|
|
Post by 123 on May 16, 2006 21:35:26 GMT 1
 THE UCL ONCE AGAIN MADE A LAUGHING STOCK OF THEMSELVES, HOW CAN SLEAFORD BE PROMOTED WHEN LEAGUE 13 CLEARLY STATES " PROMOTION AND RELEGATION BETWEEN PREMIER AND DIVISION ONE" " PROMOTION AND RELEGATION BETWEEN THE PREMIER DIV AND DECISION ONE MAY BE APPLIED TO THE BOTTOM TWO TEAMS IN THE PREMIER DIVISION AND THE TOP TWO TEAMS IN DIVISION ONE, SUBJECT TO THE GROUND FACULTIES AND ADMINISTRATION AF ANY ELIGIBLE CLUB BEING APPROVED BY THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE BY 1 APRIL EACH YEAR" AS TAKEN FROM THE CURRENT UCL HANDBOOK, THE RULES CLEARLY STAT THAT THE GROUND HAS TO BE APPROVED BY 1ST APRIL AND EVERY ONE KNOW SLEAFORDS GROUND WAS NOT UP TO STANDARD BY THEN SO HOW CAN THE UCL CHANGE THE RULES. (Last sentance edited out due to libel) (last para taken out due to libel)
|
|
|
|
Post by ianh on May 16, 2006 22:31:57 GMT 1
Very good take the caps lock off and learn to spell (especially if you are going to quote rules) and we might understand you.
And if you were serious about it you may even join and not hide behind abstract anonymity
|
|
|
|
Post by blissycook on May 16, 2006 22:38:41 GMT 1
well said Ianh, I second that, post should be removed
|
|
|
|
Post by abbotsleysaint on May 16, 2006 23:05:54 GMT 1
they have a point though
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondrover on May 17, 2006 0:55:42 GMT 1
Sorry guys but really have to agree with 123 the UCL League shoot themselves in their foot too often!
Having a side promoted that don't meet the criteria and having leagues that are so unbalanced!!
22 teams in the Prem and only 16 in Div One is crazy!
The FA if they are the overseers of the Pyramid process should step in and sort this mess out! (edited for libel)
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on May 17, 2006 8:28:36 GMT 1
I dont want to be sued by the UCL so I have edited certain bits out.
|
|
|
|
Post by ianh on May 17, 2006 8:31:12 GMT 1
Well done to George Whiting for standing by his guns and not crumbling with the other lightweights. If you know what people have said this would be OK, but if not I would be careful in what you are implying. |
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on May 17, 2006 8:47:03 GMT 1
Good spot, I have taken that bit out as well...
|
|
|
|
Post by kilnparkman on May 17, 2006 8:51:50 GMT 1
post should remain - some good points. Yet the poster is anonymous and therefore must be editted as it would be Jimmy who is responsible.
If you want a full say, register and take responsibility for your post(s). Theres a good lad ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by comptonparker on May 17, 2006 8:55:26 GMT 1
So i could get sued for posting something abusive.......
Bollards to that......
|
|
|
|
Post by spencerbloke on May 17, 2006 9:07:54 GMT 1
Jeezo, I'd be bankrupt in a week.
That's two major blunders by the league in one month - the Buckingham fiasco and now this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on May 17, 2006 9:19:10 GMT 1
Indeed, but let's not forget that we are here to represent the UCL and try and make it a better place. If we want the league to take notice of our views, then personal attacks are not the way to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by UCL Observer on May 17, 2006 10:09:15 GMT 1
I read this thread with great interest, trying to make the UCL a better league should be the priority of all clubs involved, however the league does not have a great reputation because of its poor organisation and over the years, (and I have known the league for over 25 years) it has not improved.
Clearing up Sleafords promotion, well they won Div 1 and should come up, but surely the club if it was serious about promotion should have put steps in place earlier to ensure the facilities at their present ground were good enough, this is the rules that allowed 29 or so Step 5 clubs to move up, therefore Sleafords promotion should have been denied.
This brings up a further contentious point. not fact but debatable. the league maybe has a bias in favour of clubs north of Peterboro, the way the restructuring is going I feel that the southern UCL clubs will be asked whether they want to move leagues over the next 2 seasons and I think they will jump, particularly Buckingham and Newport Pagnell, with the South Midlands there likely destination. Newport Pagnell over the last 3 seasons have moved their U18,s into the Southern Counties and next season move their reserves to the Suburban league, all journies will be south. With the likelihood of Leicestershire sides joining the UCL the league is moving further north.
Regarding organisation, in the mid eighties the UCL was one of the strongest leagues at that level, with Clubs like Stevenage, Baldock, Arlesey, Stamford, Rushden Town and Irthlingboro Diamonds regularly having good runs in both the FA Cup and FA Vase, Holbeach actually reached the 1st Round proper of the FA Cup losing to Wrexham and they were just a mid table side.
Unfortunately the Division 1 has always been poor in terms of quality and facilities. with only 1 match official (now the only Step 6 league in that position) therefore when clubs moved up the pyramid, there was very few teams coming through (Cogenhoe, Woodford and 1 or 2 other exceptions) the result was that no one ever got relegated, therefore the league became very stale.
I would say only Newport Pagnell, Potton, Eynesbury, Kempston and Daventry have been relegated in the last 25 years, Strange no lincolnshire clubs and yet Bourne finished in the bottom 2 more times than any of that lot.
The failure of the league to improve its Div 1, will come back to haunt the league, as a number of Div 1 clubs now face the chop when the next stage of restructuring kicks in. The South Midlands which was always a weaker league than the UCL proved by Arlesey, Baldock and Stotfold all switching in the early eighties now is fully floodlit at Div1 and has 3 officials at Div 2 (Step 7)
Fixture organisation in the league is pathetic, how can teams in the Premier (42 games) face the same team 2 weeks running, that is a very common practice, in fact I believe S&L and Fords faced each other twice in 4 days at the back end of the season and they were involved in the relegation area.
The Sleaford situation just compounds how the league is run, which is a shame for Sleaford as I believe they are a very progressive club.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spartacus on May 17, 2006 10:28:36 GMT 1
Some very valid points but then you could argue that the Premier League is a joke league for allowing Roeder to become Newcastle manager. I think at the end of the day there has got to be a degree of flexibility around any rules ( Liverpool being allowed in this years Champions League)
Rather than complaining that the rules haven't been strictly adhered to would it not be better to see whether the rules are in need of any amendment to support football moving forward. No one likes to see stagnant leagues with no promotion and relegation. Surely if (and it is a big if) Sleaford are prepared to spend the large sum of money ( reported to be circa 55k) to allow them to be promoted whilst their brand new facility is built then that should be encouraged.
I can't think there would be too many teams in the UCL div 1 who would miss the long journey to Sleaford!
|
|
|
|
Post by kilnparkman on May 17, 2006 12:58:14 GMT 1
Prem - south to north:
Buckingham, Stotfold, Newport, Wootton, Potton, St Neots, Cogenhoe, Spencer, Fords, Wellingborough, Buckby, St Ives, Raunds, Desborough, S&L, Yaxley, Blackstones, Deeping, Bourne, Holbeach, Harrowby, Boston, Sleaford.
Div 1 - south to north:
Kempston, Olney, Bugbrooke, Eynesbury, Chenecks, Daventry, Irchester, Sileby, Whitworths, Higham, Huntingdon, Burton, Thrapston, Rothwell, PNS.
UCL - south to north:
Buckingham, Stotfold, Newport, Wootton, Kempston, Potton, Olney, Bugbrooke, Eynesbury, St Neots, Chenecks, Cogenhoe, Spencer, Fords, Irchester, Sileby, Wellingborough and Whitworths, Buckby, Higham, St Ives, Huntingdon, Raunds, Burton, Thrapston, Rothwell, Desborough, S&L, Yaxley, PNS, Blackstones, Deeping, Bourne, Holbeach, Harrowby, Boston, Sleaford.
|
|
