say that was harsh but they had finished in a relegation place.

 

I personally think that if you finish in a relegation place then you should be relegated. I'm for a 20/18 split which would make the first division a stronger league and hope that it will in future years not have the need for reserve sides to play in it.

 

Now is the time to change to twenty because we have a situation where it can be done (subject to a vote of course). If it does go to 20/18 split there is nothing increasing the numbers back up to 22 in the prem by teams dropping down from above or from new teams moving into division 1

[Chris Clapham]

I can't speak on behalf of CWUFC but I would have preferred a 20/18 split this season with a view to 20/20 next season.

[E&E Rich]

Certainly there does seem to be some interest for a 20-18 split. If that is replicated at the meeting it should be an interesting vote.

 

Only one point Stanley. With reference to a drop to 20 clubs you say "This rule was in place before the start of the season and the teams knew about it because they voted for it."

 

If that really is the case, I am surprised but it would be interesting to have a confirmation (or denial) of this from a League officer. Obviously clubs, and the League themselves could recommend a drop to 20 but I didn't realise there was already a rule and am intrigued as to its wording.

 

As for Ash, they were relegated because more clubs came into our League and being below the line they ran the risk of relegation as Chertsey and Hanworth do this season. Not because of any other ruling. It shouldn't be forgotten also that Ash finished in a relegation position the season before, but were reprieved that time.

[Stanley Wainwright]

Certainly there does seem to be some interest for a 20-18 split. If that is replicated at the meeting it should be an interesting vote.

 

Only one point Stanley. With reference to a drop to 20 clubs you say "This rule was in place before the start of the season and the teams knew about it because they voted for it."

 

If that really is the case, I am surprised but it would be interesting to have a confirmation (or denial) of this from a League officer. Obviously clubs, and the League themselves could recommend a drop to 20 but I didn't realise there was already a rule and am intrigued as to its wording.

 

As for Ash, they were relegated because more clubs came into our League and being below the line they ran the risk of relegation as Chertsey and Hanworth do this season. Not because of any other ruling. It shouldn't be forgotten also that Ash finished in a relegation position the season before, but were reprieved that time.

Ash finished in bottom 3 and were relegated because the top 3 teams in division 1 had the ground grading to get promotion.

At AGM vote taken and passed that prem division can run with 20 to 22 teams (previously run with 22 teams).

Eversley were then tound out that they did not have a ground with the proper grading and get relegated after a vote at a meeting. At the same meeting a vote was taken that kept Ash relegated. This was because of the new rule that the prem could run with 20 to 22 teams.

That's why I think it wss harsh but as I said before they had finished in a relegation position. I think teams are very lucky if they are reprieved from relegation as Ash were the previous season . This was because two teams were promoted and Ash were kept up so that the league would run with 22 teams.

I can see a vote happening every year until both divisions reach their full quota.

[E&E Rich]

For what it's worth I think it was the right decision. Eversley were promoted at the AGM but relegated later, and obviously after the constitution had been passed. As a result it was exactly the same as a 22 team league that had a team resign. You wouldn't promote someone else up at that stage.

 

So the rule you refer to is to my mind, irrelevant. If there had not been a 22nd club would the league have folded without that rule in place? Of course not. Technically the League can have as many teams in it as it likes, subject to FA agreement and member clubs passing a vote on it.

 

The fact that the Premier CAN run with 20 is completely different to whether the League want it to run with 20. The CCL Committee have made it clear in their recommendation for the AGM that they want 22 so it's up to the members to pass it or reject it, regardless of the rule you refer to. I'd like 20 and so would many others but as referred to earlier here, they have never given any indication that they would pursue this, and so to suddenly throw a recommendation out there to relegate Hanworth & Chertsey would have been very surprising.

 

One further point; voting the 22-16 split out at the AGM would be really tough on those clubs, as the season would be only five weeks away at that point and there could be a change of personnel as a result of any sudden demotion that may seriously harm their hopes of an instant return. If the League had made it clear back in early May that they were intending to drop to 20 they would have had time to deal with it, hence my suggestion for a proposal to aim to reduce for 2016/17, although it clearly looks as though it won't be put forward as no one has bothered to PM me and if they can't be bothered to do that, there is clearly little appetite for standing up at a meeting and backing a proposal, so likewise any 20-18 vote will fail also, just down to lack of interest. Pity really.

[Big J R]

Perhaps Septic Blatter could sort it all out before he goes in December.

 

Oooops  -  Sorry !  Not enough money to tempt him and he'll be too busy 'fixing' his successor..

 

[Non League Nigel]

No point going with 20 clubs in div 1 until all have lights

[Tel]

No point going with 20 clubs in div 1 until all have lights

Will Level 6 ever need lights if Division One can't reach 20 clubs Edited June 8, 2015 by Tel

[Stanley Wainwright]

For what it's worth I think it was the right decision. Eversley were promoted at the AGM but relegated later, and obviously after the constitution had been passed. As a result it was exactly the same as a 22 team league that had a team resign. You wouldn't promote someone else up at that stage.

 

So the rule you refer to is to my mind, irrelevant. If there had not been a 22nd club would the league have folded without that rule in place? Of course not. Technically the League can have as many teams in it as it likes, subject to FA agreement and member clubs passing a vote on it.

 

The fact that the Premier CAN run with 20 is completely different to whether the League want it to run with 20. The CCL Committee have made it clear in their recommendation for the AGM that they want 22 so it's up to the members to pass it or reject it, regardless of the rule you refer to. I'd like 20 and so would many others but as referred to earlier here, they have never given any indication that they would pursue this, and so to suddenly throw a recommendation out there to relegate Hanworth & Chertsey would have been very surprising.

 

One further point; voting the 22-16 split out at the AGM would be really tough on those clubs, as the season would be only five weeks away at that point and there could be a change of personnel as a result of any sudden demotion that may seriously harm their hopes of an instant return. If the League had made it clear back in early May that they were intending to drop to 20 they would have had time to deal with it, hence my suggestion for a proposal to aim to reduce for 2016/17, although it clearly looks as though it won't be put forward as no one has bothered to PM me and if they can't be bothered to do that, there is clearly little appetite for standing up at a meeting and backing a proposal, so likewise any 20-18 vote will fail also, just down to lack of interest. Pity really.

So how does a ruling that is part of the constitution become irrelevant after it has been used to relegate a team. Without it Ash would have had another reprieve as they would have been the 22nd team in a division of 22.

 

In previous years it would have a fore gone conclusion that both Hanworth and Chertsey would have got a reprieve to make up 22 teams. Without the CCL committee or a member proposing to run with 22 teams next season it would be a 20/18 split. A no vote at the AGM should mean that it goes 20/18. Yes it might mean it would be tough on both Hanworth and Chertsey but lets not forget that they both finished in a relegation position.

 

The 20 team league should be done naturally like it could be now. Saying you would do it next season after going to 22 teams could raise the possibility of 5 teams being relegated.

 

Making it 16 teams in division 1 makes it weaker in that 25% of the teams cannot gain promotion. Making it 18 teams and having this as the max number of teams would mean that any future teams moving up into division 1 would replace those teams.

[Rother]

Confirmed 22 / 16 split.

 

Hanworth and Chertsey both in.

 

AFC Hayes,, Chessy and Redhill new in. Sutton Common Rovers newly named.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Rother