Appeal Result

[Yarblockos]

Not surprised, but to say they'll consider changing them in future... come on. It's a stupid rule, if you're going to do it, bin it now.

It doesn't say a lot for the integrity of the competition when you have a situation where of 8 playoff teams across the north and south, probably 3 of them are not going to be allowed to compete because of a trivial, at best, rule.

Even if they agree it is a stupid rule, they can't bin it now and let us into the playoffs, the clubs who were refused in previous years would bring legal action. They have to change the law next year.

[MKDarlo]

it was never going to be any other result. we should just move on, frustrating as that is.

[jjljks]

A judicial review is now required

Might be able to go to EU Court of Justice or Human Rights before Brexit comes through?!

[trevstanley]

A judicial review is now required

Might be able to go to EU Court of Justice or Human Rights before Brexit comes through?!

Court of Arbitration In Sport.

[H1987]

Not surprised, but to say they'll consider changing them in future... come on. It's a stupid rule, if you're going to do it, bin it now.

It doesn't say a lot for the integrity of the competition when you have a situation where of 8 playoff teams across the north and south, probably 3 of them are not going to be allowed to compete because of a trivial, at best, rule.

Even if they agree it is a stupid rule, they can't bin it now and let us into the playoffs, the clubs who were refused in previous years would bring legal action. They have to change the law next year.

There aren't any, it's a new rule for this year!

It all does very little for the reputation of the National League North and South, even if you agree, as I do, we should have known the rules, that doesn't mean the rules aren't stupid. Them then basically admitting that is just rubbing salt into the wound. It's one thing to expect teams to have infrastructure in place to play in the league above, but another to expect it to be there for the playoffs on the off chance they might qualify for them, and to have it in place by March!? I don't even understand how or why that became the rule (and it's making no excuses for us not knowing it, but again, it's a weird, stupid rule!) You're basically expecting teams to chuck money at something they might not need on an off chance, in a league where, lets face it, we are relatively big fish and can't afford it. It doesn't do a lot for sustainability, making little clubs pay for things they might not need, especially if they don't make it. Honestly, we need this stuff anyway as we have a large fan base at this level. Do those other teams?

I don't actually think it's daft that such rules about grading exist, because honestly, BM isn't suitable for hosting Conference football right now. What in the heck would we do if we had to play Poolie? The infrastructure isn't good enough. It'd be chaos. I just think this sends a very poor message about the integrity of the league. Promotion on infrastructure rather than sporting merit is a pretty crappy tagline for the league. As long as you have the work done for the following season, i really struggle to see the problem.

[super_les_mcjannet]

Not surprised, but to say they'll consider changing them in future... come on. It's a stupid rule, if you're going to do it, bin it now.

It doesn't say a lot for the integrity of the competition when you have a situation where of 8 playoff teams across the north and south, probably 3 of them are not going to be allowed to compete because of a trivial, at best, rule.

Even if they agree it is a stupid rule, they can't bin it now and let us into the playoffs, the clubs who were refused in previous years would bring legal action. They have to change the law next year.

There aren't any, it's a new rule for this year!

It all does very little for the reputation of the National League North and South, even if you agree, as I do, we should have known the rules, that doesn't mean the rules aren't stupid. Them then basically admitting that is just rubbing salt into the wound. It's one thing to expect teams to have infrastructure in place to play in the league above, but another to expect it to be there for the playoffs on the off chance they might qualify for them, and to have it in place by March!? I don't even understand how or why that became the rule (and it's making no excuses for us not knowing it, but again, it's a weird, stupid rule!) You're basically expecting teams to chuck money at something they might not need on an off chance, in a league where, lets face it, we are relatively big fish and can't afford it. It doesn't do a lot for sustainability, making little clubs pay for things they might not need, especially if they don't make it. Honestly, we need this stuff anyway as we have a large fan base at this level. Do those other teams?

I don't actually think it's daft that such rules about grading exist, because honestly, BM isn't suitable for hosting Conference football right now. What in the heck would we do if we had to play Poolie? The infrastructure isn't good enough. It'd be chaos. I just think this sends a very poor message about the integrity of the league. Promotion on infrastructure rather than sporting merit is a pretty crappy tagline for the league. As long as you have the work done for the following season, i really struggle to see the problem.

It's not a new rule.

Eastwood Town were rejected in 2011, they had 500 seats but they were in 3 stands not two.

[H1987]

Not surprised, but to say they'll consider changing them in future... come on. It's a stupid rule, if you're going to do it, bin it now.

It doesn't say a lot for the integrity of the competition when you have a situation where of 8 playoff teams across the north and south, probably 3 of them are not going to be allowed to compete because of a trivial, at best, rule.

Even if they agree it is a stupid rule, they can't bin it now and let us into the playoffs, the clubs who were refused in previous years would bring legal action. They have to change the law next year.

There aren't any, it's a new rule for this year!

It all does very little for the reputation of the National League North and South, even if you agree, as I do, we should have known the rules, that doesn't mean the rules aren't stupid. Them then basically admitting that is just rubbing salt into the wound. It's one thing to expect teams to have infrastructure in place to play in the league above, but another to expect it to be there for the playoffs on the off chance they might qualify for them, and to have it in place by March!? I don't even understand how or why that became the rule (and it's making no excuses for us not knowing it, but again, it's a weird, stupid rule!) You're basically expecting teams to chuck money at something they might not need on an off chance, in a league where, lets face it, we are relatively big fish and can't afford it. It doesn't do a lot for sustainability, making little clubs pay for things they might not need, especially if they don't make it. Honestly, we need this stuff anyway as we have a large fan base at this level. Do those other teams?

I don't actually think it's daft that such rules about grading exist, because honestly, BM isn't suitable for hosting Conference football right now. What in the heck would we do if we had to play Poolie? The infrastructure isn't good enough. It'd be chaos. I just think this sends a very poor message about the integrity of the league. Promotion on infrastructure rather than sporting merit is a pretty crappy tagline for the league. As long as you have the work done for the following season, i really struggle to see the problem.

It's not a new rule.

Eastwood Town were rejected in 2011, they had 500 seats but they were in 3 stands not two.

Different rule though. They had to be in two stands always. Prior seasons the 500 seats could be temporary seating. That rule has been changed.

[super_les_mcjannet]

Not surprised, but to say they'll consider changing them in future... come on. It's a stupid rule, if you're going to do it, bin it now.

It doesn't say a lot for the integrity of the competition when you have a situation where of 8 playoff teams across the north and south, probably 3 of them are not going to be allowed to compete because of a trivial, at best, rule.

Even if they agree it is a stupid rule, they can't bin it now and let us into the playoffs, the clubs who were refused in previous years would bring legal action. They have to change the law next year.

There aren't any, it's a new rule for this year!

It all does very little for the reputation of the National League North and South, even if you agree, as I do, we should have known the rules, that doesn't mean the rules aren't stupid. Them then basically admitting that is just rubbing salt into the wound. It's one thing to expect teams to have infrastructure in place to play in the league above, but another to expect it to be there for the playoffs on the off chance they might qualify for them, and to have it in place by March!? I don't even understand how or why that became the rule (and it's making no excuses for us not knowing it, but again, it's a weird, stupid rule!) You're basically expecting teams to chuck money at something they might not need on an off chance, in a league where, lets face it, we are relatively big fish and can't afford it. It doesn't do a lot for sustainability, making little clubs pay for things they might not need, especially if they don't make it. Honestly, we need this stuff anyway as we have a large fan base at this level. Do those other teams?

I don't actually think it's daft that such rules about grading exist, because honestly, BM isn't suitable for hosting Conference football right now. What in the heck would we do if we had to play Poolie? The infrastructure isn't good enough. It'd be chaos. I just think this sends a very poor message about the integrity of the league. Promotion on infrastructure rather than sporting merit is a pretty crappy tagline for the league. As long as you have the work done for the following season, i really struggle to see the problem.

It's not a new rule.

Eastwood Town were rejected in 2011, they had 500 seats but they were in 3 stands not two.

Different rule though. They had to be in two stands always. Prior seasons the 500 seats could be temporary seating. That rule has been changed.

It's the same part of the rule, looked back the last 3/4 years and no change has occurred. Temp seats could only be found in 2008 document.

What document are you reading?

[Yarblockos]

It's the same part of the rule, looked back the last 3/4 years and no change has occurred. Temp seats could only be found in 2008 document.

What document are you reading?

makeitupasyougoalong.doc

[theoriginalfatcat]

From the BBC webpage ---



An FA statement said: "The board, after considering the evidence dismissed the appeal and agreed with the decision of the National League which was made in accordance with FA rules and the Grade B criteria document in that the four mentioned clubs have not met the required grading by 31 March of the current season to compete in the National League play-offs.

It added: "This decision is final and binding."

The league declined to make any detailed statement, but recommendations were understood to have been made to change the competition rules next season."


The last paragraph

[veryrev]

In what way will the rules be likely changed...

Will it recommend that teams improve there grading by March in the season following promotion?

Out of interest what is the criteria for entry into League 2, does the FA set those rules or is that solely down to the Football League

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk