Email from Westfield....

[Ex EL_Gaffer]

Fellow club representatives.

 

I find reason to write to you in my capacity as Chairman of CCL member club, Westfield FC, in connection with my intention to present to member clubs attending wednesday`s Combined Counties League, Annual General Meeting, proposals to reject the current CCL committee`s recomendation in respect for their proposed constitution for the 2006-2007 season, and to seek member approval in respect of a revised constitution.

 

This season has witnessed increased awareness regarding the much talked about restructuring of the Ryman League, resulting in allocation of a number of Ryman sides into the CCL Premier Division. This, combined with requirements to put in place ground improvements necessary to comply with FA National ground grading criteria for all clubs participating at Step 5, has presented committees, members and players with additional work and rise to considerable concerns regarding membership. It has been noticeable by the subject matter discussed throughout all committee rooms during half time intervals on match days, that the effects of integration of Ryman sides could result in far reaching implications to all clubs in the Premier Division, with a similar knock on affect to clubs in Division 1.

 

The news from the FA on 11th June, in confirmation of a total of 7 additional teams being allocated to the CCL, was a far greater number than clubs envisaged and prompted further concerns from all existing Premier sides as to their contiuned Premier Status for the forthcoming season. The question of which clubs will survive and what criteria will be adopted by the management committee in determining the fate of existing member clubs took over as the main topic for discussions, with the very sport we all support and enjoy, appearing to be seemingly less important.

Throughout the season there had been ongoing speculation, rumours and opinions, all of which changed on a weekly basis,, having a wide range of possibilities and dependant on who you believed. One thing was clear, all existing clubs had concerns. How many Ryman sides ?, how would the League look after its existing member clubs ?, and what criteria would they apply in evaluating the status and continued participation in the Premier Division ?.

Notwithstanding the ongoing issues affecting ground grading awards, it was evident there was confusion amongst clubs, speculation and lots of hearsay. Right up to the day of the 8th June officers meeting, newspaper quotes from League officers depicted a very different scenario to that finally issued by the League. The outcome and constitution being recommended caused some clubs to sigh with relief, others in surpise and a few with despair.

The subsequent issue of minutes from the meeting were there for all to see, and I am sure have been read by club committee officers on more than one occassion. The opening remark made by the League Chairman stating "some very difficult decisions needed to be taken during the course of the meeting and that all comments after the meeting to clubs/media must come from the General Secretary ", indicate the committee were very aware of the sensitive nature, and far reaching implications to member clubs that would ensue from their discussions.

 

Prior to considering the merits of the proposals I intend to present to member clubs at the AGM on wednesday, I considered as to whether the CCL officers, had in making their recommendation, been loyal and supportive towards the best interests of the existing member clubs it serves.My analysis leading me to conclude the committee have not done so.

 

The addition of 7 extra teams represents almost a third of the number of sides that make up the Premier Division. The loss of both Southall and Mole Valley Predators from the League, catered for the mandatory two Premiership relegation places.

Final 2005-2006 League placings resulted in only one Division 1 club finishing in the top two promotion spots, having the required facilities to automatically gain Premier Division Status. Bearing in mind the difficult situation the League were faced, with an over supply of Premiership teams, there would appear no logical reasoning behind the "optional" decision made to accept and approve, into the Premier Division, an application from the side that finished in third place in Division 1. Such approval was not necessary, and demonstrated total disregard and insensitivity towards Premier sides. Further, a total ignorance was being shown in respect of final Premier league placings and the long association that some Premier Clubs had with the League, by being recommended for demotion into Division 1.

Further evidence of this disregard by League officers was demonstrated by way of their refusal to support officer recommendations for a Premier Division of 24 clubs, and so providing an opportunity to best serve the interests of its existing Premier sides, bearing in mind the uniqueness of the reasons behind the difficult situation they were being faced.

 

For the reasons detailed above, I would be grateful for your clubs due consideration in respect of the issues raised and for your support at the AGM, in rejecting the proposed 2006-2007 consitituton of a 22 club Premier Division, which includes the unecessary inclusion of a side finishing third in Division 1. Following such rejection, to support a new constitution for a 24 club Premier Division, made up of existing Premier sides, Division 1 sides automatically eligible for promotion, by virtue of having finished in the top two places last season, together with those external clubs having been agreed to be accepted by the CCL following Ryman League restructuring.

 

Yours in Sport.

 

Steve Perkins

 

Chairman - Westfield FC

[Krooner]

So it would appear to be a straight fight then between the proposed constitution and a 24 team division. Only 2 days to go...

[SurreyLegend]

If I was there I would support Westfields proposal 100% as I hink the league acted unfairly towards many clubs

[Teflon]

I agree with 24 team premier division but also allowing Bookham promotion from div 1. They have met all the leagues requirements to go up.

 

Why should they not be promoted just because some of the other teams have not gained the grading required.

[TB1]

Ledge, as you support Westfield 100%, does that mean you would support Frimley Green 100%. They are in the exact same position as Westfield.

[SurreyLegend]

Of course I would as I do not see ground sharing as an issue. The only two teams I would not agree with keeping are Feltham and Farnham as they did finish in the bottom two.

[Teflon]

Hi Surrey ledge,

 

I would agree that 2 teams who have been relegated Westfield and Frimley Green who had been advised that the groundshares they had arranged who be acceptable only for this to be overturned by the Fa should be allowed to stay in the premier division while they are given more time to improve their facilities.

[PB!]

So what would be his revised constitution?

[Teflon]

Mine is as it stands plus Westfield and Frimley Green.

[PB!]

Whats yours sorry?

[TB1]

I agree. For these two clubs to be relegated on matters nothing to do with the actual football is harsh (even though they've had long enough to sort their grounds out).

 

Feltham shouldn't have anything to moan about as they finished 2nd bottom, regardles of what teams dropped out half way through, finishing in that position you've got to expect the worse!!

 

Lets hope the other clubs agree on Westfield and Frimley Green (if only for us to visit Woking & Farnborough this coming season).

[PB!]

I believe that if they are back in the Prem division they will be playing at their own grounds, they were both looking to get regraded, as they believe that if Bedfont Green can get an A Grading then their ground should too. Mustnt forget Horley either surely they should be in the Prem.

[Green_Fingers]

I'm told Frimley Green will play at Farnborough if they remain in the Premier Div. The regrading will be sort for the following season, once stand is erected. The stand wasn't ordered, because FG were told the groundshare was sufficient.

[PB!]

Gotya, so who would be the 24 teams?

 

Ash, Banstead, Bedfont, Camberley, Chertsey, Chessington & Hook, Chipstead, Cobham, Colliers Wood, Cove, Dorking, Egham, Epsom & Ewell, Frimley Green, Guildford City, Horley Town, Merstham, North Greenford, Raynes Park Vale, Redaing Town, Sandhurst Town, Wembley, Westfield.

 

This would leave one more sopt to fill the 24 teams - Bedfont Green or Bookham?

[Krooner]

Quote:

Green_Fingers said:
I'm told Frimley Green will play at Farnborough if they remain in the Premier Div. The regrading will be sort for the following season, once stand is erected. The stand wasn't ordered, because FG were told the groundshare was sufficient.

But they knew how long ago they needed a stand ? Dont get me wrong I have a lot of time for Frimley Green and have some friends down there.

[Green_Fingers]

Quote:

Krooner said:

Quote:

Green_Fingers said:
I'm told Frimley Green will play at Farnborough if they remain in the Premier Div. The regrading will be sort for the following season, once stand is erected. The stand wasn't ordered, because FG were told the groundshare was sufficient.

But they knew how long ago they needed a stand ?
Dont get me wrong I have a lot of time for Frimley Green and have some friends down there.

Put yourself in their position - the Stand - without grants which were not available within the timescale - would cost £18k. With all other Clubs likely to get Grade A status either by groundsharing or extended completion times, the League would then probably have used final League placings as their means of relegating Clubs. Would you have stumped up the £18k when there was no guarantee this would preserve your status?

[GazWembleyFC]

I think that a 24 team Premier would be the ideal solution. If they wanna have it as a one season thing then so long as it's made clear from the outset where you need to finish to avoid relegation that shouldn't be a problem either. The Premiership did a similar thing around 94 I think.

 

Plus, as someone who's been watching Ryman Two football for the last few years where you often went weeks on end without matches at least there'd be plenty of games to go to!

 

We don't want to be in a situation where there is hostility to us as newcomers to the league because we're seen as having stolen the rightful places of long serving members

[Krooner]

Quote:

Green_Fingers said:

Quote:

Krooner said:

Quote:

Green_Fingers said:
I'm told Frimley Green will play at Farnborough if they remain in the Premier Div. The regrading will be sort for the following season, once stand is erected. The stand wasn't ordered, because FG were told the groundshare was sufficient.

But they knew how long ago they needed a stand ?
Dont get me wrong I have a lot of time for Frimley Green and have some friends down there.

Put yourself in their position - the Stand - without grants which were not available within the timescale - would cost £18k. With all other Clubs likely to get Grade A status either by groundsharing or extended completion times, the League would then probably have used final League placings as their means of relegating Clubs. Would you have stumped up the £18k when there was no guarantee this would preserve your status?

I agree to a point but did they really think they would be able to get away with their ground as it is. At some point they were going to have to do something about it.

[Green_Fingers]

Quote:

Krooner said:

Quote:

Green_Fingers said:

Quote:

Krooner said:

Quote:

Green_Fingers said:
I'm told Frimley Green will play at Farnborough if they remain in the Premier Div. The regrading will be sort for the following season, once stand is erected. The stand wasn't ordered, because FG were told the groundshare was sufficient.

But they knew how long ago they needed a stand ?
Dont get me wrong I have a lot of time for Frimley Green and have some friends down there.

Put yourself in their position - the Stand - without grants which were not available within the timescale - would cost £18k. With all other Clubs likely to get Grade A status either by groundsharing or extended completion times, the League would then probably have used final League placings as their means of relegating Clubs. Would you have stumped up the £18k when there was no guarantee this would preserve your status?

I agree to a point but did they really think they would be able to get away with their ground as it is. At some point they were going to have to do something about it.

And that I'm told they have done - the latest inspection suggested all that is now needed to attain the required grading is the stand - a stand they would have ordered had they not been told that the ground share was accepted. (the ground share allows them more time to obtain the grants available for the stand)

[Krooner]

Quote:

Green_Fingers said:

Quote:

Krooner said:

Quote:

Green_Fingers said:

Quote:

Krooner said:

Green_Fingers said:
I'm told Frimley Green will play at Farnborough if they remain in the Premier Div. The regrading will be sort for the following season, once stand is erected. The stand wasn't ordered, because FG were told the groundshare was sufficient.

But they knew how long ago they needed a stand ?
Dont get me wrong I have a lot of time for Frimley Green and have some friends down there.

Put yourself in their position - the Stand - without grants which were not available within the timescale - would cost £18k. With all other Clubs likely to get Grade A status either by groundsharing or extended completion times, the League would then probably have used final League placings as their means of relegating Clubs. Would you have stumped up the £18k when there was no guarantee this would preserve your status?

I agree to a point but did they really think they would be able to get away with their ground as it is. At some point they were going to have to do something about it.

And that I'm told they have done - the latest inspection suggested all that is now needed to attain the required grading is the stand - a stand they would have ordered had they not been told that the ground share was accepted. (the ground share allows them more time to obtain the grants available for the stand)

Well good luck to them. Perhaps we could merge with them and become the Surrey Heath Sharks ?