Homer Green Info

[manics]

Originally Posted By: Rhodes

So weren't Chalfont St Peter at the races tonight or are they simply out on their feet, this must rank as the shock result of the season

Yes I'm pleased about that result.

[Cerebus]

Shock result? I don't think anyone who witnessed the first game between the sides last month will be too surprised 'cos ultimately, there wasn't too much in it despite the fact that Chalfont played some lovely, confident football in the first half

Only one side was ever going to win tonight. Holmer played with a passion beyond that of their opponents and that was the difference. Aside from the penalty save, Chalfont's 'keeper brought off a stunning save from a thirty yarder in the second half and I really don't recall his opposite number being unduly troubled.

Holmer just can't score goals!

[Rhodes]

Manics - Kentish Town won't be, it means that Holmer Green only need a draw on Saturday against Aylesbury Vale and they have miraculously survived the dreaded drop.

[samuelsmiles]

A good footballing side Holmer Green, enjoyed going up there, it would be a shame if they went down.

[Rhodes]

More about Holmer Green on the Non League Today Website, it's all happening at Watchet Lane at the moment with a veterans side playing an Arsenal Celebrity X1 this afternoon (kick off 2pm) with a large crowd expected:

 

http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?&newsmode=FULL&nid=57457

 

 

 

 

 

[Rhodes]

Originally Posted By: Cerebus

Excuse me, chaps. I have a problem with all this...
Holmer will be relegated 'cos their ground aint up to standard? Why does any step 5 club need 100 seats and another 100 spaces under cover? There were only a dozen clubs at our level in the whole of the South East of England who "officially" averaged 100 plus attendances in 2008/9 and as 2 of those were Hellenic clubs, whose figures are famously fictional, we can't trust the stats.
I believe Kentish Town have 2,500 seats but the club were watched by an average of about 30 people last season.
Holmer got 800 spectators in the ground for a friendly last weekend. No problems, dead comfortable,loads of space and very safe but Watchet Lane isn't good enough for SSML Premier Div football next season?
Has someone at the FA got thir priorities very wrong?
Holmer are totally amateur, indeed, their players pay for the privilege of playing SSML footy and there is no doubt that although they they struggled for most of the season, the side they put out from the beginning of March was easily top half of the League quality (yes, I know that they got stuffed at Hertford, but they didn't have a 'keeper or any defenders that day!)
Let's be honest, virtually every ground in the League falls foul of the standards as per the letter of the law. Maybe ours and Cockfosters are a bit easier to pick on than most (but at least they ARE our grounds!)
We only have enough seats and cover for three times our average attendance and prefer to spend our income on developing the infrastructure and future of the club to enable top class totally amateur footy for kids and adults to survive in the Wycombe area.
We knew we would probably be relegated 'cos of our facilities.We just hoped that sanity would prevail.
Holmer deserve better.

Cerebus - I've taken the liberty of adding your excellent post to this thread, I'm sure you are preaching to the converted as everyone would like to see Holmer Green remain in the Premier Division, even Kentish Town who know they won't be equipped for top flight football next season.

[Wader]

All well and good and laudable and I believe that perceived injustice gets everyone's backs up with regard to ground grading. But there are two sides to every story.

 

The ground grades have to assume the fact that the majority of clubs are ambitious to a degree and irrespective of that may at sometime find themselves in a position to rise up the divisions by luck or judgement. Of course, the higher you go the greater the expectation and need for spectator numbers and safety and any senior club that thinks otherwise should go back to a roped off park pitch now.

 

Preparing clubs for any such eventuality (however unlikely that may seem in a snapshot) is essential in providing a smooth transition. I hear arguments against clubs at Step 5 having X number of seats for example, but if that is not implemented at this level, which level should it be implemented at? Is anyone really saying that you can get by with 100 seats until you reach the Conference? Where is the line drawn and if not on a smooth transition basis as is the current system, then promotion over that 'drawn line' would become prohibitive to almost all.

 

Personally I believe the requirements are not stringent enough when clubs get to Conference level and you only have to look at the ridiculous situation at the Hampton v Hayes & Yeading play off to see that. If Hampton had been promoted to Conf National even with their facilities it would have caused serious problems.

 

The constant vagaries of football (including national cup competitions) means that any Step 5 or 6 club could find themselves hosting a club with lots of fans and there are plenty of examples of this having happened and no pointer to the fact that it won't keep happening. Take for example AFC Wimbledon, FC United, Telford or an AFC Hornchurch. Clubs used to 40 people coming through an open gate manned by an elderly gent sitting at a small desk may suddenly find themselves with 400 away fans or more. I've seen this at first hand and it can be both chaotic and dangerous.

 

Whilst every eventuality cannot always be catered for, there is a perfectly reasonable demand for clubs involved in senior football to take all of their responsibilities seriously, not just their desire to play at the highest level. In my book that includes a minimum of a couple of proper turnstiles, both covered seating and standing areas, hardstanding/pathway around the pitch, clean and working lavatories, proper fencing or ground boundary to provide enclosure, refreshment availability and safety awareness. Outside of that there must be a duty of care for a decent playing surface (clearly ignored by some on the excuse of cost for pity's sake!) and clean and reasonable changing rooms. These are the parameters that should be the norm for any club purporting to be a senior club and wishing to participate at that level. Safety is often ignored and the signage and provision of emergency exit gates sometimes woeful and seriously underpar.

 

Clubs know what is required for senior football, for promotion and rising up through the pyramid or for just staying where they are. The grading rules are sensible and designed on the understanding that most clubs at some point will want to strive for some kind of promotional ambition. To those that don't, compliance recognises that and allows clubs to be capped at the level that they can or want to afford. It recognises and assists those that have a natural enough ambition and that is surely what senior competitive football is all about? Isn't it?

 

The same as where do you draw the line for progression applies to how low do you want the line to be drawn for watching senior football? A roped off park pitch would suit some and is the dumbing down natural progression that would be inevitable if the grading requirements are constantly cropped to suit. That would only help the bottom of the pile, those that want to progress would be met at some point by the Beechers Brook of ground requirements and that would really be the disaster for the non-league game.

 

PS. The grading requirements are quite understandably national and 65 clubs at Step 5 had average league crowds of over 100, a lot of those substantially over. And many, many more had individual matches attracting well over 100 during the league season.

 

[Willo the Cat]

Were you bored at some stage this morning Wader

 

 

[Cerebus]

I'll digest your post more fully when i have time, Wader!

Whilst I agree with many of the sentiments, I should make a couple of observations:

Firstly; yes, clubs could draw a big, well supported club in national competitions but the reality is that this is a great rarity. Once every few seasons for most, if at all. Does this justify requirements? The point I was trying to make was that Holmer coped perfectly well with a big crowd t'other weekend. No safety issues, everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves and the day ran smoothly. Our facilities and club officials were proved to be perfectly adequate on the day.

Yes, The Conference is totally different ball game and there is a big jump also into step 4 where there is greater possibility of more consistently big crowds.

Developing facilities commensurate with potential and smbition is laudable but I just don't think some of requirements are realistic or necessary.

The bottom line for me has to be: does the club I enjoy watching actually need improved facilities? My response would have to be an unequivocal "no!" (Much as I would love a nice new stand, improved lights and a lovely, attractive stepped concrete terrace to replace "The Old Bank")

Point Two: Although many clubs do claim to attract crowds of over 100, I think we all know the real situation!

By the way, I didn't mean to upset anyone. Just felt a bit p****d off at the end of long and difficult season.

[Rhodes]

A very interesting update on Holmer Green on the Non League Today Website ahead of 'D Day' on Tuesday:

 

http://www.nonleaguedaily.com/news/index.php?&newsmode=FULL&nid=57959

[HTFCew]

Originally Posted By: Rhodes

A very interesting update on Holmer Green on the Non League Today Website ahead of 'D Day' on Tuesday:

Rhodes - just to clear something up for you - the FA's "D Day" is only concerned with steps 1-4 (plus the decision about which step 5 league clubs are relegated into).

Internal promotion/relegation within the SSML is purely the decision of the League. The committee have to wait until after "D Day" to find out which clubs the league may be getting from step 4 before they finalise the constitution to be put to the member clubs at the AGM.