Poole Town Play Off Issue and Darlo

[dickdarlington]

Looking at the previous fund raising programmes, and the other work of actually getting us back to Darlington, would there have been time to build the fundraising package, generate the cash required, and then to build it (including getting three tenders). It would have all needed to have been completed within about 10 weeks. That's just not feasible (Temp seats don't count).

Yes mistakes appear to have been made, but before people start slagging off the people behind the scenes, we are moving forwards, and the people up top are appearing to stablise things.

The ground was built and designed to this level. No one on the board now, was involved then. It went over budget (they always do). But it was three years ago when things began. No one expected us to be knocking on the door of the conference so soon. The focus was always getting us back to the town. Another year away would have been far more damaging than not being promoted (which i still think we'd be spanked by anyone in the top five)

Bottom line is, we're back in Darlington. And that should give us stability to grow. Off the field needs to be allowed to catch up with the playing side. This whole situation (if it does end up costing us a place in the play-offs) highlights this. We need a masterplan/roadmap setting objectives and targets for the next 5-10-15 years, with failure measures, to ensure more mistakes aren't made, and sensible progress can be made.

On face value, everything prior to the current board seems to have been well intentioned but nothing more than fire fighting. It's time to look forward instead of charging head first. If that meand two to three seasons at this level, then so be it. We need to look at FCUM and their cautious approach. We're 7 years behind them, but playing at the same level.

Over reacting is to be expected. But the club must be allowed to explain the position. The fans forum is going to be exciting.

[H1987]

Ugh. I hope they see some sense in it all, but it sounds like we're stuffed.

I wonder if moving the temp seats from Bishop might appease them short term if we get hem in for the playoff. I know it's been thought of as not an option in the past, but it has to be the only short term solution available. We can't build a stand before the playoff, but we could get that moved. (If they'll maybe extend the deadline for us to do so)

[Robbie Painter]

That statement doesn't sound all that encouraging. Here's hoping the authorities see sense.

Also, i'm pretty sure Salfords stadium isn't up to spec yet either. You could end up with a really farcical playoff if you have to kick out two teams from competing. I don't see how it should be a different rule for the playoff anyway. It's still in *this* league. As long as plans are in place to achieve the grading for the league above (in question for us i guess, as other than an additional 300 seats we haven't seen any more, and i don't know if that's enough?).

Really? Salford now have a big terrace behind one goal and a seated stand running along whole length of pitch. Compared to our ground it must tick all the boxes.

[Darlo_Dan]

Bottom line.... we're fucked if we want promotion via the playoffs this year

[D_F_C]

Shouldn't we all wait for the outcome before we all have an opinion. Or better yet...volunteer

[Yarblockos]

Looking at the previous fund raising programmes, and the other work of actually getting us back to Darlington, would there have been time to build the fundraising package, generate the cash required, and then to build it (including getting three tenders). It would have all needed to have been completed within about 10 weeks. That's just not feasible (Temp seats don't count).

Yes mistakes appear to have been made, but before people start slagging off the people behind the scenes, we are moving forwards, and the people up top are appearing to stablise things.

The ground was built and designed to this level. No one on the board now, was involved then. It went over budget (they always do). But it was three years ago when things began. No one expected us to be knocking on the door of the conference so soon. The focus was always getting us back to the town. Another year away would have been far more damaging than not being promoted (which i still think we'd be spanked by anyone in the top five)

Bottom line is, we're back in Darlington. And that should give us stability to grow. Off the field needs to be allowed to catch up with the playing side. This whole situation (if it does end up costing us a place in the play-offs) highlights this. We need a masterplan/roadmap setting objectives and targets for the next 5-10-15 years, with failure measures, to ensure more mistakes aren't made, and sensible progress can be made.

On face value, everything prior to the current board seems to have been well intentioned but nothing more than fire fighting. It's time to look forward instead of charging head first. If that meand two to three seasons at this level, then so be it. We need to look at FCUM and their cautious approach. We're 7 years behind them, but playing at the same level.

Over reacting is to be expected. But the club must be allowed to explain the position. The fans forum is going to be exciting.

Nice try, but if we do get refused permission to take part in the play offs at least we have the consolation that we are not stuck with the current board. I guess its our own fault, we need volunteers to run the club and if we don't step up the plate then we might end up with people who aren't up to the job.

[dickdarlington]

It's 250 seats with 3k at step B
500 seats with 3k to be in the playoffs
500 seats with 4k after promotion...and a lot of other criteria too.

To add to the confusion, the FSIF tendering quotes..."The FA National Ground Grading Criteria requires clubs at Step 2 to have 250 seats. Whilst it is acknowledged that the National League requires Step 2 clubs to have 500 seats to be eligible to participate in the “play-offs”, the additional 250 seats would not be eligible unless there was a demonstrable need in terms of average attendance".

And I think this will be the crux of any argument with the FA (from both clubs affected).

How many of us have actually read the ground grading document line for line? The architect must have. And the board at the time would have signed off. But since then, i suppose it would have been easy to assume that it was all approved. As in my last post. The focus has rightly been on getting us back to the town. Now it's time to move forwards again. Lets hope not much long lasting damage has been done. It's our club, we need to support it if we want to see it return to past glories.

[Vodka_Vic]

Ugh. I hope they see some sense in it all, but it sounds like we're stuffed.

I wonder if moving the temp seats from Bishop might appease them short term if we get hem in for the playoff. I know it's been thought of as not an option in the past, but it has to be the only short term solution available. We can't build a stand before the playoff, but we could get that moved. (If they'll maybe extend the deadline for us to do so)

Anecdotally we know that this has been mooted so I'm guessing this is what the discussions are about, but getting the green light would mean us getting special dispensation and I guess the rest of the pyramid wouldn't be too happy, especially as we ducked a 12 point penalty last year. Actually, come to think of it, that was an occasion where common sense was applied. Could lightning strike twice? That was the Evo-Stik league though. Don't know how jobsworth the NL are in comparison.

[Vodka_Vic]

It's 250 seats with 3k at step B
500 seats with 3k to be in the playoffs
500 seats with 4k after promotion...and a lot of other criteria too.

To add to the confusion, the FSIF tendering quotes..."The FA National Ground Grading Criteria requires clubs at Step 2 to have 250 seats. Whilst it is acknowledged that the National League requires Step 2 clubs to have 500 seats to be eligible to participate in the “play-offs”, the additional 250 seats would not be eligible unless there was a demonstrable need in terms of average attendance".

And I think this will be the crux of any argument with the FA (from both clubs affected).

How many of us have actually read the ground grading document line for line? The architect must have. And the board at the time would have signed off. But since then, i suppose it would have been easy to assume that it was all approved. As in my last post. The focus has rightly been on getting us back to the town. Now it's time to move forwards again. Lets hope not much long lasting damage has been done. It's our club, we need to support it if we want to see it return to past glories.

Dick, you may have found us a loophole. It hinges on that word 'eligible' which doesn't seem to fit here.

[Darlo_Dan]

To add to the confusion, the FSIF tendering quotes..."The FA National Ground Grading Criteria requires clubs at Step 2 to have 250 seats. Whilst it is acknowledged that the National League requires Step 2 clubs to have 500 seats to be eligible to participate in the “play-offs”, the additional 250 seats would not be eligible unless there was a demonstrable need in terms of average attendance".

That, sir, may be our saving grace http://www.fsif.co.uk/funding/the-fa-na ... ue-system/

So, do we need 500 seats based on average attendance? You know the NL/FA will argue we do.

[spen666]

To add to the confusion, the FSIF tendering quotes..."The FA National Ground Grading Criteria requires clubs at Step 2 to have 250 seats. Whilst it is acknowledged that the National League requires Step 2 clubs to have 500 seats to be eligible to participate in the “play-offs”, the additional 250 seats would not be eligible unless there was a demonstrable need in terms of average attendance".

That, sir, may be our saving grace http://www.fsif.co.uk/funding/the-fa-na ... ue-system/


So, do we need 500 seats based on average attendance? You know the NL/FA will argue we do.

No, that is just a reason for the FSIF to turn down a grant application

You are quoting from a document about grant eligibility . It is irrelevant to the National League rules

[Darlo_Dan]

I know i'm clutching at straws.

[lo36789]

That statement doesn't sound all that encouraging. Here's hoping the authorities see sense.

Also, i'm pretty sure Salfords stadium isn't up to spec yet either. You could end up with a really farcical playoff if you have to kick out two teams from competing. I don't see how it should be a different rule for the playoff anyway. It's still in *this* league. As long as plans are in place to achieve the grading for the league above (in question for us i guess, as other than an additional 300 seats we haven't seen any more, and i don't know if that's enough?).

Really? Salford now have a big terrace behind one goal and a seated stand running along whole length of pitch. Compared to our ground it must tick all the boxes.

Salford is easy up to spec now...they have 2 stands with seats. One must hold 1,000 the other a few hundred.

[spen666]

The best argument it seems to me is to argue as Poole appear to be that rule is an anomaly. At present Darlo and Poole do not met rule and it is unlikely to work to try to argue they do comply.

A challenge by both clubs to the existence of the rule is i think best hope.

Rule is out of step with every other . I suspect board had overlooked it as most people did until it was raised on this thread. That is not me blaming board as i think it would be an easy oversight

[lo36789]

If we were an anomaly and promoted next season would be horrific. We'd have to find improvements to Conference national level by the March but would probably get relegated because we'd have no money left for the team.

[Vodka_Vic]

How about this one then for straw clutching. The seats on the club house side don't count towards the capacity because they're not in 4 rows, don't afford a good view of the pitch etc.etc. But would they count as temporary seating? If there are more than 203 of them, then we have 500 seats, if we stop people standing in front of them for play-off matches.

[Vodka_Vic]

The best argument it seems to me is to argue as Poole appear to be that rule is an anomaly. At present Darlo and Poole do not met rule and it is unlikely to work to try to argue they do comply.

A challenge by both clubs to the existence of the rule is i think best hope.

Rule is out of step with every other . I suspect board had overlooked it as most people did until it was raised on this thread. That is not me blaming board as i think it would be an easy oversight

Spen, as Robbie has pointed out it was raised in October in a thread.

[al_quaker]

If anything if we miss out on playoffs on a technicality could be a decent motivation to get funding in for next lot of ground improvement.

Disagree. I think the next round of fundraising is going to be difficult enough as it is without the loss of trust in the board that would happen if we were to be refused eligibility for the playoffs.

If it had been announced earlier this season that we needed 50k (number pulled out of thin air) to build more seats to be eligible for the playoffs, and then we the fans didn't raise the funds in time, then fair enough. It would be incredibly disappointing, but under our ownership model that is the way things are. However, that didn't happen.

We have to wait and see what happens, but that statement released reads like "we know we don't meet the criteria, and we are hoping the NL take pity on us". Based on previous (Eastwood Town), I'm not hopeful of that.

It must be noted that it's a completely stupid rule, but it is the rule.

[Darlo_Dan]

http://www.nonleaguematters.co.uk/forum ... t=35610925

This is the background to when Eastwood were denied a place in the playoffs as their 500 seats were in three stands, instead of two.

As we don't even have enough seats full stop, i can't see the league making an exception.

[Yarblockos]

If anything if we miss out on playoffs on a technicality could be a decent motivation to get funding in for next lot of ground improvement.

Disagree. I think the next round of fundraising is going to be difficult enough as it is without the loss of trust in the board that would happen if we were to be refused eligibility for the playoffs.

If it had been announced earlier this season that we needed 50k (number pulled out of thin air) to build more seats to be eligible for the playoffs, and then we the fans didn't raise the funds in time, then fair enough. It would be incredibly disappointing, but under our ownership model that is the way things are. However, that didn't happen.

We have to wait and see what happens, but that statement released reads like "we know we don't meet the criteria, and we are hoping the NL take pity on us". Based on previous (Eastwood Town), I'm not hopeful of that.

It must be noted that it's a completely stupid rule, but it is the rule.

Agreed, this is hardly a positive. The biggest problem is that I, and I should think many others, will lose confidence in the board.

[quaker4life]

I don't think this should come as a shock to any of us, it was probably apparent to many of us already that BM was not up to Conference criteria and like I've said before I questioned whether or not it was even up to Conference North standard.

However what we can take away from this statement is that something is amiss, if it wasn't there would be no need for any "discussions" with the league and there would be no decision to be made. I think I said yesterday that it is possible we have already been refused entry and have already appealed "discussions" and "as soon as a decision is taken by the league" seem to support my conspiracy theory!

My biggest fear after coming into this league was relegation due to failing to meet ground grading criteria, I could live with being refused a place in the play offs but being sent back down to the NPL would be far more difficult to take.

However I plan on attending the remaining home games this season and am not intending to spend too much time dwelling on it, it is out of our hands now.

[al_quaker]

If anything if we miss out on playoffs on a technicality could be a decent motivation to get funding in for next lot of ground improvement.

Disagree. I think the next round of fundraising is going to be difficult enough as it is without the loss of trust in the board that would happen if we were to be refused eligibility for the playoffs.

If it had been announced earlier this season that we needed 50k (number pulled out of thin air) to build more seats to be eligible for the playoffs, and then we the fans didn't raise the funds in time, then fair enough. It would be incredibly disappointing, but under our ownership model that is the way things are. However, that didn't happen.

We have to wait and see what happens, but that statement released reads like "we know we don't meet the criteria, and we are hoping the NL take pity on us". Based on previous (Eastwood Town), I'm not hopeful of that.

It must be noted that it's a completely stupid rule, but it is the rule.

Agreed, this is hardly a positive. The biggest problem is that I, and I should think many others, will lose confidence in the board.

Indeed - I also wonder what impact it would have on player retainment and recruitment in the summer if we were refused entry to the playoffs (if we finish top 5 of course, an event which is far from guaranteed)

[Vodka_Vic]

One problem as I see it I see the eligibility for further grants for ground improvement. Can we apply for grants on more than one occasion and get the 50% match from the FSIF or can you do it only once and did we miss the boat in last season's fundraising to get 500 seats? If we needed to fundraise to be eligible to be in the play-offs for next year and we didn't get a grant, that would put people off donating as in effect we would have to raise double to be eligible for promotion.

Also, if you read the Facebook thread on this point, someone called Nick Bassett adds something interesting to the debate.

[lo36789]

But the target for the fundraising was 500 seats and we didn't raise enough money so we got what we paid for. Weren't we in Division One North and it was advertised that x amount would get us to the requirements for EvoStik Prem and y amount would get us to requirements for Conference North?

How do you think a fundraising drive would have gone pre-December when we hadn't moved into BM yet to further develop a ground which hadn't been played in yet. Seriously - you expect that £50k?

I'd never refuse promotion if we can and do win it but in this circumstance it is effectively out of our control. No point getting wound up about it, and pointing fingers at "the board" for messing up when I suspect that pre Christmas their entire focus was on the move back to BM. Would it have even been feasible to achieve it in the timescales as well as fire fight the uproar and demands for daily announcements on changes in our relationship with the rugby club following the first few games.

[Undercovered]

One problem as I see it I see the eligibility for further grants for ground improvement. Can we apply for grants on more than one occasion and get the 50% match from the FSIF or can you do it only once and did we miss the boat in last season's fundraising to get 500 seats? If we needed to fundraise to be eligible to be in the play-offs for next year and we didn't get a grant, that would put people off donating as in effect we would have to raise double to be eligible for promotion.

Also, if you read the Facebook thread on this point, someone called Nick Bassett adds something interesting to the debate.

All FSIF funding for the level were at has been used on the work done so far on BM I believe, we wouldn't be eligible for any more unless we were promoted or waited another 5 years so any work needed on BM to get us promoted would need to be paid for 100% That would have been the case regardless

We're now reaching levels where we don't have the required infrastructure to progress and to do so it is very costly, the easy bit is done, the hard bit lies ahead and I'm sure there'll be plenty of bumps in the road.

It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that it gets more expensive to run a club the higher up the league you go. That doesn't mean you can't progress but progress is slower as a result. Just look at Monday's opponents FCUM - with a much larger fan base than us it has taken them much longer as they've had to build from scratch like us and prioritise getting the infrastructure in place.

[lo36789]

I think I said yesterday that it is possible we have already been refused entry and have already appealed

You think we have already been refused entry to something we have not qualified to enter for yet. The NL will not even have thought about us until the season finished we're not actually that important to them.

Should probably see if the Premier League have sent us our "you are not a member of the Premier League for the 2017/18 season" letter yet.

[Yarblockos]

I think I said yesterday that it is possible we have already been refused entry and have already appealed

You think we have already been refused entry to something we have not qualified to enter for yet. The NL will not even have thought about us until the season finished we're not actually that important to them.

Yes! I assume we asked and the NL informed us that we are not eligible to compete in the playoffs.

[al_quaker]

But the target for the fundraising was 500 seats and we didn't raise enough money so we got what we paid for. Weren't we in Division One North and it was advertised that x amount would get us to the requirements for EvoStik Prem and y amount would get us to requirements for Conference North?

How do you think a fundraising drive would have gone pre-December when we hadn't moved into BM yet to further develop a ground which hadn't been played in yet. Seriously - you expect that £50k?

I'd never refuse promotion if we can and do win it but in this circumstance it is effectively out of our control. No point getting wound up about it, and pointing fingers at "the board" for messing up when I suspect that pre Christmas their entire focus was on the move back to BM. Would it have even been feasible to achieve it in the timescales as well as fire fight the uproar and demands for daily announcements on changes in our relationship with the rugby club following the first few games.

I don't know how another fundraising drive would have gone, but if it was crucial to the point of the entire season, then we should have at least have been asked.

No point getting wound up about something which could render an entire season on the pitch worthless, and also really damage the club's reputation which it is working so hard to restore? OK

[al_quaker]

I think I said yesterday that it is possible we have already been refused entry and have already appealed

You think we have already been refused entry to something we have not qualified to enter for yet. The NL will not even have thought about us until the season finished we're not actually that important to them.

Should probably see if the Premier League have sent us our "you are not a member of the Premier League for the 2017/18 season" letter yet.

I'd hazard a guess that these type of decisions will be taken before the end of the season - the playoffs start 4 days after the season ends.

[lo36789]

There are plenty of options available I would think. I am not convinced we maxed out Conference North funding either. There is a maximum cumulative grant value of £250,000 which is 50% matched funding. Did we raise £250,000 I thought we only got £150,000ish?

By the way how weird are these schemes...

http://www.fsif.co.uk/funding/fans-fund ... ts-scheme/

"A Supporters Trust was awarded a grant (of £20,000) to research engagement with three cohorts of supporters which hadn’t traditionally supported the club. The research would inform the development and delivery of a number of new initiatives to engage supporters. Ultimately the project would aim to grow the fan base and attract new supporters."

I'll be honest there are only two people who seem truly upset, so I'll assume most others will support the club regardless and will just see this as another hurdle to overcome as a collective.

FWIW I wouldn't judge season as worthless just because you don't win promotion funny enough I actually enjoy watching the team compete.