Possible Groundshare?

[Alan W (GNFC)]

If we have any possibility of making the Play Off positions this season, and the ground cant be brought up to League standard before 1 April 2003 ( and we obviously still dont know what is required here, but its going to be a very tight timescale I would think, if we are being realistic, no matter what the report says), would we consider putting a Groundshare arrangement in place with Gillingham for next season, in the event that it is needed?

 

According to the Barnet programme, they have such an arrangement in place and agreed with the Football League, at Orient, so if theres any likelihood of the above, I would hope that some such deal could be arranged, as I for one wouldnt want to see our players efforts go to waste if they were to achieve a top 5 finish.

[carjam]

I would hope that it never comes to that. Stonebridge Rd is a gem of a ground and has the potential to be used at a higher level. It has seen league football back in the fiftees when Gillingham shared it for two or three games. I would rather drop down the table than loose Stonebridge Rd.

[David Holden]

But it hasn't been agreed by the Conference, and on the basis of their decision with Farnborough and Kingstonian, they can't agree it because the grounds are in different counties.

 

And once again you are jumping to conclusions about what needs to be done. As I am tired of saying when we get the report, it will be be published on the website and you can form opinions based on fact, not supposition!

[Alan W (GNFC)]

It was just intended to be a thought floated on the board, Dave - alright, I know it can be read as though I am making suppositions, but the thought was simply that 6 months to initially obtain grants & other funding, and then to get work done is not a significant period, even if there is a minimal amount that needs to be done.

 

And yes, it probably is a bit early to consider the option of a groundshare but it was just a thought that crossed my mind & I thought I would raise it on the board.

 

If when the report finally appears it removes any necessity of groundshare, then great, but if not, I guess this subject will come up again at that point.

 

Apologies for any upset caused, however.

 

 

[FleetFanatic]

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote carjam:</font><hr />

I would hope that it never comes to that. Stonebridge Rd is a gem of a ground and has the potential to be used at a higher level. It has seen league football back in the fiftees when Gillingham shared it for two or three games. I would rather drop down the table than loose Stonebridge Rd.

 

<hr></blockquote>

 

Nobody mentioned losing Stonebridge Road, merely moving out temporarily whilst any work that needs to be done is done.

 

Still, like Dave says, it is best to wait and see what is required first before 'jumping the gun'.

[Fleet_Fella]

I'm not being a pessimistic so and so, but I still think that given that this will be a long hard season, especially with the injury situation showing no great signs of dramatic improvement, the main aim for this season has to be to stay up. Granted, I would be over the moon if we reached the play offs, but I just think we need to keep our feet on the ground for the time being at least.

 

<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/bounceblue.gif" alt="" />

[David Holden]

I probably wasn't thinking straight when I first replied to this, but having considered the matter it is a non-question.

 

As I read the rules, you cannot be promoted if you are ground sharing. I believe it was Maccesfield who were refused promotion because their ground wasn't finished and they had made arrangements to share with, I think it was Chester, but it was certainly a league club.

 

The only reason to consider moving out is if there were so much work required on the ground that it would be unusuable whilst the work was being carried out, and that will not be the case at Fortress Stonebridge.

[Guest]

Barnet are (if their reports are correct) in an odd situation in that the groundshare has been approved by the league, but not by the conference. I think the result would be that promotion via winning the league (yeah, right) would be possible. But they wouldn't be allowed in the play-offs.

 

Since that, they've announced plans to get Underhill up to scratch anyway.

 

How much work is required by G+N? You'll need to do it by 2004 anyway if you wish to stay in the conference!

 

Cheers,

Hoags

conference guide

confguide.com

 

[David Holden]

We are still awaiting the report from the ground-graders which should have been with us a week ago.