Poole Town Play Off Issue and Darlo

[spen666]

....

I still think the FA have a big role to play here in terms of communication. A multi-million pound organisation should leave its members, particularly volunteer-run ones, in no doubt as to what the rules were here. ........

I V
Couldn't agree more.
I mean why can't theFA publish a document for everyone to read that sets out what the ground requirements are.

Why don't they publish this on their website for everyone to read?

[Vodka_Vic]

OK then, we were caught out by the rule CHANGE it appears. How often is it reasonable for a club to keep checking a website on the off chance that a rule has changed, as it did last May, because it was only when Robbie Painter checked yesterday that we knew if definitely had?

[super_les_mcjannet]

OK then, we were caught out by the rule CHANGE it appears. How often is it reasonable for a club to keep checking a website on the off chance that a rule has changed, as it did last May, because it was only when Robbie Painter checked yesterday that we knew if definitely had?

The rules are refreshed every year and should be checked.

We don't have a leg to stand on to be honest

[Darlogramps]

OK then, we were caught out by the rule CHANGE it appears. How often is it reasonable for a club to keep checking a website on the off chance that a rule has changed, as it did last May, because it was only when Robbie Painter checked yesterday that we knew if definitely had?

Sorry, but you're clutching at straws.

Is it unreasonable to expect the club’s board to be up-to-date with current rules? No it's not. It's the club’s responsibility to be fully aware of rule changes.

From past experience, I'd imagine the FA will have made it known rules were changing last summer. They won't just do it without telling anyone.

As Super Les says, if we have cocked up, we don't have a leg to stand on.

[shildonlad]

Has the board never visited a conference premier ground

[Spyman]

It does seem odd though that they'd pass the ground grading in December and not say 'you do realise though that you need x and y to compete in the playoffs'.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[al_quaker]

Has the board never visited a conference premier ground

What are you on about? Everyone knows BM isn't up to category A standard. It doesn't need to be up to category A standard until the March of our first season in the National League. It doesn't need to be category A standard to compete in the playoffs of the National North.

[lo36789]

As Super Les says, if we have cocked up, we don't have a leg to stand on.

Agree - we can't really point anywhere outside of Darlington FC.

The circumstances of our ground move, financial challenges, boardroom changes and stretched resource are mitigating factors, and make any potential oversight quite understandable in my book. They do not mitigate from a third parties perspective though.

I think the positives which will hopefully come of this;
- There will be a clear "if you want it pay for it" drive for the next round of fundraising. Hopefully means we can hit the target in good time and if we don't there is no-one else to blame.
- Hopefully appeals for resource will be answered. I still truly believe we can operate on a volunteer model. We just need to operate more smartly - do we even have an organisational structure and defined roles & responsibilities? (http://www.fc-utd.co.uk/2013_uploads/FC ... 202017.pdf)
- We are clearly competitive in this division, it is just a matter of time before we can get back into the Conference. I don't for a second believe this is our one shot at glory.

[dfc4me]

A couple of points here.
1. If we had simply missed or misread the regs. why even bother with an appeal which we would be certain to lose. But if we were misinformed or mislead that is a different matter.
2. The thread from October includes an extract from the ground regs. which includes temp. seats, planning permission etc. Assuming this was posted as soon as it was discovered then the FA website clearly had still not been updated with the May 2016 version, which begs the question when was it updated.

[al_quaker]

As Super Les says, if we have cocked up, we don't have a leg to stand on.

Agree - we can't really point anywhere outside of Darlington FC.

The circumstances of our ground move, financial challenges, boardroom changes and stretched resource are mitigating factors, and make any potential oversight quite understandable in my book. They do not mitigate from a third parties perspective though.

I think the positives which will hopefully come of this;
- There will be a clear "if you want it pay for it" drive for the next round of fundraising. Hopefully means we can hit the target in good time and if we don't there is no-one else to blame.
- Hopefully appeals for resource will be answered. I still truly believe we can operate on a volunteer model. We just need to operate more smartly - do we even have an organisational structure and defined roles & responsibilities? (http://www.fc-utd.co.uk/2013_uploads/FC ... 202017.pdf)
- We are clearly competitive in this division, it is just a matter of time before we can get back into the Conference. I don't for a second believe this is our one shot at glory.

You raise an interesting point regarding FCUM. I've said before that one of the good things which could come out of this is that we can look at how the club interacts and communicates with the fans. It could also be an opportunity to look at how the club is run, and whether any changes need to be made to our structure off the pitch if we want to progress on the pitch. Whenever we get into the conference, it will be a huge challenge on and off the pitch to be competitive, so getting things correct now would be a positive step forwards from this situation.

[super_les_mcjannet]

A couple of points here.
1. If we had simply missed or misread the regs. why even bother with an appeal which we would be certain to lose. But if we were misinformed or mislead that is a different matter.
2. The thread from October includes an extract from the ground regs. which includes temp. seats, planning permission etc. Assuming this was posted as soon as it was discovered then the FA website clearly had still not been updated with the May 2016 version, which begs the question when was it updated.

No excuses here. Just read season 15/16 guidelines and it's just as clear. You need 500 seats in no more than 2 stands by 31st March to be promoted or appear in the play offs.

Our only appeal can be based on special dispensation as we have moved in to the ground and gained B grade, which will be similar to Poole Towns appeal.

However we haven't completed work that was required so I expect our appeal to be rejected along with Poole Towns.

[spen666]

A couple of points here.
1. If we had simply missed or misread the regs. why even bother with an appeal which we would be certain to lose. But if we were misinformed or mislead that is a different matter.
2. The thread from October includes an extract from the ground regs. which includes temp. seats, planning permission etc. Assuming this was posted as soon as it was discovered then the FA website clearly had still not been updated with the May 2016 version, which begs the question when was it updated.

The FA website has always had the up to date regs on it.

The old version comes up at top/ near top in google searches of the web.

blaming Google searches for not knowing the rules is unlikely to go down well on an appeal.

[spen666]

A couple of points here.
1. If we had simply missed or misread the regs. why even bother with an appeal which we would be certain to lose. But if we were misinformed or mislead that is a different matter.
2. The thread from October includes an extract from the ground regs. which includes temp. seats, planning permission etc. Assuming this was posted as soon as it was discovered then the FA website clearly had still not been updated with the May 2016 version, which begs the question when was it updated.

No excuses here. Just read season 15/16 guidelines and it's just as clear. You need 500 seats in no more than 2 stands by 31st March to be promoted or appear in the play offs.

Our only appeal can be based on special dispensation as we have moved in to the ground and gained B grade, which will be similar to Poole Towns appeal.

However we haven't completed work that was required so I expect our appeal to be rejected along with Poole Towns.

The old rule allowed temporary seats to be included in the 500 seats. ( subject to other caveats)

Those temporary seats had to be in place by 31 March in the year of seeking promotion

Darlington neither had 500 permanent seats nor 500 seats including temporary seats in place at 31 March

Whether the club worked on the old or the new regulations, they have not complied with either

[al_quaker]

The old rule allowed temporary seats to be included in the 500 seats. ( subject to other caveats)

Those temporary seats had to be in place by 31 March in the year of seeking promotion

Darlington neither had 500 permanent seats nor 500 seats including temporary seats in place at 31 March

Whether the club worked on the old or the new regulations, they have not complied with either

I suppose there is a bit of hope if we were working to the old rule, realised the mistake before the end of March but too late to build permanent seats, and have been in discussions with the league about whether temp seats would be acceptable at all, and then these discussions have taken us over the deadline so now they also include discussions about whether an extended deadline for temp seating is also acceptable. Tenuous I know....

[Darlo_CR]

http://darlingtonfootballclub.co.uk/sta ... play-offs/

[Darlogramps]

Genuinely Spen, I'm disappointed at your level of trolling.

Was expecting more than this - we all know you're delighted over our problems so come on, if you're going to revel in our misfortune, at least do it properly.

[Vodka_Vic]

So it was the change in rules which caught us out.

[Darlogramps]

So it was the change in rules which caught us out.

The board's failure to be aware of the rule change, you mean.

[al_quaker]

http://darlingtonfootballclub.co.uk/sta ... play-offs/

Well, firstly that is a much better statement than the one a few days ago, and answers a lot of questions.

Clearly the mistake was not working to the correct ground grading rules, and we realised the mistake too late to do anything about it. That's a pretty poor mistake to be honest, and there needs to be some proper acknowledgment of this mistake. I'm not calling for heads to roll, but an apology would be good.

150k for the required permanent seats is quite frightening. Are we eligible for more grants? As without that I'm struggling to see how we get that money within 12 months.

Slightly beyond the point of this thread, but I'm also unsure as to why we need increased safety and stewarding at BM if crowds haven't really increased much?

[Vodka_Vic]

To add terracing along one end and get the capacity to 4,000 I wouldn't like to think about how much that will cost.

[H1987]

Poor.

Also suitably irate that the temp seating could have made a difference and they're looking at doing it now, when people had been asking for this for months and it was dismissed.

I mean, it's a stupid rule and I hope they see sense and allow us to move the seats in for the playoff, but it's still the boards mistake.

[feethams]

http://darlingtonfootballclub.co.uk/sta ... play-offs/

Well, firstly that is a much better statement than the one a few days ago, and answers a lot of questions.

Clearly the mistake was not working to the correct ground grading rules, and we realised the mistake too late to do anything about it. That's a pretty poor mistake to be honest, and there needs to be some proper acknowledgment of this mistake. I'm not calling for heads to roll, but an apology would be good.

150k for the required permanent seats is quite frightening. Are we eligible for more grants? As without that I'm struggling to see how we get that money within 12 months.

Slightly beyond the point of this thread, but I'm also unsure as to why we need increased safety and stewarding at BM if crowds haven't really increased much?

Would presume that if the ground is certified to hold 'x' amount of people, you have to have security available to look after this amount regardless of how many turn up. It's no good saying, "but we only get half that usually" - if it can hold 3000, you have to have on the day security based on 3000 turning up.

[spen666]

Genuinely Spen, I'm disappointed at your level of trolling.

Was expecting more than this - we all know you're delighted over our problems so come on, if you're going to revel in our misfortune, at least do it properly.

So its my fault that Blackwell doesn't have sufficient seats permanent or temporary?

Its my fault the Directors did not realise the rules of the competition?

I take no pleasure in it at all and as I have said throughout this rule is an anomaly in the whole of the Ground Grading Criteria and should not be there. I think it is sad that any team is prevented from progressing owing to off the pitch issues

[H1987]

Seriously, I'd love to know the logic of leaving that stand. Yes, clearly it would cost money, but how much!? Seriously. Pulling it apart and reassembling it might be a week of Labour for some construction workers and chucking it in a truck to move it? You can't tell me that would be more than a few grand at its very worst, yet it's 150k to buy a new one!?

Even if it is to be made permanent later, are we supposed to believe it'd cost us more than 140k extra for a fucking roof for it to make it permanent!? Who is making these decisions? It's absolutely stupid, it should have been from day one, and it could have helped us avoid this situation.

[Vodka_Vic]

So we plan to appeal. What are our grounds then? They clearly have rejected the fact that the rule had changed as an excuse. Spen said questioning the rule as an anomaly, but I'm sure that will be rebuffed with 'Rules is rules is rules'. Seems our only ground is the fact that North Ferriby were given dispensation last year despite not meeting the grading. Don't see what else there is to go on.

[Quakerz]

Poor.

Also suitably irate that the temp seating could have made a difference and they're looking at doing it now, when people had been asking for this for months and it was dismissed.

I mean, it's a stupid rule and I hope they see sense and allow us to move the seats in for the playoff, but it's still the boards mistake.

I don't think the temporary seating would make a difference. They were looking to move it over but it's not counted for the play offs any more?

The only solution is permanent seating - and to be honest even had we known at the end of December I still think we would have failed. However long it would take the approx 150 grand to raise, and then a 12 week lead time?

[Darlogramps]

Genuinely Spen, I'm disappointed at your level of trolling.

Was expecting more than this - we all know you're delighted over our problems so come on, if you're going to revel in our misfortune, at least do it properly.

So its my fault that Blackwell doesn't have sufficient seats permanent or temporary?

Its my fault the Directors did not realise the rules of the competition?

I take no pleasure in it at all and as I have said throughout this rule is an anomaly in the whole of the Ground Grading Criteria and should not be there. I think it is sad that any team is prevented from progressing owing to off the pitch issues

Where did I say anything was your fault? Bit of a poor interpretation from someone with such a high level of legal training.

A razor-sharp legal mind like yours could surely see I was merely expecting a better level of trolling from you on this.

You're clearly loving it, despite your protestations. So let's see a better level of trolling.

[Quakerz]

Seriously, I'd love to know the logic of leaving that stand. Yes, clearly it would cost money, but how much!? Seriously. Pulling it apart and reassembling it might be a week of Labour for some construction workers and chucking it in a truck to move it? You can't tell me that would be more than a few grand at its very worst, yet it's 150k to buy a new one!?

Even if it is to be made permanent later, are we supposed to believe it'd cost us more than 140k extra for a fucking roof for it to make it permanent!? Who is making these decisions? It's absolutely stupid, it should have been from day one, and it could have helped us avoid this situation.

Well how much does it cost then to dig and lay foundations, erect a steel framework, and clad it?

When I look back towards the fundraising there was a 75k difference between the 250 and 500 seat versions, so maybe we can assume the cost will be about 75k, maybe a bit more - but lets not forget that we're commited to pitchwork as well - I imagine the c150k cost will include that too.

[Beano]

I simply don't buy the 'no one knew' line.

The board did know, but aren't telling us when the realised, and said nothing, which is a disgrace.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[spen666]

...

Well how much does it cost then to dig and lay foundations, erect a steel framework, and clad it?

When I look back towards the fundraising there was a 75k difference between the 250 and 500 seat versions, so maybe we can assume the cost will be about 75k, maybe a bit more - but lets not forget that we're commited to pitchwork as well - I imagine the c150k cost will include that too.

Was the £75k what the fans needed to raise to be matched by £75k grant?

As someone said on here recently, the whole of the available grant at this level has been used, so until Darlington are promoted or 5 years pass, there are no FSIF grants.

Thus the £150k needs to be raised by the fans