31st March 2008

[railwatcher]

Can anyone tell me when the date of 31st March 2008 was announced to the clubs? It seems no chance of doing any building works to grounds before then!

[pyromaniac]

At least as far back as September when it was highlighted in the UCL Management minutes. I suspect it was mentioned before then though. Perhaps a case of some clubs choosing to ignore the requirements, or not seeing as much urgency to do work.

[railwatcher]

Thanks for that Pyromaniac, just it doesn't seem that clubs have had fair chance to plan their works, especially as the goalposts have bene moved many many times!

How long has your new ground been in the planning, before September I bet!

[Lankie]

.... but it was after all delayed from March 2007 !

[judgejohn]

...........and has been in the spotlight for at least a couple of years. Clubs just ignored it sorry to say and that includes my own.

[railwatcher]

JJ that is a slightly harsh, I know of clubs advising the league management of timescale difficulties and asking for representation to be made and their requests being dismissed out of hand; even after the club was taking advice from the FA in March 2007 on the clear understanding of their work being carried out before the start of season 2008/09 in compliance to Ground Grading Level F, unaware that the work has to be complete before the end of this season. Hymm sheet seems more than a bit crumpled to me. I would suggest there to be many member clubs that perhaps haven't received adequate consultation but too much dictate, not all clubs have representation on the Management Committee. This does not mean that clubs have ignored the ruling, but are patently unable to carry out the work within the set timescale, which could easily be interpreted as totally impractical. Perhaps you will let us know whether your club are able to spend their recent windfall and still play football before March 2008, if not why not?. There are two sides to all stories it does seem absolutely illogical that a date is set 6 weeks before the end of a season; they may just have well set 16th August 2007 for what good they are offering clubs with considerable works to do.

But I am sure we have all seen how joined up the FA are following the disgrace our national team and stadium was seen to the world last Wednesday.

[babysitter]

I would like to see a Spreadsheet, or whatever you computer experts out there call it, designed with all Clubs in the Premier in one column, work needed to comply in another column, estimated cost to each Club in another, % chance of getting the work done in time in another, etc etc. I'm sure our League Facilities Inspectorate could do such a thing for ALL CLUBS to see instead of this endless speculation. Have all Clubs been visited and advised, in detail not in a wishy washy way that I have already heard. I think that all Clubs will look for loopholes or a way out of the deadline, if we are honest, but they have to be shown EXACTLY what is required as soon as possible.

[ianh]

babysitter said:

I would like to see a Spreadsheet, designed with all Clubs in the Premier in one column, work needed to comply in another column, estimated cost to each Club in another, % chance of getting the work done in time in another, etc etc. I'm sure our League Facilities Inspectorate could do such a thing for ALL CLUBS to see instead of this endless speculation. Have all Clubs been visited and advised, in detail not in a wishy washy way that I have already heard. I think that all Clubs will look for loopholes or a way out of the deadline, if we are honest, but they have to be shown EXACTLY what is required as soon as possible.

Come on, you know better than to ask a question like that. tell me why you need to know what everybody else needs to do.

Your club have needed some work doing since I first visited, or are you saying that, you cant read the back of the handbook, or read recommendations that I know you have had, or documentation off the internet.
All this FA moving the goalposts, yes they do, but in fairness did your ground ever meet the ground grading requirements. its far to easy too sit on your hands, some changes cost a lot of money and time, but some could be done, quite easily with little outlay.

sorry to name a club, but just take a look at Deeping, a lot of work has been done the ground looks fantastic, they were champions last year and by the look of things will not be far away this year, so the Team doesnt seem to have suffered.

I sent an Email around to all clubs, 3 months ago, it was also on the weekly bulletin John Walker sends out, Introducing myself advising the requirements, offering help and advice, 2/3 of clubs replied, I contacted the most of the rest personally and there are still 4 outstanding. so dont tell me your not sure what you need

[railwatcher]

Will someone hold me back please!

We seem to be forgetting the history and background of the League here, which has a track record of facilities not neccasarily being all that they might be; indeed I think the club you have been associated with might just be a case in point when being accepted at Level 6. And a whole series of similar cases can be sited. Now we see a change in stance and attitude towards member clubs with an apparent lack of understanding and dialogue, not every club has a goose that lays a golden egg, and equally all should not be judged in that way.

Standards have been and will continue to be diverse, it is for all to see, some are professional clean and tidy, some are shabby and built around mobile buildings that very quickly fall into disrepair. Some clubs provide excellent playing surfaces other do not care, etc. etc. There has been very little benchmarking of facilities, indeed I regularly watch games when Management members attend and do not make any representation to the clubs of any problems or failure in standards, I imagine that the inspections at grounds was quite shocking at some, the visiting clubs would have been much better informed. In the past I can recall one club being thanked for composing a nice letter explaining why they had a gaping hole in the away changing room roof, and during a heavy thunderstorm on the matchday water was cascaded through a consumer unit and players kit bags and shoes were quite literally floating across the floor; they were given as long as it took to repair! So history is not good, little wonder some are now kicking and screaming.

Also what is not good is the manner in which these changes are being implimented, it inevitably will lead to a degree of anarchy something I have already raised; siting one club against another is hardly the way forward or is quoting chapter and verse as a dictate. Collective dialogue would be a more professional and beneficial approach, sitting in a room together in a seminar format giving us the cases for the improvements and the benefits we can all enjoy. In return listen to the problems and case histories of clubs too and explain possible solutions so everyone is equally informed, only then will we understand why two clubs might have the required facilties!

Lets move forward as a United League. It will be stronger and better as some clubs are already showing us.

[gerrard720]

To coin a classic phrase (and one that is supported with numerous studies and research). You CANNOT change peoples attitudes until you change their behaviour.

Rules have to be made in this world, evolution of standards and expectations have to occur - otherwise we'd all be kicking balls with laces in and changing in asbestos covered changing rooms. The method of communicating standards and timescales is something that I can't comment on because I'm not on any committees.

But if a club is failing to comply with criteria and it's struggling to get the changes made in time - how long should you compensate them for when other clubs roll their sleeves up and get the work done and raise the funds to cover it?

[ianh]

Railwatcher and Gerrard you are both right and are exactly the views, which we are trying to foster.

Railwatcher, you seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, but I think that when you say things are changing, and you are condemning the past, you are exactly right, it would be wrong to live in the past, which was one of the points I was trying to get through.
holding one club up as a beacon, may have been a bit unfair, but I needed to demonstrate an example of what can be done.

Gerrard, when you say" if a club is failing to comply with criteria and it's struggling to get the changes made in time - how long should you compensate them for when other clubs roll their sleeves up and get the work done and raise the funds to cover it?" thats hit the nail on the head, everyone knows the FA have set down criteria, it may be cheaper to look the other way and hope for another extension, but hardly fair to the rest of the teams in your league.

All the FA are trying to do is set up a universal criteria to allow for people to play, officiate and watch in a safe and hospitable environment.

[railwatcher]

Point taken gerrard quite true, but unless u understand ALL of the implications and how much all this will cost, I would hazzard a conservative guess at in excess of £ 1,000,000 for UCL clubs excluding Sleaford St. Neots & Yaxley, that should give you a little insite, and hopefully an appreciation of the pressure this is putting on the volunteers who run the clubs; they tend not to pop down the road every few weeks!

I firmly support the ground grading improvements and their benefits but would welcome more dialogue to ensure everyone's situation is being understood and that the benefits will be seen by all. The clubs' situations are not being understood at all hence the hue and cry.

Perhaps you maybe more understanding it is obvious that you are not on a committee - I am sorry but that is fact; but of course that is the purpose of this forum.

[railwatcher]

No chip Ianh just a massive burden and problem as a hobby!

[gerrard720]

I did try to caviat what I was commenting on by not suggesting I had the answer and don't know the "in's and out's". T'is true that I do not sit on committees and therefore I don't get to see the issues ground gradings problem causes.

But, and there's always a but! BSMFC spent £250,000 on the facilities recently. Football foundation, grants, fundraising, local investment and hard work got that paid for. And trust me, we had awful facilities prior to that. I've played there on and off since I was 12 (which, sadly for me is 18 fecking years!!) and it goes to show that things CAN be done.

I fully appreciate and empathise with clubs struggling to meet the criteria, but playing at step 5 or 6 comes with a price - you can't have FA Cup ties, FA Vase ties and the such like without getting up to speed with the criteria for facilities.

Although financially incomparable, the same principals apply for the pro clubs to change to all seater stadiums. The cost was ferocious yet obigatory. I didn't see many clubs prepared to lose their status in the league because it was too tough a challenge. They all met it, they all got the work done and they all stayed in the league.

Those that didn't (and it will be the same in any walk of life or sport when you don't comply with rules and regs) - fall by the wayside.

But that situation comes down to choice. A very important word.

[ianh]

Blimey Gerrard, should perhaps hire you as an advisor, you are doing a better job at explaining it than I am.

The £1,000,000 pounds you quote Railwatcher, is quite a lot of money, it only cost approximately that to build Sleafords new ground , and in most if not all cases, no team in our league needs a complete rebuild to satisfy the FA.

As I said above, since, I have been in this position I have contacted clubs, by phone, email and have visited some, in 50% of the cases they have been fed inaccurate information by their mate at another club and/or been told ridiculously inflated figures. when in most cases they need minimal work.

There may have only been 2 that completely met the criteria, but there are only a few that need major work (IE more than £10k), and grants are available.