3G pitch

[backhome2016]

This has become a mental wrestling match between 'perceived success/ambition' and 'the soul of the club'. For me, the soul wins every time. I say NO to removing the 3G pitch. I would go for promotion and then take the double relegation. Many will think that madness but it says to the whole footballing world that, "yes, we're good enough but we don't like the way things are currently done, so we will stay with our business model that works very well thank you"

Perceived success or soul of the club?

[os]

Feb 5, 2018 18:08:22 GMT sallycat said:

Feb 5, 2018 15:58:11 GMT mca said:

PD implied a complete turn about in the club's thinking re promotion

Did he? Dos was careful to state that these are his own personal views. And oosince the club hasn't made its contingency plan public, how would we know if their thinking changed?

Bruce has stated on BT that the club would take promotion, and the preferred option would be to stay at GGL. Dos has also stated as much as double relegation would be unjust, it is an agreement all clubs signed up too.

[ryooon1999]

All I say is we keep pushing the way we are, no point in trying to fix games, we have the chance to go up, let’s not waste it.... I would hate to see the 3G pitch go personally because what it has done for the club but either way what happens, promotion or relegation, I’ll still support the club and club officials on their choice and be there every home game as well as away games!

[usus2]

Surely the compromise would be to groundshare for two seasons. This would allow us to keep the revenue stream, possibly increase it as another club could take our 1st team spots while allowing us to await the vote/appeals process and see if we can maintain a place in that division

The downside is for the fans not seeing league football at GGL/KCS for two seasons and additional travel for “home” games but it does preserve the club as a commercially viable enterprise for the future.

[ryooon1999]

Feb 5, 2018 21:41:13 GMT usus2 said:

Surely the compromise would be to groundshare for two seasons. This would allow us to keep the revenue stream, possibly increase it as another club could take our 1st team spots while allowing us to await the vote/appeals process and see if we can maintain a place in that division

The downside is for the fans not seeing league football at GGL/KCS for two seasons and additional travel for “home” games but it does preserve the club as a commercially viable enterprise for the future.

Could affect the club badly, like other clubs have groundshared and has massively affected the club, Northampton and Coventry, older Wimbledon and Palace, even Hayes and Yeading for 10 odd years.... I would prefer to stay at GGL no matter what!

[os]

I agree stay at GGL no matter what, and we could always pretend its real grass, I mean Eastleigh get away with it, and Brackley showed half a ton of mud will do, as long as the ball doesn't run or bounce on it, we will be fine

[usus2]

Unlike the clubs mentioned we wouldn’t be disposing of our ground to a developer and it would be a fixed term just to overcome the immediate issue of the 3G pitch. We keep the KCS revenue,the youth teams/community teams and the training facility in place while we see if 3G gets approved by the EFL. If we don’t manage to sustain our place in league two in those two years we are back in the National and at our own ground. If we do and it looks like we are settled if 3G isn’t approved we then make the decision to tear up the 3G in favour of grass

It’s not the ideal solution but it is an optional one along with others outlined elsewhere in this thread.

[tonyd]

I thought you weren’t allowed to arrange ground shares in order to accept promotion, or is that only lower down the pyramid?

[trev]

Excuse my ignorance as it's probably just me missing something blindingly obvious, but there's something I don't get about the current arrangements...

My understanding is: the National League forced all NL clubs to sign some kind of contractually binding agreement, confirming that in the event of our failing to rip up our lovely 3G surface in the event of our being promoted to the Football League, we will be relegated to the National League South. 

My confusion is: If we are promoted the the Football League, then we will be governed by the rules and regulations of the FL, not the NL. If we are no longer members of the NL on securing promotion to the FL, then how would the NL still have jurisdictional control over our club, capable of dictating that we should be relegated two tiers?

I'm sure there's a simple answer to this question, I just don't know what it is...

[tonyd]

You can’t be promoted if your ground doesn’t pass the requirements of the EFL. We would merely be a club in a promotion place, still in the NL and subject to the rules of the NL which we agreed to as members.

[trev]

Feb 6, 2018 9:53:47 GMT tonyd said:

You can’t be promoted if your ground doesn’t pass the requirements of the EFL. We would merely be a club in a promotion place, still in the NL and subject to the rules of the NL which we agreed to as members.

I see, that makes sense. So effectively, if we finish first or win the playoff final, our status would be promotion pending, rather than promoted per se. Thanks for the clarification, Tony. 

[Jared]

Let's face it unless we win the league this won't be an issue. Our playoff record is terrible

[ryooon1999]

Isn’t there plans to removed the rec terrace and curved terrace in the summer for a new seated stand similar to the one at Boreham Wood? Are these rumours correct...

[davef]

"Are these rumours correct..."

No, they are not.

[ryooon1999]

Feb 6, 2018 10:38:22 GMT davef said:

"Are these rumours correct..."

No, they are not.

Thanks for the clarification 👍