|
Post by pborohero on May 31, 2009 17:06:15 GMT 1
Lets see how we all agree on this now.
Ground standards met by a points system.
Upto 20 pts deducted depending on how much needs doing.
lets have views stating club you are from. Then we can see roughly who is and who is not up to met the changes set out by the F.A.
Yes deduct or No
|
|
|
Post by footballfan on May 31, 2009 19:16:35 GMT 1
bloody hell thats Burton up the Swanee we do well to achieve 20 points and we wouldn't be far off losing 20. so my answer is lets just play and let the football snobs try to ruin it.
i have just had a thought can you Imagen if cricket was run the same, Kent you can bugger off or start with a minus points tally, you cant play with that bloody great tree in the ground. some kids might try climbing it and have some fun while i have paid £4 to air my narrow minded views.
|
|
|
Post by pborohero on May 31, 2009 20:24:24 GMT 1
Leave it at that then.
The idea is to get clubs to met the ground standards needed and not spend everything on players.
Burton are Division 1 right? Do not think the ground grading affects unless going for promotion.
|
|
|
Post by footballfan on May 31, 2009 21:02:20 GMT 1
sorry Ph i was not trying to put your idea for discussion down and it was unfair for me to do so and it is certainly something i don't sign up to, everyone has a right to there opinion and mine don't generally follow the trend, on here i am a little more prepared to stand by what i say than most and i am certainly not into back slapping.
my opinion on ground grading is that there is a limited amount of cash available to all clubs and it has too be spent wisely.
In a business i would advise anyone to spend any cash on increasing your turnover for short term results and have an exit plan. This will be the idea of most Managers to improve their CV, unpopular maybe but true.
But a club really should invest for the long term future to increase revenue and build a sustainable future therefore i would invest in the club house and then the ground. then top coach's for youth teams and senior teams then finally players.
My opinion on teams in division one meeting the criteria is that we all should but at a pace that allows the club to maintain sustainability. I don't believe that any clubs are sticking there fingers up at any one but some clubs don't have the same support as others by local business or councils and some ground circumstances are very different so grants are not always available.
What annoys me is some of the comments like kids playing and mud on the shoes, i just feel its time to have a bit of a reality check and understand some clubs will always have better facilities than others and i wont be for a lack of effort it is just circumstances beyond our control. the same as why liverpool and Everton don't have a ground the same as Man U.
|
|
swansong
Turned Up For Training
Posts: 27
|
Post by swansong on May 31, 2009 23:56:41 GMT 1
This argument is misleading, the point is all 3 clubs easily meet and exceed the minimum ground grading requirements for the level at which they play. The difference between the 3 clubs is over and above that. Liverpool do intend to expand, for Everton its more difficult because the ground is penned in on all four sides by housing.
The club I support is Newport Pagnell Town, who are constantly having to negotiate with a Council that just doesn't get Grassroots football. The club kept up a dialogue with the UCL to ensure ground grading was met.
I do favour points deductions in the Prem for not meeting minimum standards. That seems to me the most appropriate measure.
The UCL would lke to expand Div One, they approved the applications made by Lutterworth and Market Harborough but were over-ruled by the leagues they were already in. I know that doesn't seem relevant to this debate I just stuck it in as it affects the overall structure of the UCL.
|
|
|
Post by footballfan on Jun 1, 2009 9:10:39 GMT 1
sorry i guess what i was trying to say was that yes i would love to see Burton have one of the best grounds in the ucl the same as all but we have to be realistic with our resources at the moment.
good point about keeping in touch with the ucl i have to admit that we have done the same and we have constantly kept them up to date with our plans and progress good and bad and i have been very surprised with the support we have received.
It has taken 10 years for our council to jump on Bord but now they have so perhaps there is a change in the wind.
I don't agree with points deduction because in my view clubs don't purposely break the rules and maybe we should all be encouraging more competition for the titles, money pretty much decides all the leagues as it is this would just be maintaining this, like i say i don't believe any club goes out to break any rules. and if the best arguments that anyone can come up with is kids playing football or mud on your shoes it seems a little thin in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by pborohero on Jun 1, 2009 10:08:20 GMT 1
I respect your opinion FF, and your thoughts on it are fine,so no need to say sorry. But you do agree that getting the ground up to standard is important before wages to players right?. So you do agree with some off what i am saying. Would Burton pay players to win the Division or get their ground to the proper standards required by the league first? By your postings, ground first yes?
The reason for points deduction is to stop all the clubs money going into players pockets and out of the football circle.
We all know that managers only want to inprove their CV, which is more important to them then ground standards.
Past has shown that Managers raise most of the players wages at the club they are at, which is part of the success for them. The right manager with money contacts will always give you a much better chance for honours.
But if the wages are getting paid to players by the club before meeting ground standards, then that is just not acceptable and deducting points will insure that the work does get done ahead of throwing all the clubs own money at players, and with no chance to win the Division will be a total waste of time.
Once the ground is up to standards then spend on players. Now if this is set in place the UCL would be a much better league.
|
|
|
Post by footballfan on Jun 1, 2009 11:02:44 GMT 1
to be honest i think there is a lot more too this than just the ground being up to spec, Can any one give me one time that they a felt that the game they have been to see has been hampered by facilities not being up to spec, i doubt it.
Its a fact that if you want to even compete in the prem or even challenge for div 1 you have to pay, this isn't one clubs fault but every club that wishes to pay.
my point is every club could improve if the money that is paid to players is spent more wisely either on the ground or on a youth academy the money some teams spend would employ 2-3 full time coaches, so do we bring this into the equation before we talk about money leaving the game. this is always going to be contentious and were do we stop, but i am whole hearted behind not paying a penny until we all have a perfect setup with full youth teams great ground community work at schools the list is endless but unfortunately i live in the real world were this is not going to happen and is there one good reason why there ground would ruin the game.
If S&L had of out spent every club then i might agree but i don't know for sue but i bet they were in the bottom half when it came to budget.
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Jun 1, 2009 11:56:24 GMT 1
...... Can any one give me one time that they a felt that the game they have been to see has been hampered by facilities not being up to spec, i doubt it. S & L - Cant see the game properly from the stand. which is across the road from the pitch and two dug outs (Shelters) in the way. Dont say I should move because that is what I do so I can see the game. Rugby games going on adjacent to the pitch, whistles causes distraction etc. Bourne sits within a park. There is no segregation and people walking through the park can stop to watch cricket and football. Kids naturally play in this area as well. You cant stop them as it is an open park. This doesn't stop me watching the game but when the ball accidentally goes on to the pitch it annoys me that the game has to stop. Holbeach used to be the same but they did something about it by enclosing their pitch. When you think that Daventry United had to replace a couple of broken fence panels to enclose their ground to gain promotion, it doesn't seem right others should not be doing the same to STAY in the division.
|
|
|
Post by footballfan on Jun 1, 2009 12:26:33 GMT 1
you still have restricted viewing at spurs and i am pretty sure if they can get away with it the UCL can .what about pitches not being great then i can name a few that do effect the game and after all that is what is important here isn't it.
do we deduct points for this?
i agree changing a couple of broken panels seems mad but to ask a club to spend thousands so you don't get annoyed is a tad over the top. its not as if you are spending hundreds on a day out and surly watching kids playing Foote is better than avoiding them down the local spar waiting to get your head stoved in.
at the end of the day the money you are asked to pay on the gate dose not add up to the facilities you expect how can gates of 40;50 warrant the tens of thousands expected for clubs to spend, it just don't add up and i think there is a bit of snobbery sneaking in to what is after all the peoples game.
|
|
|
Post by pborohero on Jun 1, 2009 14:47:07 GMT 1
FF theres no point going on about this with you as clearly you can not see what others are trying to say.
Spurs or anyother fulltime pro club has nothing to do with it. After a visit to Manchester recently i could not see the pitch from the toilet "gutted"
Your reply is simply that you disagree with deducting points if clubs spend their money on players, so leave it there ok. Just a quick point the ground standards are not affecting Division 1 sides so maybe thats why you do not fully get it.
best wishes for next season to Burton.
|
|
|
Post by footballfan on Jun 1, 2009 15:40:02 GMT 1
very patronising PH perhaps you inability to see others point of view is clouding you judgment on this.
My underlining view on this is that no club is perfect Wether it be up to spec or not and no money should be payed to players until it is.
S&L won the league with a lot less money than other clubs that is testament to a manager that has done what a lot of other men have failed to do and he nearly did it with desbough as well, you talk as if it was a choice of ether win the league or get there ground up to spec and as you have all agreed there is a lot to do so i doubt very much that the money spent on players would have even have dented the money needed.
until all grounds are perfect and every ground squeaky clean your argument is floored and i think you will find that grading is effecting all clubs in div 1 as well but admittedly not with the same time scale, but it is these teams that have been affected more by teams dropping out or refused entry so we have less games than we should also we have the threat of expulsion if we do not come up to spec.
Finally in your opening post you invited comments on this by all members and as it is not on the prem site i understood that i could post, maybe if i had the same views as yourself you would be more willing to listen, that is just a guess mind.
|
|
|
Post by pborohero on Jun 1, 2009 16:51:04 GMT 1
FFs Money does follow managers, and what i am saying "again" is a manager will spend the money he raises on players that he needs to win things and inprove his reputation. But club money needs to be put into the ground and stuff at the club to get that right first, "i am sure you agreed with that somewhere lol". so there you have it, we agreed partly i think lol.
Its my turn to say sorry with my tongue in cheek comments. Which must have bothered you a tiny touch.
Its sunny and hot and not a cloud in the sky.
no 2 persons will ever agree on a "forum" thats why its a forum.
Lastly if you all do not agree with me then "i'll scream and scream and scream until i'm sick" lol
you can now have the last word if you like FFs i think we are clear that i am for it and you are not. Making it 3-1 lol, if Pheonix and swansong agree with me that is. Sorry swansong i seem the have stole your thunder as the points deduction was your idea in the first place was it not?
|
|
|
Post by generaldogsbody on Jun 2, 2009 21:27:37 GMT 1
3-2, I disagree as well. As you would all expect. Why have seats for over a 100 when only St Neots will probably beat that figure. If I go to Blackstones I want to stand out in lovely surroundings, if I go to Bourne, it's lovely to walk around and admire the view while also watching the game, if I go to Buckby or Corinthians I pt on my hyking boots just to get to the ground, if I go to Cogenhoe I love it wherever I watch from. It's all about Clubs trying their hardest and they're all different, that's the beauty of the UCL. Points deduction my Idiot!
|
|
|
Post by pborohero on Jun 2, 2009 21:57:18 GMT 1
no shocks there eh GDB? Its not like you to disagree lol. There is no way your a female, as all females only act like you one week in every month.
|
|