Non League Matters - The Continuation of Tonys english Football Site 



  Main Index MAIN
INDEX
Search Posts SEARCH
POSTS
Who's Online WHO'S
ONLINE
Log in LOG
IN

Home: Non-League Football Discussion: Restructuring Discussion:
Non League Projections 2019/20

 

First page Previous page 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 50 Next page Last page  View All


footylover
Junior Team Sub

Jan 24, 2019, 8:09 AM

Posts: 15
Location: Co Durham
Team(s):

Post #301 of 1236 (13390 views)
Shortcut
Re: [blackdouglas] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To

In Reply To
If that's the case there are going to be a lot of good lads at Durham City disappointed. They seem to be very confident that if they finish bottom they will not be relegated. Mr Bernard has a lot to answer for.


So from reading this thread it could be if the Northern League Div 2 runner up has a really strong run from now until the end of the season (e.g. Thornaby, Northallerton, Chester-Le-Street) and is promoted with Billingham Town(likely champions) then there might be no relegation from NL Div 2. If I’m right but could be wrong then Durham City, if they do come bottom, could still be saved from relegation.


One easy way for Durham City to deal with their predicament, if they finish bottom they should assume they are going to be relegated.

I understand that you have to prepare for relegation if its a genuine threat which in Durham City's current predicament it most certainly is, but surely if, as so often stated the point of this restructuring programme is to reduce travel then why move clubs from leagues miles away before giving reprieves? Doesn't make sense to me.Frown



Grass Roots football is the only football worth watching


doktorb berske
Youth Team Regular

Jan 24, 2019, 9:21 AM

Posts: 193
Location: PR1
Team(s): Burscough

Post #302 of 1236 (13296 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Richard Rundle] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Last season, regardless of the stipulations made in any previous pronouncements, the FA were actively encouraging clubs to enter in agreements, at least in private. The regulations were deliberately vague, this year they appear not to be.


I'm worried that the rest of this thread is just people explaining this very clear distinction over and over again. I got it first time round!

Maybe because of the Kennington example, the rules have been tightened up. Nothing else to say.



I count as a groundhop whatever I feel appropriate.

Reserves? Yes, why not?
Friendlies? No problem.
Bracketed ticks? Come on in, I say.

"I tried to organise freedom,
How Scandinavian of me!"


Sarumio
Man City Transfer Target!

Jan 24, 2019, 10:03 AM

Posts: 6307
Location: Ilminster
Team(s): Salisbury

Post #303 of 1236 (13231 views)
Shortcut
Re: [doktorb berske] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To

In Reply To
Last season, regardless of the stipulations made in any previous pronouncements, the FA were actively encouraging clubs to enter in agreements, at least in private. The regulations were deliberately vague, this year they appear not to be.


I'm worried that the rest of this thread is just people explaining this very clear distinction over and over again. I got it first time round!

Maybe because of the Kennington example, the rules have been tightened up. Nothing else to say.


As no one has yet to explain the distinction between last years wording and this years wording, other than to say that there is a distinction but at the saem time refusing to explain what exactly it is, then I'd say it can be re-discussed at any time, anybody chooses.

If there's nothing else for YOU to say, well that's just fine!


Richard Rundle
Man City Transfer Target!

Jan 24, 2019, 1:36 PM

Posts: 8469
Location:
Team(s):

Post #304 of 1236 (12940 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sarumio] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Paulh's post from a few days ago:

"The 2017/18 regulations merely stated that "Clubs are not allowed to enter into a ground share agreement in order to gain promotion or to retain membership at a particular Step where the Club has failed to attain or maintain the relevant Grade." I remember the ambiguity around this being discussed on here at the time, from which it was clear there was enough wiggle room for the likes of Greenways, Kennington et al to do what they did.

The 2018/19 regulations state exactly the same rule but, unlike last season, the FA has now specified publicly that clubs must have played for the whole of this season on any ground they wish to share for next season. This strongly suggests they're tightening things up. Who knows, they might even get around to enshrining this stipulation within the 2019/20 regulations when they're published! "


The difference is clearly explained in the first sentence of Paragraph 2.


footylover
Junior Team Sub

Jan 24, 2019, 2:29 PM

Posts: 15
Location: Co Durham
Team(s):

Post #305 of 1236 (12889 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Richard Rundle] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Thats how i read it. Now its plain and simple with this small adjustment.



Grass Roots football is the only football worth watching


Sarumio
Man City Transfer Target!

Jan 24, 2019, 2:42 PM

Posts: 6307
Location: Ilminster
Team(s): Salisbury

Post #306 of 1236 (12865 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Richard Rundle] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Paulh's post from a few days ago:

"The 2017/18 regulations merely stated that "Clubs are not allowed to enter into a ground share agreement in order to gain promotion or to retain membership at a particular Step where the Club has failed to attain or maintain the relevant Grade." I remember the ambiguity around this being discussed on here at the time, from which it was clear there was enough wiggle room for the likes of Greenways, Kennington et al to do what they did.

The 2018/19 regulations state exactly the same rule but, unlike last season, the FA has now specified publicly that clubs must have played for the whole of this season on any ground they wish to share for next season. This strongly suggests they're tightening things up. Who knows, they might even get around to enshrining this stipulation within the 2019/20 regulations when they're published! "


The difference is clearly explained in the first sentence of Paragraph 2.


Yes Richard, thanks - I can see that! The difference is fairly obvious! But the new wording means essentially the same as last year's wording - in that you can't just arrange a ground share in order the gain promotion or avoid it relegation.

The wording in in the 2017/18 regulations, means that Penn & Tylers Green and Kennington should be playing at Step 7 this season! Both moved last summer post-season in order to ground share with neighbouring clubs in order to avod relegation and gain promotion respectively. And the FA are aware of this. You said yourself they were actively encouraging it!

This whole discussion came about as a result of me mentioning Kennington's dodgy promotion last season, in response to someone stating that as Route One Rovers have not been ground sharing all of the 2018/19 season and thus that they have no chance of going up now.

12 Months ago when Kennington had not appeared on the list of Step 7 applicants when it was released, and whilst they were still playing at their old basic ground, the chances of them going up to Step 6, especially considering what the 17/18 regulations stated about not arranging ground shares purely to gain promotion, would have been deemed tiny, near impossible.

And yet people still somehow see a big enough difference between these two examples, to categorically state that a club such as Route One Rovers has absolutely no chance of promotion, just because the words in the regulations have been changed.

Riiiight!


THDrummer1
Junior Team Star

Jan 24, 2019, 2:55 PM

Posts: 88
Location:
Team(s):

Post #307 of 1236 (12835 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sarumio] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Wazza's going to have his work cut out updating his spreadsheets if all this is true regarding all these clubs falling foul of the changing room size regulations. Wink


paulh66
Qatar World Cup bid member!


Jan 24, 2019, 3:17 PM

Posts: 19244
Location: Surrey
Team(s): Tranmere Rovers, South Liverpool (the South will rise again), Cammell Laird

Post #308 of 1236 (12803 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sarumio] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
....someone stating that as Route One Rovers have not been ground sharing all of the 2018/19 season and thus that they have no chance of going up now.


And yet people still somehow see a big enough difference between these two examples, to categorically state that a club such as Route One Rovers has absolutely no chance of promotion, just because the words in the regulations have been changed.

!


If this is your interpretation of what "people" have said on here then it says plenty about your interpretation of what the regulations themselves say. Since everybody else seems to get it I suggest we move on. If it turns out the FA does override this apparently new directive/guideline when implementing its regulation then it'll be interesting to see how they justify it but, for now, the assumption has to be that they intend to adhere to it.


Sarumio
Man City Transfer Target!

Jan 24, 2019, 3:40 PM

Posts: 6307
Location: Ilminster
Team(s): Salisbury

Post #309 of 1236 (12760 views)
Shortcut
Re: [paulh66] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Yes I'm sure that my interpretation of:

The 2017/18 regulations merely stated that "Clubs are not allowed to enter into a ground share agreement in order to gain promotion or to retain membership at a particular Step where the Club has failed to attain or maintain the relevant Grade"

...resulting in me being confused and questioning how Kennington and Penn & Tylers Green got around it, by dong exactly what the relegations said they could NOT do, is utterly mindboggling. I apologise for not understanding. I have asked for someone to explain but no one will, I am just insulted and told to accept its changed and move on.

I am confused further by your insistence that we must all assume that they intend to adhere to their own regulations this year! When as far as I can see, they didn't last year!


footylover
Junior Team Sub

Jan 24, 2019, 4:40 PM

Posts: 15
Location: Co Durham
Team(s):

Post #310 of 1236 (12662 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sarumio] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

There is an obvious difference. It now means that any club hopeful of promotion needs to make sure the ground they are wanting to share when promoted is the ground they play on for the entire season they apply for promotion. The added wording explains that clearly. Or am i missing something. It will stop clubs that have a good season as often happens from upping sticks to qualify promotion. This has to be a good thing , especially for those clubs that have a ground of their own where they have worked hard to acquire the required grading.



Grass Roots football is the only football worth watching


paulh66
Qatar World Cup bid member!


Jan 24, 2019, 4:45 PM

Posts: 19244
Location: Surrey
Team(s): Tranmere Rovers, South Liverpool (the South will rise again), Cammell Laird

Post #311 of 1236 (12657 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sarumio] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

To resolve your confusion re the Kennington and PTG situations I'd first need to fully understand your perception of the facts behind those two cases, then validate it, then dig up the facts and circumstances behind their eventual admission and then relate it back to the regulation. I'm not going to attempt that. However...

What is clear is that the regulation itself, despite first appearances, is so loosely worded that it has plenty of wiggle room when it comes to enforcing it. Some of this ambiguity was explored further on here last year and, as I said earlier in this thread, I'm not hunting that discussion down. But indicators as to whether the regulation has been complied with might include the length of time the groundshare has already been in place, the full rationale behind the groundshare (i.e. any factors beyond just getting a promotion or retaining the club's status), the substance and form of the groundshare (e.g. from windydcfc's earlier example, a true joint tenancy could arguably be deemed as much a ground move as a groundshare) and so on. Any mitigating factors also need to be taken into account (vaguely recall this may have been a feature of the PTG case, on something specific to do with their ongoing efforts to get permission for lights?)

Last year, the FA generally seemed to exploit this wiggle room to an extent you could possibly argue went beyond the spirit of the regulation. On the other hand, you could argue they were simply being pragmatic while not breaching the letter of the regulation.

However, they now seem to have put a very specific new piece of guidance in place regarding length of tenure, which reduces the overall amount of wiggle room available to them. You'd expect them to adhere to this new, tighter guidance but we'll just have to wait until summer to see how much wiggling eventually gets done!


(This post was edited by paulh66 on Jan 24, 2019, 8:32 PM)


paulh66
Qatar World Cup bid member!


Jan 24, 2019, 4:54 PM

Posts: 19244
Location: Surrey
Team(s): Tranmere Rovers, South Liverpool (the South will rise again), Cammell Laird

Post #312 of 1236 (12635 views)
Shortcut
Re: [footylover] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
There is an obvious difference. It now means that any club hopeful of promotion needs to make sure the ground they are wanting to share when promoted is the ground they play on for the entire season they apply for promotion. The added wording explains that clearly. Or am i missing something. It will stop clubs that have a good season as often happens from upping sticks to qualify promotion. This has to be a good thing , especially for those clubs that have a ground of their own where they have worked hard to acquire the required grading.


I agree, think you've nailed it.


LoyalRed
Junior Team Sub

Jan 24, 2019, 5:02 PM

Posts: 25
Location: High Wycombe
Team(s): MUFC

Post #313 of 1236 (12616 views)
Shortcut
Re: [footylover] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Totally agree in supporting clubs who are developing their own ground in order to play football in their community, not ground share in order to gain promotion in someone else’s ground as has been allowed in the past.

However, the FA rule only allowing one club for promotion from a Step 7 League encourages clubs to take their chances through the back door, punishing clubs who try do things properly. Where huge gaps exist in the Hellenic League as an example, common sense should prevail, but again looks unlikely to.


windydcfc
Man City Transfer Target!


Jan 24, 2019, 5:34 PM

Posts: 10464
Location: Barnetby
Team(s): Derby County FC England Borussia Mönchengladbach

Post #314 of 1236 (12584 views)
Shortcut
Re: [LoyalRed] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Totally agree in supporting clubs who are developing their own ground in order to play football in their community, not ground share in order to gain promotion in someone else’s ground as has been allowed in the past.

However, the FA rule only allowing one club for promotion from a Step 7 League encourages clubs to take their chances through the back door, punishing clubs who try do things properly. Where huge gaps exist in the Hellenic League as an example, common sense should prevail, but again looks unlikely to.



The 1 promotion spot from step 7 doesn’t make any sense. If a league is short of clubs, like the Hellenic League. Then every club that applies & passes should be considered for promotion.



Non League Projection - 2020/21: https://docs.google.com/...UTgVhKYTo/edit#gid=0
Step 1: https://www.google.com/....119447550000018&z=7
Step 2: https://www.google.com/...677250654298405&z=15
Step 3: https://www.google.com/...358611350589399&z=16
Step 4: https://www.google.com/...536616305542566&z=16
Step 5: https://www.google.com/...399355140531952&z=16
Step 6: https://www.google.com/...1556307438963813&z=9


pokal02
First Team Star

Jan 24, 2019, 6:42 PM

Posts: 2300
Location: Cockfosters
Team(s): Barnet, Cockfosters, Truro City, Udinese

Post #315 of 1236 (12465 views)
Shortcut
Re: [windydcfc] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

In the long term, the Step 6 footprints cannot mirror the Step 5's (the MFL for example will relegate 2 but promote between 4 and 6 so will have to farm its outliers out to adjoining leagues). I haven't looked in detail at the area covered by the Step 7's but I doubt if the 19 leagues have 2 sensible feeders each (off the top of my head the 2 SWPL's and the SCEL will be 1 short) so long term there will be some adjustment there too.


villan
First Team Star

Jan 26, 2019, 12:09 AM

Posts: 1485
Location: Redditch
Team(s): Aston Villa-Newport County-

Post #316 of 1236 (11632 views)
Shortcut
Re: [paulh66] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Yes I think PTG were appealing planning permission refusal re lights so gave them a seasons grace from relegation to enable the process to run it's course but stipulated they had to play on a compliant ground this season hence the ground share. I do not know whether this has been concluded. Mind you I presume PTG could now argue if appeal unsuccessful that they have played at a compliant ground this season so no issue should now exist!!!



End 2018-19, Total Grounds 1427

New grounds 2019-20. 21


paulh66
Qatar World Cup bid member!


Jan 26, 2019, 3:30 AM

Posts: 19244
Location: Surrey
Team(s): Tranmere Rovers, South Liverpool (the South will rise again), Cammell Laird

Post #317 of 1236 (11579 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sarumio] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Yes I'm sure that my interpretation of:

The 2017/18 regulations merely stated that "Clubs are not allowed to enter into a ground share agreement in order to gain promotion or to retain membership at a particular Step where the Club has failed to attain or maintain the relevant Grade"

...resulting in me being confused and questioning how Kennington and Penn & Tylers Green got around it, by dong exactly what the relegations said they could NOT do, is utterly mindboggling.


If my previous response (#311) to this post didn't succeed in unboggling the mind, then perhaps this additional regulation in the 2017/18 NLS Regulations will:
"Where a vacancy occurs within the NLS either before, during or after the Playing Season, the LC shall decide how such vacancy shall be filled at its sole discretion."
Despite not knowing the full facts and circumstances behind the Kennington and PTG cases (but thanks to villan for jogging my memory a bit!), because there were vacancies in the respective leagues I'd assume it was under this regulation that the FA decided the fate of both of these clubs. And, assuming nobody considers the outcome to be unfair, I reckon the LC applied its discretion suitably.

So no breach by the FA of its own regulations, not even an attempt to get around them, and discretion properly applied.

My apologies for not picking up on this additional regulation earlier. Then again, perhaps the onus for understanding the rules in the first place ought to be on those who routinely accuse the FA of "ignoring/violating their own rules without a second thought." Innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa.


(This post was edited by paulh66 on Jan 26, 2019, 3:44 AM)


paulh66
Qatar World Cup bid member!


Jan 26, 2019, 6:39 PM

Posts: 19244
Location: Surrey
Team(s): Tranmere Rovers, South Liverpool (the South will rise again), Cammell Laird

Post #318 of 1236 (11275 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Sarumio] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

 
Not sure about Roffey, Lebeq United or Westside though.


Today's Jarvis Brook v Roffey programme reported that Roffey have recently obtained planning permission for floodlights and a stand. Assuming the funding is in place to complete this work then, from what I recall of the ground when I visited a couple of years ago, they should comfortably make the grade.

Westside, meanwhile, share at AFC Croydon Athletic.


(This post was edited by paulh66 on Jan 26, 2019, 6:41 PM)


hawkwind
First Team Star

Jan 26, 2019, 8:55 PM

Posts: 1992
Location:
Team(s):

Post #319 of 1236 (11160 views)
Shortcut
Re: [paulh66] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
If my previous response (#311) to this post didn't succeed in unboggling the mind, then perhaps this additional regulation in the 2017/18 NLS Regulations will:
"Where a vacancy occurs within the NLS either before, during or after the Playing Season, the LC shall decide how such vacancy shall be filled at its sole discretion."
Despite not knowing the full facts and circumstances behind the Kennington and PTG cases (but thanks to villan for jogging my memory a bit!), because there were vacancies in the respective leagues I'd assume it was under this regulation that the FA decided the fate of both of these clubs. And, assuming nobody considers the outcome to be unfair, I reckon the LC applied its discretion suitably.

So no breach by the FA of its own regulations, not even an attempt to get around them, and discretion properly applied.

My apologies for not picking up on this additional regulation earlier. Then again, perhaps the onus for understanding the rules in the first place ought to be on those who routinely accuse the FA of "ignoring/violating their own rules without a second thought." Innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa.


Actually a clear breach of their own regulations according to the text you've quoted.

The text says the FALC decides "how a vacancy shall be filled at its sole discretion" NOT "if a vacancy shall be filled". Every Step 5 and Step 6 division that the FALC decided to run short of clubs this season runs contrary to that regulation.

(This post was edited by hawkwind on Jan 26, 2019, 8:56 PM)


paulh66
Qatar World Cup bid member!


Jan 26, 2019, 8:59 PM

Posts: 19244
Location: Surrey
Team(s): Tranmere Rovers, South Liverpool (the South will rise again), Cammell Laird

Post #320 of 1236 (11147 views)
Shortcut
Re: [hawkwind] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Good luck with that interpretation.
If you've got sole discretion how to fill a vacancy it's reasonable to assume you have discretion whether to leave it unfilled, especially as there's no requirement for leagues to run at full capacity (EDIT: and this regulation doesn't create such a requirement).


(This post was edited by paulh66 on Jan 27, 2019, 12:28 AM)


TomRoystonCrow
Youth Team Sub

Jan 27, 2019, 1:37 PM

Posts: 125
Location:
Team(s):

Post #321 of 1236 (10780 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wazzafan] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Gloucester City hoping to play back at Meadow Park (Gloucester) for next season and Avlechurch will be playing at Hayes Playing Fields next season as well New Ground.


paulh66
Qatar World Cup bid member!


Jan 27, 2019, 4:29 PM

Posts: 19244
Location: Surrey
Team(s): Tranmere Rovers, South Liverpool (the South will rise again), Cammell Laird

Post #322 of 1236 (10664 views)
Shortcut
Re: [TomRoystonCrow] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Stumbled across this press piece about Ilkley Town's application. The club reckons their chances of making it up this season are 50/50, given the works they need to do and the competition for places to get into either the NCEL or NWCL. If they don't make it this season, they'll go for it next season. More at: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/...-promotion-1-9550431


windydcfc
Man City Transfer Target!


Jan 28, 2019, 12:05 PM

Posts: 10464
Location: Barnetby
Team(s): Derby County FC England Borussia Mönchengladbach

Post #323 of 1236 (10126 views)
Shortcut
Re: [wazzafan] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Tavistock will accept promotion if they are in a promotion position



Non League Projection - 2020/21: https://docs.google.com/...UTgVhKYTo/edit#gid=0
Step 1: https://www.google.com/....119447550000018&z=7
Step 2: https://www.google.com/...677250654298405&z=15
Step 3: https://www.google.com/...358611350589399&z=16
Step 4: https://www.google.com/...536616305542566&z=16
Step 5: https://www.google.com/...399355140531952&z=16
Step 6: https://www.google.com/...1556307438963813&z=9


rainworthgord
First Team Star

Jan 28, 2019, 5:19 PM

Posts: 2111
Location:
Team(s):

Post #324 of 1236 (9864 views)
Shortcut
Re: [windydcfc] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately

Got to say I like the look of the EMCL at step 6 in the latest projections. Virtually every game would be a local derby.


shimtoan
First Team Regular


Jan 28, 2019, 6:29 PM

Posts: 1366
Location: Dunkirk, Nottingham
Team(s): Dunkirk

Post #325 of 1236 (9786 views)
Shortcut
Re: [rainworthgord] Non League Projections 2019/20 [In reply to] Can't Post or Reply Privately


In Reply To
Got to say I like the look of the EMCL at step 6 in the latest projections. Virtually every game would be a local derby.

who gets to go Skeg midweek?



unless stated, all views are my own and are not the views of any other person, club, or organisation

(This post was edited by shimtoan on Jan 28, 2019, 6:29 PM)

First page Previous page 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 50 Next page Last page  View All
 
 


free hit counters

Search for (options) HOSTED BY SUMMIT SOCCER v.1.2.3