Darlo Uncovered

So with the appeal needing to be completed by tomorrow, what do you think any angle of appeal might be?

Ferriby's precedent, probably. Can't see what other angles we have.

After speaking with people "in the know" on Saturday it seems that our appeal could well be doomed.

However, the straw that I'm clutching at is that something technical might be dug up by someone clever - something that they (the league) should have, or shouldn't have done.

The fact that it's a stupid rule, we didn't have time/money, it's caught out other clubs, it wasn't brought to our attention would seem to be irrelevant.

We just have to face facts that this season no playoffs but get it right for next season and hopefully do the same on the pitch and finish minimum top 5

tdk1 wrote:Ferriby's precedent, probably. Can't see what other angles we have.

What is the Ferriby precedent?

Our board spoke with then the other day and they were at the correct ground grading for the playoffs. The capacity was above 3k even if most Internet searches say different.

As Poole Town & Hungerford we all have no excuse other than time & money held us back, can't see that cutting it really.

Perhaps the great love and sympathy the FA have shown towards fans of this club in the past will shine through and they will make a stand against a barmy regulation. Don't think I'll be holding my breath mind

In National South, the way it is going perhaps one of the relegated teams will have to be promoted into the play-offs as they're dropping like flies near the top just now.

An alternative view. We've all blamed ourselves (i.e. the club) for unawareness of a significant rule change last year which went unnoticed.
Any appeal should take in to account how this change was communicated. It can't have been well promoted because it didn't appear on the radar till now. Those in charge of the game don't have a good track record of organising it; witness the well documented shambles from the very top.
If it's true that the top team in our league are given a year's extension to get their ground sorted, why?
If for health & safety reasons, then what's good for them should be good for the other promoted side too.
Furthermore I disagree that "driving along in third gear" is better than being promoted now. I respect the opinions of those who disagree but this concept makes the assumption that promotion is a given next season. It isn't, and I'd rather peddle within the lower reaches of the National League rather than go through it all again to get there.
Another way: would you rather pass your driving test now or take more lessons and have a crack at it next year?
To deny the players' achievements is to fail to acknowledge the lung bursting efforts they have given since August, and to waste a year of their short careers.
Finally I wouldn't have liked to be the one who gave the news to MG that his efforts weren't counting this season. Or to the players, then us. There must have been disbelief at every level, and quite a few sleepless night's I'd hazard.

Feethams 1966 wrote:An alternative view. We've all blamed ourselves (i.e. the club) for unawareness of a significant rule change last year which went unnoticed.
Any appeal should take in to account how this change was communicated. It can't have been well promoted because it didn't appear on the radar till now. Those in charge of the game don't have a good track record of organising it; witness the well documented shambles from the very top.
If it's true that the top team in our league are given a year's extension to get their ground sorted, why?
If for health & safety reasons, then what's good for them should be good for the other promoted side too.
Furthermore I disagree that "driving along in third gear" is better than being promoted now. I respect the opinions of those who disagree but this concept makes the assumption that promotion is a given next season. It isn't, and I'd rather peddle within the lower reaches of the National League rather than go through it all again to get there.
Another way: would you rather pass your driving test now or take more lessons and have a crack at it next year?
To deny the players' achievements is to fail to acknowledge the lung bursting efforts they have given since August, and to waste a year of their short careers.
Finally I wouldn't have liked to be the one who gave the news to MG that his efforts weren't counting this season. Or to the players, then us. There must have been disbelief at every level, and quite a few sleepless night's I'd hazard.

Sadly there has been no specific rule change for at least 3 if not more years in regards to the seating area and 500 seats and temporary seating hasn't been allowed for at least 3 years.

The team who wins the league also has to have 500 covered seats by 31st March this year and have the same rules so no difference there.

Good post F66...

Feethams 1966 wrote:Any appeal should take in to account how this change was communicated. It can't have been well promoted because it didn't appear on the radar till now. Those in charge of the game don't have a good track record of organising it; witness the well documented shambles from the very top.

Good point. It's an important change - you'd like to think it wasn't sneaked out.

Feethams 1966 wrote:If it's true that the top team in our league are given a year's extension to get their ground sorted, why?

Fylde? Their ground is spot on, no extension needed but leaving that to one side it would seem that the rule in question applies to all. It looks as if Ray in the Echo has got this wrong.

Feethams 1966 wrote:I respect the opinions of those who disagree but this concept makes the assumption that promotion is a given next season. It isn't, and I'd rather peddle within the lower reaches of the National League rather than go through it all again to get there.

My thoughts too. Personally I've been waiting for this moment for years, and now it looks to have gone - it's heartbreaking.

Feethams 1966 wrote:Finally I wouldn't have liked to be the one who gave the news to MG that his efforts weren't counting this season. Or to the players, then us. There must have been disbelief at every level, and quite a few sleepless night's I'd hazard.

I feel that this problem must have been known about for some time. I spoke to someone on Saturday who had known for a while - so was M.G. kept in the dark?

The appeal is an annoyance, it is demoralising have to be made to wait through a futile process.

You don't need to be "in the know" to work out that they don't have a leg to stand on, the angle will no doubt be pleading ignorance and poverty etc but the overriding fact is that the ground didn't meet the clearly outlined criteria, that is the fault of the board and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it has been known since Day 1.

As the old saying goes "ignorance is not a defence in a court of law" and so it applies to this and I don't believe there was any way the board could not have been aware of the changes.

Also the "you let North Ferriby go up" argument is a redundant one.

From what ive heard today someone has been talking to steve Mclaren about the FA and the appeal and according to Mclaren he said dont hold your breath with the FA

There's some talk on Twitter about how a "confusing" e-mail received from the FA when we started to look into the grading rules may form a key part of our appeal.

As with all things on social media, I'm not so much taking it with a pinch of salt as the entire shaker, but we'll see what the club publishes on Thursday, I guess.

mikkyx wrote:There's some talk on Twitter about how a "confusing" e-mail received from the FA when we started to look into the grading rules may form a key part of our appeal.

As with all things on social media, I'm not so much taking it with a pinch of salt as the entire shaker, but we'll see what the club publishes on Thursday, I guess.

Well, we can only hope.

It wasn't one of those emails about penis extensions was it?

Yarblockos wrote:

mikkyx wrote:There's some talk on Twitter about how a "confusing" e-mail received from the FA when we started to look into the grading rules may form a key part of our appeal.

As with all things on social media, I'm not so much taking it with a pinch of salt as the entire shaker, but we'll see what the club publishes on Thursday, I guess.

Well, we can only hope.

It wasn't one of those emails about penis extensions was it?

"Get your BIGGER STADUM now!!111!1!!!!1!! [nospam] GENUIN."

I've just replied to one giving my bank details. They need me to go to an airport and pick up a trunk for them. I'll get thousands for doing it.....

A bit off topic i know but brighton were in football league for years with a groubd of mostly temporary seats from outdoor events. There stadium was a laughing stock. Maybe the fa have become more tougher or were easy on brighton due to severe financial problems

Feethams 1966 wrote:An alternative view. We've all blamed ourselves (i.e. the club) for unawareness of a significant rule change last year which went unnoticed..

The rules on this did not change in May 16 as the club said in their statement. This rule was in the May 15 version.

Craig09 wrote:From what ive heard today someone has been talking to steve Mclaren about the FA and the appeal and according to Mclaren he said dont hold your breath with the FA

Well that settles it then. If someone says that Steve McLaren said so...

McClaren


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are we banned from the play-offs or not able to take promotion if we won the play-offs? If we had finished top of the league then I assume we would still be Champions just not able to accept promotion.

Why would that be any different with the play-off? Play the matches with the resultant income then if we won there simply wouldn't be a 2nd team promoted.

We seem to be being punished twice in a league where we have the relevant ground grading.

Not allowed to participate in the play-offs. If we should finish in the top 5, the 6th place team would go in instead.

liamsears wrote:Are we banned from the play-offs or not able to take promotion if we won the play-offs? If we had finished top of the league then I assume we would still be Champions just not able to accept promotion.

Why would that be any different with the play-off? Play the matches with the resultant income then if we won there simply wouldn't be a 2nd team promoted.

We seem to be being punished twice in a league where we have the relevant ground grading.

Interesting point though.

Not sure what the resultant income would end up being as the games would be meaningless. I suppose it could be said that whoever played us was benefiting from playing a team who weren't really competing.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I know this is slightly different as it's a different sport, but a few years ago Newcastle Falcons were in the Championship trying to get in the Premiership and the top 4 go into playoffs. Before the playoffs started there were 2 teams within the playoffs that weren't allowed to be promoted due to ground regulations, but they were allowed to compete. Had these 2 teams won the playoffs then no one would have been promoted. The relegated team would have had a reprieve.

Makka Pakka wrote:Not allowed to participate in the play-offs. If we should finish in the top 5, the 6th place team would go in instead.

I did hear if a teams not allowed in play offs who ever there opposition is would recieve a bye to the final

shildonlad wrote:

Makka Pakka wrote:Not allowed to participate in the play-offs. If we should finish in the top 5, the 6th place team would go in instead.

I did hear if a teams not allowed in play offs who ever there opposition is would recieve a bye to the final

Maybe Gary Neville will accept that as a fall-back position, following on from his "let them play" comment?

shildonlad wrote:

Makka Pakka wrote:Not allowed to participate in the play-offs. If we should finish in the top 5, the 6th place team would go in instead.

I did hear if a teams not allowed in play offs who ever there opposition is would recieve a bye to the final

Thing is this massively changes the equal competition of the playoffs. One team is now going to either be fatigued or face suspensions/injuries etc.

I would say 6th place should enter play offs makes it farer than a team in the final who have played 2 fewer games. Of course if 6th place did not meet groubd gradeing that could be intresting

If we finish top 5, then I think it's unfair that the 6th place team should go in the play offs - ultimately they weren't good enough to be in there.

The fairest way to do it is to give a bye to the highest placed team (likely 2nd place) and the other two teams to play each other in a semi.

Yes the team with a bye will have a slight advantage having not played semis, but at the end of the day they are the best team from the play off teams anyway

Quakerz wrote:If we finish top 5, then I think it's unfair that the 6th place team should go in the play offs - ultimately they weren't good enough to be in there.

The fairest way to do it is to give a bye to the highest placed team (likely 2nd place) and the other two teams to play each other in a semi.

Yes the team with a bye will have a slight advantage having not played semis, but at the end of the day they are the best team from the play off teams anyway

Surely its not unfair to say the top 4 sides who are eligible go into the play offs?

Is it any more unfair than allowing the 2nd or 3rd placed side in Northern League to be promoted if champions don't.

The rules allow the 6th or 7th place team to compete in the play-offs should any of the teams in the play-off positions not be allowed to participate.