Darlo Uncovered

loan_star wrote:

al_quaker wrote: "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 to me suggests help for 250 seats (that is, the cat B requirement), but no more than that (without demonstrable need), at step 2. Which makes the 500 seats needed for promotion quite unfair - which perhaps is the basis of our appeal.

This could be why the club are playing it from the "we didn't have the money for 500 seats" angle.
If they couldn't afford 500 seats due to a grant only being available up to 250 seats then the league should take that into consideration. Asking clubs to spend money they can't afford despite meeting the regs for the current league could put clubs in financial difficulty.
All very well saying reduce the playing budget to help pay for the stand but if it really is £150k to double the size of the current stand then thats probably all of our playing budget out of the window.

Grants are normally 50/50 so it would have been 75k from the playing budget and 75k from us fans.

I wouldn't expect this loophole to have any success, we didn't follow the rules whether we agree with them or not.

Remember though Les that the funding for the 250 seats to be eligible for promotion is not covered by grants so we have to fund it ourselves. This to me would be the only basis for appeal, that the NL have introduced a rule which is out of step with FSIF grants, so it is unfair to expect up and coming clubs to have to fund something so costly themselves, and is therefore discriminatory to certain model clubs i.e Community clubs like ourselves. It clearly does not affect clubs who come down from the Conference and also those who have benefactors. The rule is an anomaly because this is the only step of ground grading where it exists, but mainly because it is the only example of a ground grading regulation which is not covered by grants. I don't for one minute think the FA will care about this, but nevertheless you shouldn't have a rule for ground grading which not covered by FSIF money.

Like everyone else on here I'm frustrated we will not be entering the playoffs with all the excitement that brings.
However the fact remains we are always losing between £50k-£100k per year since 2012. Martin Jesper realised this when he resigned he forecast a £50k shortfall at the AGM and it ended up short of £100k. The current Directors whether you agree with them or not want to run a solvent business this I'd imagine will include a reduction in costs including the playing budget as this is the largest cost only the coaching staff and players earn a wage.

The call for the board to resign in my opinion would be a retrograde step and to date since Dave Mills resigned no one else has put themselves forward. The board work very well with the DFSCG now and I'm sure roles could be taken up by them. To call for the board to resign in my view is something that you have to be careful what you wish for as you could quickly end up in a 2012 situation. The vitriol aimed at the current unpaid board volunteers is over the top and I wouldn't blame them for walking.

Vodka_Vic wrote:Remember though Les that the funding for the 250 seats to be eligible for promotion is not covered by grants so we have to fund it ourselves. This to me would be the only basis for appeal, that the NL have introduced a rule which is out of step with FSIF grants, so it is unfair to expect up and coming clubs to have to fund something so costly themselves, and is therefore discriminatory to certain model clubs i.e Community clubs like ourselves. It clearly does not affect clubs who come down from the Conference and also those who have benefactors. The rule is an anomaly because this is the only step of ground grading where it exists, but mainly because it is the only example of a ground grading regulation which is not covered by grants. I don't for one minute think the FA will care about this, but nevertheless you shouldn't have a rule for ground grading which not covered by FSIF money.

Surely the league will just say, yes but this is the rule that was voted in by clubs.

They banned Eastwood Town for having 500 seats in 3 stands rather than 2, I just don't see anyone caring that we think the grant rule is not fair with the league rule.

Both rules have been in place for some time and are there for everyone. We could have cut our budget of about 275k to 200k and cash raise the 75k from fans. However we didn't know the rule existed.

If we finished 6th but cut our budget so we had the seats and the 5th placed team didn't bother with the seats and spent the money on players how would we feel.

I agree. Even if they said that we had a point, they would say that it was the wrong forum for raising it, that it would be the NL AGM where this could be debated. The fact that the rule exists without being eligible for a grant is morally wrong though in my view and I hope we can at least bring it up at the AGM. Won't save our appeal however.

When the planning was originally submitted in December 2014, we were at step 4, and required a Grade D ground. The application was submitted to provide a Grade C ground, with an eye to extend it to Grade B and A in due course as our progress required.

There was also provision in the plans for 500 seats under cover.

For the Supporters' Group to state that the current board inherited this problem is disingenuous - a) the plans and fundraising should have been reviewed (and amended if necessary) in light of the delays and our promotions in the summers of 2015 and 2016 and b) if the original plans had been delivered on we would have had required 500 covered seats, under one stand, so would not be having this debate now anyway.

herts_darlo wrote:When the planning was originally submitted in December 2014, we were at step 4, and required a Grade D ground. The application was submitted to provide a Grade C ground, with an eye to extend it to Grade B and A in due course as our progress required.

There was also provision in the plans for 500 seats under cover.

For the Supporters' Group to state that the current board inherited this problem is disingenuous - a) the plans and fundraising should have been reviewed (and amended if necessary) in light of the delays and our promotions in the summers of 2015 and 2016 and b) if the original plans had been delivered on we would have had required 500 covered seats, under one stand, so would not be having this debate now anyway.

Plans are fine but how is our fan funded club going to pay for it?

In terms of the appeal, I've been informed that...

a) it's heard by an FA panel judicial committee.
b) the rule is a league rule not an FA rule and
c) we are liaising with Poole Vice Chair who is a lawyer and sits on FA judicial panels

I like the sound of the third one. Now how do we build a case?

We currently have until close of business on Tuesday to appeal but have asked for an extension, Poole have until Thursday.

super_les_mcjannet wrote:

Vodka_Vic wrote:Remember though Les that the funding for the 250 seats to be eligible for promotion is not covered by grants so we have to fund it ourselves. This to me would be the only basis for appeal, that the NL have introduced a rule which is out of step with FSIF grants, so it is unfair to expect up and coming clubs to have to fund something so costly themselves, and is therefore discriminatory to certain model clubs i.e Community clubs like ourselves. It clearly does not affect clubs who come down from the Conference and also those who have benefactors. The rule is an anomaly because this is the only step of ground grading where it exists, but mainly because it is the only example of a ground grading regulation which is not covered by grants. I don't for one minute think the FA will care about this, but nevertheless you shouldn't have a rule for ground grading which not covered by FSIF money.

Surely the league will just say, yes but this is the rule that was voted in by clubs.

They banned Eastwood Town for having 500 seats in 3 stands rather than 2, I just don't see anyone caring that we think the grant rule is not fair with the league rule.

Both rules have been in place for some time and are there for everyone. We could have cut our budget of about 275k to 200k and cash raise the 75k from fans. However we didn't know the rule existed.

If we finished 6th but cut our budget so we had the seats and the 5th placed team didn't bother with the seats and spent the money on players how would we feel.

Well we'd be laughing because we'd get the playoff place and the team in 5th wouldn't.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Must admit the Poole Vice Chairman being a lawyer and sitting on the FA committee sounds tasty.......you never know.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

QUAKERMAN2 wrote:Must admit the Poole Vice Chairman being a lawyer and sitting on the FA committee sounds tasty.......you never know.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

And his name is Christopher Reeves...hopefully he is a Superman

Noticed no interviews from MG this week with Ray, all very quiet, seems a bit strange considering a game tomorrow so I would think Martin is still fuming and who could blame him.

super_les_mcjannet wrote:I believe the 500 seat rule was voted on and agreed by all clubs at the time. If we wanted to we could propose the rule is removed and see if everyone agrees.

I think the rule makes sense it means you need to start preparing for the next level and then when you get there it won't be as big an ask to develop the ground by 31st March.

Well said. As ive always said a teams ground should be there abouts for league above

QUAKERMAN2 wrote:Noticed no interviews from MG this week with Ray, all very quiet, seems a bit strange considering a game tomorrow so I would think Martin is still fuming and who could blame him.

I think MG is firmly in the pissed off camp at the moment.

However I can see him really wanting to finish in the top 5 just to prove it was no fault of him or the players and they were good enough for a shot of promotion.

The Golden Hairclip wrote:Any idea who presides over the appeal? Needs to be independent, otherwise the club will clearly be prejudiced. Hope we've got sufficient budget to take legal advice!

There's always the potential for loopholes - did proper consultation take place prior to the rule changes, did they notify clubs 'at risk', is it appropriate to have one rule for first place and another for 2nd - 5th place teams?

Life often rewards those who won't give up regardless of the challenges.

Seems like the club would rather piss money against the wall for the appeal than spend it on ground

super_les_mcjannet wrote:

The Golden Hairclip wrote:Changes about timing for having sufficient infrastructure / seating in place


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well season 2014/2015 you had to have everything in place by 31st March and no Temp Seating allowed.

I may have missed something but no change has occurred.

North Ferriby were alleged to have only 2,700 capacity but the club have checked with them and it is incorrect hence how they were allowed to be in the play offs and be promoted because it was above 3,000 capacity.

Truro is another possible anomaly, however no one has shown any evidence yet that they had less than 500 permanent seats. I tried searching but couldn't find anything.

The only evidence found is Eastwood Town who had over 500 seats but in 3 stands (has to be in 2) and were not allowed in play offs due to this. They appealed and were rejected.

North ferriby should not have been allowed in playoffs, fa stuffed up hence why they been tougher this season

herts_darlo wrote:When the planning was originally submitted in December 2014, we were at step 4, and required a Grade D ground. The application was submitted to provide a Grade C ground, with an eye to extend it to Grade B and A in due course as our progress required.

There was also provision in the plans for 500 seats under cover.

For the Supporters' Group to state that the current board inherited this problem is disingenuous - a) the plans and fundraising should have been reviewed (and amended if necessary) in light of the delays and our promotions in the summers of 2015 and 2016 and b) if the original plans had been delivered on we would have had required 500 covered seats, under one stand, so would not be having this debate now anyway.

Not sure it was disingenuous but equally I'm not a fan of lining up all these excuses when there is no apology from board for their mistakes.

The fundraising was launched on Mar 23rd 2016. Richard Cook was appointed as director one month previous. John Tempest a couple of weeks previous to that. The fundraising doc said it was for a Grade B ground.

Given the timing I assume the building cost estimates were inherited from previous board members work. Based on public info the original plans seem to have under estimated cost of getting a Grade B ground. Not surprising given the time that had passed and the difficulty in getting accurate estimates.

Richard Cook said he reviewed and revised costs in the summer 2016 and it was then that it came to light we needed (from Halifax prog notes) an extra 200k to complete works. In retrospect this was clearly too late as the fundraising had closed.

So we couldn't afford to build the second seated stand and of course there was then the massive error of not realising we needed 500+ seats to be eligible for promotion.

By all accounts North Ferriby hit everything to be in the playoffs, our club contact them.

Not sure if they have done anything to get up to category A though, although by next match it probably won't matter as they are most likely to be relegated.

I'm still struggling with the idea of having to have a ground ready for "in case you go up". All that effort at North Ferriby and they only had 364 there today.

Darlobaz79 wrote:In terms of the appeal, I've been informed that...

a) it's heard by an FA panel judicial committee.
b) the rule is a league rule not an FA rule and
c) we are liaising with Poole Vice Chair who is a lawyer and sits on FA judicial panels

Interesting!

C is interesting... A last slim hope maybe...

Robbie Painter wrote:

herts_darlo wrote:When the planning was originally submitted in December 2014, we were at step 4, and required a Grade D ground. The application was submitted to provide a Grade C ground, with an eye to extend it to Grade B and A in due course as our progress required.

There was also provision in the plans for 500 seats under cover.

For the Supporters' Group to state that the current board inherited this problem is disingenuous - a) the plans and fundraising should have been reviewed (and amended if necessary) in light of the delays and our promotions in the summers of 2015 and 2016 and b) if the original plans had been delivered on we would have had required 500 covered seats, under one stand, so would not be having this debate now anyway.

Not sure it was disingenuous but equally I'm not a fan of lining up all these excuses when there is no apology from board for their mistakes.

The fundraising was launched on Mar 23rd 2016. Richard Cook was appointed as director one month previous. John Tempest a couple of weeks previous to that. The fundraising doc said it was for a Grade B ground.

Given the timing I assume the building cost estimates were inherited from previous board members work. Based on public info the original plans seem to have under estimated cost of getting a Grade B ground. Not surprising given the time that had passed and the difficulty in getting accurate estimates.

Richard Cook said he reviewed and revised costs in the summer 2016 and it was then that it came to light we needed (from Halifax prog notes) an extra 200k to complete works. In retrospect this was clearly too late as the fundraising had closed.

So we couldn't afford to build the second seated stand and of course there was then the massive error of not realising we needed 500+ seats to be eligible for promotion.

Hadn't heard the £200k discrepancy before. That's a massive difference in % terms.
I wonder how the initial costings could have been so far out?