NL Play-offs

[Gray]

Been following this story today, with Gateshead being barred from the league by the EFL and then the NL making their rules up as they go about who should / shouldn't get a bye in their convoluted play-off system. As it happens I'd like to see Solihull come up as it would be a nice local away day for me.

One things for sure, we don't miss the NL.

https://www.thenationalleague.org.uk/national-league-statement-play-off-structure-81477

 

[Boz]

For the same reasons, I'd like Halifax to come up, although their pitch is a bit of a mess at present. Wouldn't mind Altrincham either.

 

[dollar'sbloke]

Gateshead couldn't be given a 10 year lease as the council want to sell these assets. Why does R Parry want a ten year lease, plenty of clubs may move in that time and ground share while the new ground is built. Just more rules for the sake of them. It really is a nuclear option taken on a whim

 

[Boz]

Isn’t there a question about Solihull’s ground too, yet they weren’t excluded from the play-offs. Feels like make it up as you go along.

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

Security of tenure for clubs who don’t own their own ground is a long established requirement in the pyramid. It’s effectively a measure of stability/sustainability, an extreme example being that it discourages potential fly by night clubs/club owners buying their way too high up the pyramid rather than establishing a proper home, while playing at a series of short term rents.

It‘s not something that can be circumvented by moving grounds. In Solihull’s case, the council remains obliged to re-home them on at least similar terms if the land grab of their stadium goes ahead, so I assume that’s why they meet the requirement.

Btw it’s only five years since Gateshead were demoted from the VNL because of various irregularities connected to the previous ownership. The break clause, although explained by the council, is also, I think, a legacy of the terms on which the club under new ownership was allowed to carry on playing at the stadium.

 

[dollar'sbloke]

Security of tenure for clubs who don’t own their own ground is a long established requirement in the pyramid. It’s effectively a measure of stability/sustainability, an extreme example being that it discourages potential fly by night clubs/club owners buying their way too high up the pyramid rather than establishing a proper home, while playing at a series of short term rents.

It‘s not something that can be circumvented by moving grounds. In Solihull’s case, the council remains obliged to re-home them on at least similar terms if the land grab of their stadium goes ahead, so I assume that’s why they meet the requirement.

Btw it’s only five years since Gateshead were demoted from the VNL because of various irregularities connected to the previous ownership. The break clause, although explained by the council, is also, I think, a legacy of the terms on which the club under new ownership was allowed to carry on playing at the stadium.

Been there since 1977 when Brendan was running around it. The council are selling it so cannot tie the hands of the new owner, whoever, it is hard to see them choosing to vacate them for what exactly up there. If the EFL see this as a true and distinct danger they aren't looking very far.
Always loathed to see sport trumped by bureaucracy personally

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

Gateshead reached the VNL playoff final ten years ago so would've had security of tenure back then as I don’t think the EFL‘s requirement has changed in that time.

I‘m pretty sure it was their subsequent financial irregularities that soured that situation, with the council presumably then protecting their interests by inserting a break clause in the lease with the rescued club.

The EFL‘s requirement is understandable. In this particular case, I suppose the risk that this requirement safeguards against is to do with accepting a club that might end up homeless at any time, and one which has already been demoted for financial irregularities in recent years.

Can only hope the club itself can find a way to protect its interests, as I’m not aware of any stigma attached to the current ownership.

 

[dollar'sbloke]

Gateshead reached the VNL playoff final ten years ago so would've had security of tenure back then as I don’t think the EFL‘s requirement has changed in that time.

I‘m pretty sure it was their subsequent financial irregularities that soured that situation, with the council presumably then protecting their interests by inserting a break clause in the lease with the rescued club.

The EFL‘s requirement is understandable. In this particular case, I suppose the risk that this requirement safeguards against is to do with accepting a club that might end up homeless at any time, and one which has already been demoted for financial irregularities in recent years.

Can only hope the club itself can find a way to protect its interests, as I’m not aware of any stigma attached to the current ownership.

It seems quite simple the Council are selling and cannot assign a long term lease. The Council leader seems at a loss to what the EFL problem is, so am I. Palios could not guarantee will won't vacate and move to a temporary home in the next ten years; in fact most new stadia at our level require a sale then build scheme. The international stadium is now a football venue as the athletics has dropped away, be amazed if anyone could even suggest an alternative use.
If you conflate historic misdemeanours with hard current facts, the leagues would grind to a halt.
The EFL do this knowing the victim has little funding and the new season is very soon, ring any bells?

 

[bigmart]

Solihull beat Halifax 4 2.

 

[bigmart]

So it's either Solihull, Bromley or Altrincham who will play in the football league for the first time next season

 

[Rockford's Love Child]

So it's either Solihull, Bromley or Altrincham who will play in the football league for the first time next season

I wanted Barnet to come up so we could have a first meeting with them, but Altrincham are preferable of those three.

 

[frenchrover]

Altrincham for me

 

[bring back the cowshed!]

Altrincham for me

We’ve lost Stockport and Crewe could join them in L1, so for home fans Alty would be our local derby. However, personally I’d like Bromley as it’s just up the A21 from me.

 

[bigmart]

So it's Bromley v Solihull in the final

 

[Sparky]

A shame about Alty, but on the plus side they have some half decent players we could look at. Their top scorer got 22 goals

 

[bigmart]

A shame about Alty, but on the plus side they have some half decent players we could look at. Their top scorer got 22 goals

Chris Conn-Clarke would be a fantastic signing

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

Bromley have already shifted 12,000 tickets for Sunday’s final!

 

[bring back the cowshed!]

Bromley have already shifted 12,000 tickets for Sunday’s final!

That’s well over double their ground capacity. It would be the smallest in the EFL and has only 1500 seats. It’s poor even by NL standards. Ironically Gateshead’s is a proper stadium.

In fairness to the club, they have been well established in the NL for a number of years, but the playoffs can bring some real surprises.

 

[O4anotherplayoff]

Bromley has changed a fair bit since we last played there and it’s certainly more EFL-ready than Sutton United was. Way better than Solihull too..

Their biggest task won’t be more seating (they’re up to 1,700-1,800 now, since the big new-ish stand at the south end was built) or increasing their overall capacity (which already exceeds the L2 minimum), but replacing the artificial pitch!

EDIT - they might need to either upgrade or relocate the away section, mind.

 

[frenchrover]

I honestly thought the artificial pitch was a massive advantage to Bromley and made a significant impact on the semi-final result.