Relegation and Champions

[Big J R]

Will Level 6 ever need lights if Division One can't reach 20 clubs

 

 

That thought had crossed my mind.

[E&E Rich]

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.

As I've already said, the constitution wasn't used to relegate Ash. They were relegated by right and Eversley were the 22nd team in a division of 22. By the time the Eversley situation occurred we were into the new season and beyond the AGM. To use another example, Salisbury were expelled / folded very early this season but the Conference South did not reprieve a team from the level below, they just stayed with one team less in as was done here by the CCL. Time to let it go SW.

 

As for the highlighted quote above, can you support this? why would it be a 20/18 split? At no time in recent years have the CCL ever intended to go to 20 and on the rare occasions we have gone to 21 they have ensured we went straight back to 22 the full season. I'm not saying I agree with that decision, and in fact agree that it would be an ideal opportunity to drop to 20, but that's the way it has been in the recent past so your quote is wrong to suggest we would automatically go to 20.

 

Regarding your comments on five down the following season if we dropped in number, that is why my proposal was worded to ensure that this is the intention, but was conditional on no one above 20th position being relegated. There is no way five would or should be relegated unless they failed the ground grading. As for lights at Step Six, we forget that many clubs across the country have them at step seven too. The FA will not backtrack on this, and I suspect that this is the last time they will entertain a reprieve.

 

Summary: It is too late to do anything for next season. There is no way the clubs will vote against the Committee's recommendation in enough numbers to even make it close. What I am trying to do here is to put something in place that will enable a more manageable 20 team fixture calendar for the following season if at all possible.

 

Without doubt, had Farleigh Rovers possessed floodlights, Chertsey would be down. But they don't. End of.

[Tel]

Not knowing much about Division One grounds, how many teams will be relegated when the F A implement their lights policy?

[Smudge]

4 at present,Farleigh Rovers,Sheerwater,Staines Lammas,Worcester Park.

[Big J R]

Is the F.A.'s lights policy absolutely 'cast in stone' ?

 

Seems short-sighted when teams of this level have dropped out of other Leagues for other various reasons.

[Chris Clapham]

Is the F.A.'s lights policy absolutely 'cast in stone' ?

 

Seems short-sighted when teams of this level have dropped out of other Leagues for other various reasons.

 

...and a step 5 league is running with 19!

[Rother]

Farnborough to join CCL...?

[Big J R]

Farnborough to join CCL...?

 

 

Now that IS an interesting thought, Rother !!

[Krooner]

Rumour on twitter is that CVA amendment has been voted in favour of and that the club are now in talks with The FA.

 

Really is outrageous if they are allowed to get away with an alteration from 100p to 1.9p in the pound and get away scott free.

[Stanley Wainwright]

As I've already said, the constitution wasn't used to relegate Ash. They were relegated by right and Eversley were the 22nd team in a division of 22. By the time the Eversley situation occurred we were into the new season and beyond the AGM. To use another example, Salisbury were expelled / folded very early this season but the Conference South did not reprieve a team from the level below, they just stayed with one team less in as was done here by the CCL. Time to let it go SW.

 

As for the highlighted quote above, can you support this? why would it be a 20/18 split? At no time in recent years have the CCL ever intended to go to 20 and on the rare occasions we have gone to 21 they have ensured we went straight back to 22 the full season. I'm not saying I agree with that decision, and in fact agree that it would be an ideal opportunity to drop to 20, but that's the way it has been in the recent past so your quote is wrong to suggest we would automatically go to 20.

 

Regarding your comments on five down the following season if we dropped in number, that is why my proposal was worded to ensure that this is the intention, but was conditional on no one above 20th position being relegated. There is no way five would or should be relegated unless they failed the ground grading. As for lights at Step Six, we forget that many clubs across the country have them at step seven too. The FA will not backtrack on this, and I suspect that this is the last time they will entertain a reprieve.

 

Summary: It is too late to do anything for next season. There is no way the clubs will vote against the Committee's recommendation in enough numbers to even make it close. What I am trying to do here is to put something in place that will enable a more manageable 20 team fixture calendar for the following season if at all possible.

 

Without doubt, had Farleigh Rovers possessed floodlights, Chertsey would be down. But they don't. End of.

As I have already said the constitution was used to relegate Ash. Why would a vote have taken place if Ash had been relegated by right. Time to let it go E&E.

 

A 20/18 split is what would have occurred if both Hanworth and Chertsey were in fact relegated.

 

The rule is already there in place to be able to go to 20 teams. To set it in stone that it would happen next season it could mean that 5 teams get relegated from the prem if three teams get promoted from the first. The only natural way is (without the interference of the FA) if only one team is promoted from the first and three relegated from the prem. The likely thing to happen then is as this season 2 teams would again be reprieved.

[Tel]

Not particularly combined counties teams but does anyone know if a team reprieved one season has got promotion the following season.

 

It must have happened somewhere !

[jayjay]

No

Edited June 14, 2015 by jayjay

[Big J R]

Couldn't the final outcome of Farnborough today upset the whole applecart ??

[spark100]

Farnborough confirmed in the Ryman League Premier Division at Sunday's AGM

[E&E Rich]

As I have already said the constitution was used to relegate Ash. Why would a vote have taken place if Ash had been relegated by right. Time to let it go E&E.

 

A 20/18 split is what would have occurred if both Hanworth and Chertsey were in fact relegated.

 

The rule is already there in place to be able to go to 20 teams. To set it in stone that it would happen next season it could mean that 5 teams get relegated from the prem if three teams get promoted from the first. The only natural way is (without the interference of the FA) if only one team is promoted from the first and three relegated from the prem. The likely thing to happen then is as this season 2 teams would again be reprieved.

Can you please provide the rule you refer to SW?

 

Also bear in mind that there will always be "interference" from the FA, or as most people call it, promotion and relegation.

 

My suggestion was to try to get down to 20 as long as no one above 20th was relegated. Not really sure how many times I have to spell this out to you.

 

If you say there is a rule here that already does it, I'd like to see it please, and as you seem so sure of it, you should be able to put it up here.

[mal316]

Can you please provide the rule you refer to SW?

 

Also bear in mind that there will always be "interference" from the FA, or as most people call it, promotion and relegation.

 

My suggestion was to try to get down to 20 as long as no one above 20th was relegated. Not really sure how many times I have to spell this out to you.

 

If you say there is a rule here that already does it, I'd like to see it please, and as you seem so sure of it, you should be able to put it up here.

 

The only League rule I can find that mentions the size of the Premier Division is:-

 

13.4 v) No club will be relegated from the Premier Division if by doing so, the membership of the Premier Division would fall below 22 for the following season.

[Smudge]

So ASH should of called for an E.G.M.last season.

[E&E Rich]

Thanks Mal It will be interesting to see what rule SW comes back with....

 

Yes, Smudge, technically they could have called for an EGM if they could get the necessary support. However, the Committee would have no doubt explained why they made the decision and the clubs would have accepted it. Nothing would have changed, except that many people would have lost an evening of their lives that they wouldn't get back.

 

The Eversley situation was unfortunate, not least for them remember, as they had earned promotion, but you will not get more than a handful of clubs going against the CCL Committee on this as they had their reasons, which were made clear at the time I recall.

[Smudge]

So the CCL broke rule 13.4v)which demoted Ash,SHAME ON THEM.It seems to me that the CCL Committee do not get challenged on anything by Clubs.Remember people moaning last year that they each had to have a Saturday off, due to the League running with 21 clubs broken rule,lost revenue etc,did the CCL Compensate Clubs for this?Rich you talk from a relatively safe position with Epsom and Ewell,however if you where at Bedfont and Feltham,Frimley Green,Eversley,CB Hounslow,would you be singing from the same hymn sheet,of course not.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Smudge

[E&E Rich]

Smudge, please can you stop guessing what I would or wouldn't do. You have no idea. Also, when I am on here, these are my own personal views. Official stuff goes on the website. I've said many times that I prefer a 20-18 split, which is my view.

 

I don't recall people moaning about a Saturday off last year. In fact, more often than not people were happy to have a spare week for a change as it gave players a chance to recharge the batteries. Towards the end of the season I accept that you don't want a week off if you have a backlog, but by and large, everyone understood the situation and we had 37 teams last year across the league so someone had to have a day off in one of the divisions. Unless we had brought in a reserve team at short notice, but you'd have probably had a moan at that too.

 

To try and settle this once and for all, I now enclose the detail (below) behind the decision on the League's 22-16 split. I apologise in advance if I'm not supposed to, but it isn't what I would class as sensitive, it just shows that the Committee gave considerable thought to the matter and have backed up their decision. What more could they do? 

 

I'm aware that in the close season you are maybe a bit bored at the moment, but can we now drop your anti-CCL policy Smudge until you start standing for a position or getting officially involved with a club again. It's getting boring.

 

 

After considerable discussion, the Board decided upon a 22-16 split, rather than a 20-18 split.  The main reasons for this were:

 

1.  Although this subject was talked about to some extent at the last AGM and the rules would have allowed for it, it was felt that at no time had the Board/Management Committee stated their intention to deliberately reduce the number of clubs in the Premier Division from the optimum number of 22 clubs and that it would be unfair to implement such a situation without notice for the new season when there was a clear opportunity to maintain the generally accepted norm of 22 clubs.

 

2.  There was a majority view that the League was stronger by having a full complement of clubs in the Premier Division.  If we willingly dropped to 20, it would quickly become the norm with every possibility that Division One may suffer more in the long run if clubs left the League on promotion without being replaced, which has happened so often in the past.  By maintaining 22 clubs in the Premier Division, it allows for a cushion should Division One look likely to drop to less than 16 in the future.  Were that to happen, it would then be possible to bolster the numbers in Division One by additional relegation, but that could not be done if the Premier Division was already down to 20.

 

3.  There will be 4 clubs without floodlights in Division One next season.  It is impossible to forecast the weather but an 18 club division would have meant four additional fixtures for each club and even with 16 some only just completed their fixtures on time in season 14-15 when, overall, the weather was kinder than in some seasons.

 

4.  We have too many Level 4 referees who struggle to be appointed for Premier Division matches.  By having 22 clubs in the Premier Division, there will be 11 league matches on the majority of Saturdays, rather than 10 and will allow overall for an additional 82 league matches, which eases the problem to an extent over the season.

 

5.  Strong representation had been made to the Football Association for their assistance in maintaining a full complement of clubs in the Premier Division.  To voluntarily reduce the number of clubs in the Premier Division would counter-act the representations previously made.