Poole Town Play Off Issue and Darlo

[al_quaker]

Is it a NL rule? It's very clearly marked in the FA's category B regulations

http://www.thefa.com/get-involved/playe ... nd-grading

[jonn]

June deadline?
The Rules say seats should ideally be tip-up variety with back rests but can be 'plastic moulded type complete with back rests or other types of seats, provided they have back rests... All seating should afford a good and full view of the pitch and be clean, functional and in good condition'.
There is no stipulation that they must be permanently fixed to the ground or each other. All we need are about 300 plastic chairs in the Tin Shed!
I know this sounds ludicrously fanciful but they want to play by the rules, let's use them to our advantage if we can...

[spen666]

June deadline?
The Rules say seats should ideally be tip-up variety with back rests but can be 'plastic moulded type complete with back rests or other types of seats, provided they have back rests... All seating should afford a good and full view of the pitch and be clean, functional and in good condition'.
There is no stipulation that they must be permanently fixed to the ground or each other. All we need are about 300 plastic chairs in the Tin Shed!
I know this sounds ludicrously fanciful but they want to play by the rules, let's use them to our advantage if we can...

Think they would be classed as temporary seats and they were not in place by 31 March

Good try, but your plan needs more polishing up

[theoriginalfatcat]

Suggestions Martin Gray will up and leave - well so he's not irreplaceable but frankly he ain't going to get a better gig where he can work PT, run his business and actually basically use his position for free advertising of his other business. Gray's blind ambition has contributed to the financial issues faced over the past 4 years if he goes then he goes. The club is greater than Martin Gray.

"Gray's blind ambition" W.T.F. !!!! I mean really -- whatthefuck!

Do you expect him to work at an 80% effort rate.

Gray is a 100% sort of a guy. That's what makes him a success.

And he's not a quitter!!

[jonn]

[Vodka_Vic]

Just seen the ground grading was updated in May 2016, after we had done the fund raising to get a Category B ground. Now, under the old grading, it was possible to take part in the play-offs with temporary seating as long as you had planning permission for the 500 seats, which we had. The updated rules took this clause out, and stated that temporary seats were no longer an option.
When I brought up the 500 seats issue in October on a thread, we were all satisfied that there would not be an issue going forward for the play-offs as we could bring in the temporary seating from Bishop and then erect a permanent structure by March 2018 if we gained promotion. I think it was Robbie Painter or Spen who found this change in rules yesterday, and we do know that the club had planned to use the seats from Bish in the event that we got in the play-offs. Could it be then that all forward-planning and due diligence was done prior to May 2016 when the rules were changed, and if so then there is more than an element of misfortune here, as we have been caught out by a recent rule change?
It seems strange that Poole Town also have been caught out by this.

[lo36789]

People will be pissed off but the fundraising angle will be cut and dried - "we HAVE to raise money to have 500 seats by April 1st 2018 otherwise the same will happen again"

So I think fans would raise the money.

Well if they didn't it isn't like anyone could be blamed. I am firmly in your camp on this one. This is a great motivator to get our next ground upgrades funded.

The pragmatic side of me has always thought we weren't getting promoted, and didn't really want us to get promoted this season so maybe this is just easier for me to accept because of that.

"Gray's blind ambition" W.T.F. !!!! I mean really -- whatthefuck!

Do you expect him to work at an 80% effort rate.

This has nothing to do with work rate and effort and you know it. It is more about risk and reward (ref: Liam Hardy).

[super_les_mcjannet]

Just seen the ground grading was updated in May 2016, after we had done the fund raising to get a Category B ground. Now, under the old grading, it was possible to take part in the play-offs with temporary seating as long as you had planning permission for the 500 seats, which we had. The updated rules took this clause out, and stated that temporary seats were no longer an option.
When I brought up the 500 seats issue in October on a thread, we were all satisfied that there would not be an issue going forward for the play-offs as we could bring in the temporary seating from Bishop and then erect a permanent structure by March 2018 if we gained promotion. I think it was Robbie Painter or Spen who found this change in rules yesterday, and we do know that the club had planned to use the seats from Bish in the event that we got in the play-offs. Could it be then that all forward-planning and due diligence was done prior to May 2016 when the rules were changed, and if so then there is more than an element of misfortune here, as we have been caught out by a recent rule change?
It seems strange that Poole Town also have been caught out by this.

No excuses. Every year the ground grading details are updated on the FA Website.

If we missed it, we missed it but it's our fault. We just have to deal with it now.

[super_les_mcjannet]

Just seen the ground grading was updated in May 2016, after we had done the fund raising to get a Category B ground. Now, under the old grading, it was possible to take part in the play-offs with temporary seating as long as you had planning permission for the 500 seats, which we had. The updated rules took this clause out, and stated that temporary seats were no longer an option.
When I brought up the 500 seats issue in October on a thread, we were all satisfied that there would not be an issue going forward for the play-offs as we could bring in the temporary seating from Bishop and then erect a permanent structure by March 2018 if we gained promotion. I think it was Robbie Painter or Spen who found this change in rules yesterday, and we do know that the club had planned to use the seats from Bish in the event that we got in the play-offs. Could it be then that all forward-planning and due diligence was done prior to May 2016 when the rules were changed, and if so then there is more than an element of misfortune here, as we have been caught out by a recent rule change?
It seems strange that Poole Town also have been caught out by this.

Do we have the thread from October could be an interesting read.

[Breedon]

Why is it OK to switch a fixture to a suitable ground when a pitch isn't up to scratch but not OK to switch a fixture to a suitable ground when there aren't enough seats to satisfy a bizarre FA criteria that applies to 1 or 2 games rather than the entire season?

Or in other words, is there anything that specifically says we couldn't play a one off playoff game at a suitable ground and make the necessary improvements by over the course of the next year if we were to be promoted, as would be the requirement if we won the league?

[lo36789]

Why is it OK to switch a fixture to a suitable ground when a pitch isn't up to scratch but not OK to switch a fixture to a suitable ground when there aren't enough seats to satisfy a bizarre FA criteria that applies to 1 or 2 games rather than the entire season?

Or in other words, is there anything that specifically says we couldn't play a one off playoff game at a suitable ground and make the necessary improvements by over the course of the next year if we were to be promoted, as would be the requirement if we won the league?

It's not that you can't play the playoffs there. You are not eligible for promotion in that season unless you satisfy these requirements. The league just don't allow anyone not eligible for promotion to compete in the playoffs.

It's an interesting dilemma for the league though. As I saw on fb a Stockport fan suggesting that if we were given dispensation then 6th place would be put out by this (not sure why they would have a leg to stand on...they didn't qualify). If a team is not allowed to compete does their place go to the next best team? Or do the top finishing team get a bye, either way it completely unbalances the playoff procedure.

If the first happens then what if that next best team wins the playoffs imagine how the teams around would feel (but they didn't even win their right to be in this place). If they are missed out then one team has played 2 whole games less in preparation for the final (that has positive and negative implications).

[Darlo_Dan]

Has the NL/FA offered any rationale as to why they require 500 seats for a playoff/promotion, yet allow you to be in the league with only 250 seats?

Remember, there are other requirements beyond the extra seats to make a ground Cat A. Why allow until March the following season to make those extra adjustments, but require the extra seats in the promotion season. It's bizarre, and would love to know the rationale behind this. As has been stated by many people, it's an anomaly across the whole football pyramid.

[MKDarlo]

Rules are rules and we should have known the nature, effect and application of this rule. This isnt the first time we have been caught out by pesky rules! Surely it is the job of someone within the club structure to discharge that responsibility. While I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory this is a large cock up and one that may cost us in many different ways.

I know we are talking about volunteers and I am trying to moderate my views because of that but such a cock up simply isnt good enough.

[super_les_mcjannet]

Has the NL/FA offered any rationale as to why they require 500 seats for a playoff/promotion, yet allow you to be in the league with only 250 seats?

Remember, there are other requirements beyond the extra seats to make a ground Cat A. Why allow until March the following season to make those extra adjustments, but require the extra seats in the promotion season. It's bizarre, and would love to know the rationale behind this. As has been stated by many people, it's an anomaly across the whole football pyramid.

The FA/NL don't really need to offer a rationale for it.

I would assume it removes the pressure for clubs who are promoted as they have already ticked the box. It was suggested league Clubs voted for the rule.

I can't see the point in us whinging about the rules, they are in place and quite clear. We appeal maybe for special dispensation due to having to build a new ground this year and we were working off old grading perhaps, however none of this stands up to the rules.

The league board will make a decision on us and Poole Town and we will have to accept it and move on.

[MKDarlo]

Has the NL/FA offered any rationale as to why they require 500 seats for a playoff/promotion, yet allow you to be in the league with only 250 seats?

Remember, there are other requirements beyond the extra seats to make a ground Cat A. Why allow until March the following season to make those extra adjustments, but require the extra seats in the promotion season. It's bizarre, and would love to know the rationale behind this. As has been stated by many people, it's an anomaly across the whole football pyramid.

that offers the best hope of success - that the rule is a misnomer/misprint and is manifestly unfair when considered in relation to the other rules.

That seems to be all we have to work with

[BUSHEAD]

Just seen the ground grading was updated in May 2016, after we had done the fund raising to get a Category B ground. Now, under the old grading, it was possible to take part in the play-offs with temporary seating as long as you had planning permission for the 500 seats, which we had. The updated rules took this clause out, and stated that temporary seats were no longer an option.
When I brought up the 500 seats issue in October on a thread, we were all satisfied that there would not be an issue going forward for the play-offs as we could bring in the temporary seating from Bishop and then erect a permanent structure by March 2018 if we gained promotion. I think it was Robbie Painter or Spen who found this change in rules yesterday, and we do know that the club had planned to use the seats from Bish in the event that we got in the play-offs. Could it be then that all forward-planning and due diligence was done prior to May 2016 when the rules were changed, and if so then there is more than an element of misfortune here, as we have been caught out by a recent rule change?
It seems strange that Poole Town also have been caught out by this.

Do we have the thread from October could be an interesting read.

http://www.darlofc.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... =2&t=31770

[theoriginalfatcat]

I know we are talking about volunteers and I am trying to moderate my views because of that but such a cock up simply isnt good enough

I think we are now too big a business to be run by volunteers.

The question shouldn't be can we afford to pay someone? (a full time paid secretary or similar) but -- can we afford NOT to pay someone? If this potential cock up turns into a reality then we are losing a lot of revenue.

The Echo aren't helping here either -- a quick read of their article suggests that we are out of the playoffs, surely they don't know this for sure.

[super_les_mcjannet]

Just seen the ground grading was updated in May 2016, after we had done the fund raising to get a Category B ground. Now, under the old grading, it was possible to take part in the play-offs with temporary seating as long as you had planning permission for the 500 seats, which we had. The updated rules took this clause out, and stated that temporary seats were no longer an option.
When I brought up the 500 seats issue in October on a thread, we were all satisfied that there would not be an issue going forward for the play-offs as we could bring in the temporary seating from Bishop and then erect a permanent structure by March 2018 if we gained promotion. I think it was Robbie Painter or Spen who found this change in rules yesterday, and we do know that the club had planned to use the seats from Bish in the event that we got in the play-offs. Could it be then that all forward-planning and due diligence was done prior to May 2016 when the rules were changed, and if so then there is more than an element of misfortune here, as we have been caught out by a recent rule change?
It seems strange that Poole Town also have been caught out by this.

Do we have the thread from October could be an interesting read.

http://www.darlofc.co.uk/forum/viewtopi ... =2&t=31770

Cheers.

Yep Vodka_Vic mentioned it back in October, although no one seemed to understand if that was this season or the season after promotion. No one actually shouted loud at this point and no one was confident of the rule at that point.

When you read it then it is very clear it's the season you are trying to be promoted.

We wait and move on, damage is done now.

[lo36789]

Has the NL/FA offered any rationale as to why they require 500 seats for a playoff/promotion, yet allow you to be in the league with only 250 seats?

Remember, there are other requirements beyond the extra seats to make a ground Cat A. Why allow until March the following season to make those extra adjustments, but require the extra seats in the promotion season. It's bizarre, and would love to know the rationale behind this. As has been stated by many people, it's an anomaly across the whole football pyramid.

Simple logic tells me it's so you can segregate from day 1 in the National League, and provide seating to both home and away spectators. I can't actually recall a single game I have been to or on at NL where segregation hasn't been required.

[al_quaker]

Has the NL/FA offered any rationale as to why they require 500 seats for a playoff/promotion, yet allow you to be in the league with only 250 seats?

Remember, there are other requirements beyond the extra seats to make a ground Cat A. Why allow until March the following season to make those extra adjustments, but require the extra seats in the promotion season. It's bizarre, and would love to know the rationale behind this. As has been stated by many people, it's an anomaly across the whole football pyramid.

Simple logic tells me it's so you can segregate from day 1 in the National League, and provide seating to both home and away spectators. I can't actually recall a single game I have been to or on at NL where segregation hasn't been required.

I thought there was some away games when we were in the conference which weren't segregated?

[Vodka_Vic]

Les, I wish I had e-mailed the club or something now at the time, but then if a simple supporter like me brings up the rule, then it's a reasonable assumption to,make that the club know. Interestingly, I was going on the pre-May 2016 guidance, which it looks like the club were, or they wouldn't have tried to get the temporary seats from Bish.
I also think that the rule change happened at the worst time for us. We had already done fund raising and different models for different Category ground grading, and they suddenly changed the rule just after this, meaning that to incorporate this new rule,we would have to have gone from scratch again, or perhaps we had already applied for the funding based on this. A club with our structures has to plan well in advance, and the only way round would have been some 'emergency' fundraising to satisfy this new rule. Hopefully this is our angle of appeal, that we'd satisfied all criteria including financially up until May 2016 and that for a club with our revenue streams it just wasn't appropriate to start from scratch again with the due diligence to satisfy an arbitrary new rule.

[spen666]

..... A club with our structures has to plan well in advance, and the only way round would have been some 'emergency' fundraising to satisfy this new rule. Hopefully this is our angle of appeal, that we'd satisfied all criteria including financially up until May 2016 and that for a club with our revenue streams it just wasn't appropriate to start from scratch again with the due diligence to satisfy an arbitrary new rule.

This is a line of argument that is doomed to failure.

Every club would argue their financing as a reason not to comply with the rules. It is a very unattractive argument

[SwansQuaker83]

Is it a NL rule? It's very clearly marked in the FA's category B regulations

http://www.thefa.com/get-involved/playe ... nd-grading

I posted this earlier but people keep saying it's a NL issue, not an FA issue... It clearly is an FA issue!!

[Spyman]

Les, I wish I had e-mailed the club or something now at the time, but then if a simple supporter like me brings up the rule, then it's a reasonable assumption to,make that the club know. Interestingly, I was going on the pre-May 2016 guidance, which it looks like the club were, or they wouldn't have tried to get the temporary seats from Bish.
I also think that the rule change happened at the worst time for us. We had already done fund raising and different models for different Category ground grading, and they suddenly changed the rule just after this, meaning that to incorporate this new rule,we would have to have gone from scratch again, or perhaps we had already applied for the funding based on this. A club with our structures has to plan well in advance, and the only way round would have been some 'emergency' fundraising to satisfy this new rule. Hopefully this is our angle of appeal, that we'd satisfied all criteria including financially up until May 2016 and that for a club with our revenue streams it just wasn't appropriate to start from scratch again with the due diligence to satisfy an arbitrary new rule.

I get what you're saying - but you need to keep in mind that 'the club' is just a collection of 'simple supporters'. I know the argument has been done to death but things will be missed when all admin has to be done by 'simple supporters' in their spare time.

If someone was doing this stuff full-time, or even part-time for that matter then I'm sure there'd instantly be greater attention to detail. At the moment it would seem we just don't have that resource.

[Beano]

Gray's blind ambition has contributed to the financial issues faced over the past 4 years if he goes then he goes.

I genuinely despair to hear such utter nonsense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Yarblockos]

I get what you're saying - but you need to keep in mind that 'the club' is just a collection of 'simple supporters'. I know the argument has been done to death but things will be missed when all admin has to be done by 'simple supporters' in their spare time.

If someone was doing this stuff full-time, or even part-time for that matter then I'm sure there'd instantly be greater attention to detail. At the moment it would seem we just don't have that resource.

I think this has demonstrated that we need a full time secretary. I guess that means taking 25-30K out of the playing budget, but if you factor in the lost revenue from missing out on the play-offs its false economy to keep stumbling on as we are. The board reported they'd "lost control of the finances" at one point last year. Clearly the warning signs are there that they can't cope.

[Yarblockos]

Gray's blind ambition has contributed to the financial issues faced over the past 4 years if he goes then he goes.

I genuinely despair to hear such utter nonsense.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Apparently Gray has never gone over budget once. If there is a problem its that the budgets have been too big, but the intention was the keep the playing side competitive.

[lo36789]

The board reported they'd "lost control of the finances" at one point last year.

I thought this was when our finances were 'controlled' by a member of the board who is no longer a member of the board though?

[Robbie Painter]

I get what you're saying - but you need to keep in mind that 'the club' is just a collection of 'simple supporters'. I know the argument has been done to death but things will be missed when all admin has to be done by 'simple supporters' in their spare time.

If someone was doing this stuff full-time, or even part-time for that matter then I'm sure there'd instantly be greater attention to detail. At the moment it would seem we just don't have that resource.

I think this has demonstrated that we need a full time secretary. I guess that means taking 25-30K out of the playing budget, but if you factor in the lost revenue from missing out on the play-offs its false economy to keep stumbling on as we are. The board reported they'd "lost control of the finances" at one point last year. Clearly the warning signs are there that they can't cope.

Financial controls broke down after Martin Jesper left. Dave Mills & club accountant had these processes fully handed over to them but for whatever reason they weren't continued. Also coincided with that long run of postponed home games. Dave Mills resigned in early Feb 2016 & short term cash flow issues became apparent. It was up to John Tempest to pick up the pieces, Richard Cook appointed as fellow director shortly thereafter. A third director, Jonathan Jowett was officially appointed to the board at the AGM in January 2017.

We will have to wait for the full story of how this massive error occurred before apportioning blame.

[lo36789]

Jonathan has quite impressive credentials...https://corporate.greggs.co.uk/greggs-a ... main-board

So yes - lets not suggest the board should resign to hastily...