Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support Fans Focus by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content

Email from Westfield....

Ex EL_Gaffer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Teflon Newbie

Teflon

Posted
Posted
Quote:
paulb said:
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?


The only changes I would make is no Horley (they only got a B grading believe it or not) and that would allow both Bedfont Green who have an A grade and Bookham.

This I think would be the fairest solution
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WackoJackoUK Newbie

WackoJackoUK

Posted
Posted
Quote:
SurreyLegend said:
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.


Guys............you know I follow Feltham but you stand corrected that Feltham finished third bottom. Southall officially finished bottom.

We support the Westfield vision of 24 teams. That may include us, it may not (we are the only A grading out of the teams being talked about).

Ground-sharing to stay-up is not an option that's why Bedfont Green have been allowed to remain in the Premier as they have done the work to Avenue Park.

Frimley as I understand cannot do the required work at their ground whereas Westfield do have the base down for their stand at Woking Park (not Woking FC) and have the next best ground.

It's also been touted that Farnham & Horley did not ask to be re-inspected (I guess that knew what was going to happen).

At the end of the day you will all agree this should be decided on the field of play not anywhere else.

I propose that there should be 24 teams with 4 relegation places next season and 2 promotion slots. (if it's 22 teams per division it will only be 2up 2 down which I feel is wrong - why not 3up 3 down).

If we play like last year then we are in trouble but let's see on the field not in the boardroom.

WJUK
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WackoJackoUK Newbie

WackoJackoUK

Posted
Posted
Quote:
paulb said:
Cant believe bedfont green has got the grading, still only has 3 sides, which is what Horley fialed on I believe.


I saw someone mention Turnstiles in relation to Horley, dunno if this is true.

Shame because it's a nice little ground to play at.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Krooner Newbie

Krooner

Posted
Posted
Quote:
WackoJackoUK said:
Quote:
paulb said:
Cant believe bedfont green has got the grading, still only has 3 sides, which is what Horley fialed on I believe.


I saw someone mention Turnstiles in relation to Horley, dunno if this is true.

Shame because it's a nice little ground to play at.


Lovely place but the pitch is a nightmare. Did my achilles on that towards the end of last season.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Krooner Newbie

Krooner

Posted
Posted

If Horley didnt pass I fail to see how a lot of clubs did. I am looking forward to this season now. Be good to see some evening games instead of having to sit in the stand watching them train !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teflon Newbie

Teflon

Posted
Posted

Colliers Woods got a new stand on wheels !!!!

 

I think Bedfont Green and Chessington have both got new stands being delivered before the start of the season, they would have had to prove this to the league (copy of order and base for stand in place) before they where given grading.

 

I cannot see who Horley did not sort their ground out they would have had an inspection back end of last years

 

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TB1 Newbie

TB1

Posted
Posted

Wacko - Finishing 3rd bottom must expect the worse. But if they league said only the bottom 2 or 1 relegated then thats a good arguement.

 

I agree a ground share shouldn't be arranged to avoid relegation. Therefore, a groundshare shouldn't be allowed to gain promotion (Bookham) regardless of them having been there two years!! Why else are they groundsharing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teflon Newbie

Teflon

Posted
Posted
Quote:
TB1 said:
Wacko - Finishing 3rd bottom must expect the worse. But if they league said only the bottom 2 or 1 relegated then thats a good arguement.

I agree a ground share shouldn't be arranged to avoid relegation. Therefore, a groundshare shouldn't be allowed to gain promotion (Bookham) regardless of them having been there two years!! Why else are they groundsharing?


Hi TB1
Bookham are ground sharing to gain promotion but they are also looking at alternative ground to develop (river lane MVP ground) and therefore are looking to improve themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Krooner Newbie

Krooner

Posted
Posted
Quote:
Teflon said:
Quote:
TB1 said:
Wacko - Finishing 3rd bottom must expect the worse. But if they league said only the bottom 2 or 1 relegated then thats a good arguement.

I agree a ground share shouldn't be arranged to avoid relegation. Therefore, a groundshare shouldn't be allowed to gain promotion (Bookham) regardless of them having been there two years!! Why else are they groundsharing?


Hi TB1
Bookham are ground sharing to gain promotion but they are also looking at alternative ground to develop (river lane MVP ground) and therefore are looking to improve themselves.


Lot of work at MVP required. Eh El Gaffer !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Teflon Newbie

Teflon

Posted
Posted
Quote:
Krooner said:
Quote:
Teflon said:
Quote:
TB1 said:
Wacko - Finishing 3rd bottom must expect the worse. But if they league said only the bottom 2 or 1 relegated then thats a good arguement.

I agree a ground share shouldn't be arranged to avoid relegation. Therefore, a groundshare shouldn't be allowed to gain promotion (Bookham) regardless of them having been there two years!! Why else are they groundsharing?


Hi TB1
Bookham are ground sharing to gain promotion but they are also looking at alternative ground to develop (river lane MVP ground) and therefore are looking to improve themselves.


Lot of work at MVP required. Eh El Gaffer !


Yes Krooner a lot of work

Did you play last week El Gaffer ?? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ex EL_Gaffer Newbie

Ex EL_Gaffer

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No couldn't make it in the end.

 

My playing days are over i think. Too many injuries, the last one being a broken wrist/hand putting me out of work for 5 months. 2 operations and a permanent metal plate in with 20 odd screws in. Only about 75% usuage in it now as well! My fighting days are gone!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...