Jump to content

Adverts are hidden for all 'Gold Members' - sign up for just £10 a year by clicking here | Advertise here for just 25p per 1,000 impressions - click here
Welcome to Fans Focus. You are currently viewing as a guest. Please login or register to post.    

Sign in icon Sign In Register Register Help Help Login with Facebook Login with Twitter

League section covering 2,000+ clubs - check out your division and club page click here!

Recent Topics

Recent Status Updates
(Update your status via the dropdown
to the right of your name (top left))

  • Photo
      19 Jun
    codpiece

    RT @Coral: England's goals came from two corners with Harry Kane scoring in the box. When you remember you had Harry Kane taking the corne…

View All Updates

Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's Birthdays ( 21-June 18 )

  • Photo
    onebreast

    Age: 35

  • Photo
    Longshanks

    Age: 86

  • Photo
    Krooner

    Age: 49

  • Photo
    wxmfc2000

    Age: 48

  • Photo
    sidney

    Age: 45

  • Photo
    brookboy

    Age: --

  • Photo
    Barrymono

    Age: 67

  • Photo
    Crusher

    Age: 56

  • Photo
    2ndYellow

    Age: 39


Photo

AFC Wimbledon

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
regular view basic view
17 replies to this topic

#1
offline Rob_the_Saint

Rob_the_Saint
  • National Squad - 1st XI
    Offline
  • Posts: 7,281
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2001
AFC Wimbledon last night had their application to join Ryman division 2 rejected despite polling 77 votes for with only 11 against.

Not too sure how I feel on this one but it does make a mockery of the pyramid system if clubs can just jump in wherever they like if they've got the financial clout to get enough votes from other clubs.

<small>[ 18 June 2002, 10:18 AM: This message was edited by: Rob the Saint ]</small>

#2
offline Guest__*

Guest__*
  • rank
    Offline
  • Joined: --
I think its a shame a bit of common sense wasn't used, surely the Ryman need Wimbledon as much as they need them, I understand that Div Two will only consist of 16 clubs, imagine how the new team will boost attendances and intrest in the league. I'm also not sure about allowing club chairmen to vote on these issues, they all have their own agenda, it would be better decided by a totally independent panel. I think the argument against Wimbledon starting further down the pyramid is that many grounds and facilities would not be suitable for the large crowds they are anticipating.

#3
offline Rob_the_Saint

Rob_the_Saint
  • National Squad - 1st XI
    Offline
  • Posts: 7,281
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2001
Yes it would be interesting to hear the reasons why the 11 voted against the aplication, mainly bigger clubs I understand, maybe they are afraid of the competition? Your point about the facilities is also correct. If they go into the Combined Counties League, how are some of those clubs going to cope with 2000+ crowds when they don't even have turnstiles, perimeter fencing, etc etc. Enfield Town have had problems and they only get a crowd of 350.

#4
offline Mr Happy

Mr Happy
  • Youth Team Coach
    Offline
  • Posts: 9,979
  • Joined: 5 Dec 2001
  • Supports: Enfield Town & Spurs
  • Foes: Gooner scumbags
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Rob the Saint:
<strong>Yes it would be interesting to hear the reasons why the 11 voted against the aplication, mainly bigger clubs I understand, maybe they are afraid of the competition? Your point about the facilities is also correct. If they go into the Combined Counties League, how are some of those clubs going to cope with 2000+ crowds when they don't even have turnstiles, perimeter fencing, etc etc. Enfield Town have had problems and they only get a crowd of 350.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh no we haven't. Our home games have been very well marshalled and the only problems experinced on away fixtures was one incident provoked by the chair thing of Leyton FC.

<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Shreddies do not keep hunger locked up till lunchtime!

#5
offline SteveP

SteveP
  • Reserves Coach
    Offline
  • Posts: 1,708
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2001
Does this situation not look a bit like Aldershots? (Yes I know when Aldershot were voted in they had their own ground.)

I feel sorry for wimbledon fans, the people who live in Wimbledon who've just been told their home team's moved 60 miles up the road. But pity is not the reason they should be accepted.

The simple truth is it will bring more money and more people at a level where it's needed, the Ryman league is a stale and unchanging structure and something like Wimbledon would be a breath of fresh air.

You wouldn't blame them for applying to the Doc Martens league, you wouldn't blame the DML for welcoming them with open arms. You wouldn't blame the people who voted against this for kicking themselves in seasons to come.

common sense is not a bad thing after all.

<small>[ 18 June 2002, 01:38 PM: This message was edited by: SteveP-Chesh ]</small>

#6
offline Guest__*

Guest__*
  • rank
    Offline
  • Joined: --
What were the chairmen who voted against Wimbledon thinking? It's a fact of non-league life these days that clubs need as much money as possiable and AFC Wimbledon with their travelling hoards paying at the gate for programmes food and beer would in one fall swoop almost give the div 2 clubs the money that they would need to budget for at least half a season

#7
offline Willow Street Ender

Willow Street Ender
  • First XI - Sub's Bench
    Offline
  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2002
Another totally illogical decision typical from Rymanland! Those who voted against AFC Wimbledon made a decision as crazy as the Ryman decision to form a non-regionalised Division 2 below a regionalised Division 1. I for one sincerely hope that AFC Wimbledon can find a home for the coming season.

#8
offline Guest__*

Guest__*
  • rank
    Offline
  • Joined: --
Bearing in mind they required a 95%, vote you have to wonder if those who voted 'against' simply didn't understand the question or just ticked the wrong box?

If I may step in as devil's advocate, one has to remember that the majority of clubs who entered this league did so on footballing merit, viz. winning various county league championships, and feeder leagues &c. AFC Wimbledon (despite their inevitable protestations to the contrary) are a brand new club who have yet to kick a football. Does a groundshare agreement with Kingstonian and a shedload of cash really warrant special treatment?

Now then, going way way back to a point Jared made early on this discussion, decisions relating to the league must remain in the hands of the member clubs - you can't leave such decisions to an unaccountable "independent panel" - then we lose control completely.

#9
offline Guest__*

Guest__*
  • rank
    Offline
  • Joined: --
Well I'd say this is the best argument yet for taking control away from member clubs, everyone seems to agree that the decision not to admit the new Wimbledon into the Ryman is baffling to say the least, could it be somebody with some sort of grudge against the new club, or perhaps as suggested did certain people just not understand what they were voting for?
Of course this is by no means the first bizarre decision from the Ryman, there's the set up for next season with a regionalised Div One with a non regionalised Div Two underneath it. There is also the fact that standards in the Combined Counties and Sparton South Midlands leagues are a lot higher than they were in the old Ryman Div Three, a fact borne out by FA Cup and Vase results, presumably this situation has come about because of the Rymans dogmatic rules and regulations over promotion issues, I seem to recall the season before last Beaconsfield were denied their rightful promotion place because of some sort of administrative error, quite frankly an old saying about drinking sessions and breweries springs to mind!

#10
offline SteveP

SteveP
  • Reserves Coach
    Offline
  • Posts: 1,708
  • Joined: 19 Sep 2001
With regards to Lee Farmies 'devils advocate' argument, I think there are some basic flaws:

Wimbledon don't have a lot of money, they have a lot of fans, which is beneficial for every team.

The fact that Kingsmeadow would be used as part of a groundshare means they have proper scope to develop to a higher league position.

You couldn't begrudge them a place because their position is too good for entry to our league, thats tantamount to jealousy.

I hope Wimbledon do get some form of appeal.

#11
offline Guest__*

Guest__*
  • rank
    Offline
  • Joined: --
Lee what i was saying was how the member clubs alot of them who are financially desperate would turn down a club and a group of supporters who would in fall swoop supplement their budget for half a seaso

#12
offline Guest__*

Guest__*
  • rank
    Offline
  • Joined: --
Mr Dobbs

Beaconsfield were refused admission because of a Spartan League Admin error not a Ryman League error.

I am afraid that this is democracy. I believe that everyone knew what they were voting for (or against) and the problem was the speed of the application. This mean't that the normal 75% majority moved to 95% because of the short notice. Any more than 4 clubs voting against and the motion fails. Too many chairman felt that too many rules were being bent.

Wimbledon now need to consider their future carefully. Will they be given promotion from CCL if groundsharing? My history may be a little shaky but did not Romford have problems gaining promotion when they won the ESL because they groundshared?

#13
offline Guest__*

Guest__*
  • rank
    Offline
  • Joined: --
Mr Zak, as I understood it was the Ryman leagues intransigance that stopped Beaconsfield getting promoted, and whoever it was made the admin error surely some common sense could have been used?
These dogmatic rules and regulations probably explain why the old Div 3 was so weak with clubs at the bottom regularly conceding 100 plus goals a season, if a club finishes bottom they deserve relegation.

#14
offline Willow Street Ender

Willow Street Ender
  • First XI - Sub's Bench
    Offline
  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2002
Zak,

Romford only gained entry to Rymanland by merging with Collier Row. Ryman insisted that admission was dependent upon the club being named as Collier Row & Romford FC. This generated continued bad feelings towards Romford FC, the Collier Row bit was dropped from the name after one season. The person responsible for the merger has long since jumped ship and moved to Bishop's Stortford, unfairly leaving the present club to take the flak!

#15
offline Freebird

Freebird
  • First XI - Weekly Contract
    Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2001
It as the South Midlands League that messed up the Beaconsfield application by to putting it to the Rymans League in time, having said that the club should have realised something was wrong when they did not get a ground inspection during feb or march.

I know other clubs in the league that applied and got ground inspection just in case they won the league.

Beaconsfied cannot blame everyone they should have kept an eye on things thereselves.

As for AFC Wimbledon, they were never going to get into the Rymans League, Cheshunt and Hungerford failed to meet the requireents back in April / May how was a new team going to get in at such short notice.

It would have needed a lot of rule bending to let them in.

#16
offline Guest__*

Guest__*
  • rank
    Offline
  • Joined: --
Well I'm not a Beaconsfield fan so I've no axe to grind but a team who won the SSM should not have been denied promotion without a very good reason, its because of this dogmatic attitude that the bottom end of the Ryman had become so stale and boring, and I can't see why ground grading is such a big issue at that level its ridiculous to expect clubs to spend out on ground improvements in Feb or March just in case they win promotion.
As for bending rules clearly some rules need changing.

#17
offline Freebird

Freebird
  • First XI - Weekly Contract
    Offline
  • Posts: 864
  • Joined: 16 Sep 2001
Changing Rules and Bending them are so far apart at the bottom its crazy

Beaconsfield should have gone up even with all the mix ups, and they have since done far more work than any of the Div 3 sides this season.

Brook House, Potter Bar Town, London Colney, Hoddesdon Town, St Margretsbury they all have ground that could handle Rymans football at the now Div 2 level.

There ground are suitable for the FA Competition so why not the Rymans League.

The revolution will come, these side will get into the Rymans set-up within the next few seasons and then some of the sides that have sat at the foot of Div3 for years just hanging on will be in for a big surprise.

Ground Grading has to be changed club have to be given more time to get there grounds in order after the first inspection has been made.

Cheshunt and Hungerford missed out by days is this really the far way to run a league that is trying to get the FA to beleive it a senior competition and should be up there with the NPL and the SL.

#18
offline Charlie B.

Charlie B.
  • At the Turnstiles
    Offline
  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 22 Jun 2002
There wasn't any rule bending by the Ryman at all. AFC Wimbledon met every requirement - cash, staff in place, limited company, ground organised for a certain period.

We fell foul of the 21 day rule, whereby our application was too late to require a 75% majority, and we needed a 95% majority. Such is life, if the FA Panel had released the Milton Keynes decision a week earlier, we'd have scraped in, no doubt.

I certainly don't hold any ill-will at all to the Ryman chairmen for strictly enforcing their own rules. If the FA and Football League had the same character, we wouldn't be in this position in the first place. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

View New Posts

List of all CLUBS on Fans Focus