BIG SHAKE UP IN CCL?

[E&E Rich]

Just wanted to make it clear that there are very much two types of ground share out there.

[Big J R]

Just wanted to make it clear that there are very much two types of ground share out there.

 

 

That's very profound, E & E !!

[Lazy Sod]

Just how many types are there?

 

Groundsharing is such an emotive subject and no one is ever going to be entirely happy. I am not over enthusiastic about clubs that ground share in order to climb the pyramid but that view would smack in the face of clubs who, through no fault of their own, are prevented from upgrading their own facilities by local authorities etc. I have never been a fan of local authorities and I feel their jaundiced opinions are stuck in the days of widespread hooliganism in the proferssional game of the 60s, 70s and 80s and totally alien to football at our level.

 

Secondly, there are clubs like AFC Croydon Athletic who find themselves prevented from using a perfectly good football ground. For them, ground sharing is a necessity until they can resolve that particular problem.

 

Thirdly, there is the type of groundsharing agreement that I fully accept and that is where a club has to move owing to ground improvements that prevent them from using their ground - as long as it is short term. That throws in the likes of Hayes & Yeading who still share at Woking while their own ground gets completed. Just how long will that go on for?

 

Then there are clubs who sell their ground yet have nowhere else to play. E&E have been in this position for 20 years I believe and Maidstone had a similar issue in the 80s when they sold their ground, moved in with dartford and then folded. Not an ideal solution for anyone involved as the longer that any club is exiled, the harder it becomes to maintain their roots.

 

Frankly, ground sharing is not black and white. I would liken it to the Autism Spectrum where there are so many variations. I am glad I don't sit on a footballing committee having to deal with that one.

[E&E Rich]

What I meant to say is that the two types of ground share are where you are either forced to leave your ground or you choose to leave your ground.

 

Normally you are forced to leave due to financial constraints, or council demands, or sometimes because a Motorway is being built over your home (see Wingate).

 

Choosing to leave is in my opinion a different matter. What exactly were Bookham trying to achieve in wasting money at Dorking when there was no possibility of their ground ever being developed to an acceptable standard? You can't just move out of the town permanently, or you aren't really representative of the town any more. It's difficult enough for E & E who were "in the town" for 75 years, but when you move out by choice there is, in my opinion less sympathy.

 

Badshot Lea have a plan so the end justifies the means in their case, assuming that they do get their new ground soon. Staines Lammas? Not sure what their plan is. I'm not getting at Lammas, just using them as an example of a club that always played at intermediate or similar level but want to play higher so have chosen to leave their ground. However, all they appear to be doing is providing Ashford with a nest egg each season. 

 

A lot of clubs have ideas above their stations and that is fine. It's good to have ambition, but there is only so much room for teams higher up the pyramid. Lammas have no history at a higher level, so why don't a handful of them just join up with a local club already at that level if they are that ambitious?  

 

Some clubs do have history at a higher level. Camberley are a good example, and if they ever lost their ground I'd have a lot of sympathy for their plight. However, if they decided to leave their ground to play at a better appointed ground at say, Farnborough, but chose to retain the name Camberley Town, I'd have no sympathy, as it could surely only be a temporary marriage of convenience as opposed to one of necessity. 

Edited January 17, 2014 by E&E Rich

[chairman_afcca]

There is one aspect that I would like to add to this debate, and that is from the point of view of the hosting club.   That is to say the club who offers their ground to another.   It is important to note that no club can just go and ground share, they have to have an arrangement with whoever operates that ground or owns the stadium.

 

This is not relevant to Croydon FC and ourselves at AFC Croydon Athletic.   Although Croydon FC have been generous with their accommocation of allowing us to play at the Arena this is stadium that is owned by the Council and our financial arrangement is with local authority rather than with Croydon FC (just like Internazionale and AC Milan - although some would say that is where that similarity ends)!

 

Back to the point, for every team that ground shares there is a host club.   They will benefit financially from this arrangement and the cost to the "tenant" is not inconsiderable.   The host club will usually benefit from the bar takings too.   Suggesting that there should not be any groundshares would have a signficant impact on the host club too with lost income and potentially underused stadia. 

 

We very much hope that by next season we will be back at the ground in Thornton Heath but have already been in discussions with a number of potential users of that stadium when we are not at home.   Income from such an arrangement will be very important even when balanced against the costs of the additional wear and tear.  

 

There is another thread about 3G/4G pitches.   This relates too.   Were it to be the case that clubs introduce these artificial pitches then the likelihood of groundshares will go up for sure.   That said, I am not convinced that the economic arguments stack up fully if such pitches became common in non-league football and I am inclined to think that unless teams are very careful they could prove to be a real challenge in a few years time!

[Lee Farmie]

Both the Arena and the Crem are council owned and I assume that, if Croydon FC can’t benefit financially from AFC Croydon Athletic’s rent, AFCCA would not benefit from someone sharing there? That wouldn’t be fair at all would it?

[chairman_afcca]

Both the Arena and the Crem are council owned and I assume that, if Croydon FC can’t benefit financially from AFC Croydon Athletic’s rent, AFCCA would not benefit from someone sharing there? That wouldn’t be fair at all would it?

 

The Arena is a multisports facility where the upkeep of the stadium rests with the Council; it is staffed by Council officers and there are a range of users with different leases or indidvidual hires.  

 

The freehold on the Mayfield ground is owned by the Council but it will be leased, as it was before, on a fully repairing lease.   Completely different.

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

I love a good bang around groundshares.

 

The Bookham episode is one which would suit the argument against groundsharing. In the end it did no-one any good. Bookham getting land in the village for senior football was never going to happen..

 

Epsom And Ewell? Ok established historic club, history documented, if they want to battle on, Im Ok with that, and good luck.

 

But why would the other Epsom club want to go groundsharing for senior football? Are they hoping E+E  find a ground and they both share there?

 

I know I upset a few when I mention MVSCR but that's another one I just dont understand. 

 

Ive nothing against ambitious clubs progressing like Dorking Wanderers , South Park, Hanworth Villa have.

Makes clubs like Dorking FC have to keep up standards not to fall lower.

[E&E Rich]

Firstly, I'd like to wish AFCCA all the best for getting their ground back. I was never a fan of it, but that was only because we often used to lose there and they took our best players in 2003 leading to our relegation and eventual transfer. I'm not bitter, I just have a good memory Home is home and the Arena will never be that for Croydon Athletic so it's good to see them returning with luck.

 

On a separate note I am a little surprised that the two Croydon teams haven't considered a merger. Maybe they have.

 

Which brings me to Epsom Athletic. I put forward a suggestion at our AGM that we should approach them with reference to a merger into an "Epsom & Ewell Borough FC" but our AGM was not well attended and I don't believe the Athletic guys that I spoke to were that keen either. Which begs the question, what is Epsom Athletic's plan? Our plan is simple, we want to get a new ground in the Borough, and it appears that theirs is the same, but despite the difficulties we have faced in getting a ground, they seem to believe they can succeed despite not having the history or support. I accept that these may not count for a lot, but we also have the support of our MP too which is probably worth more.

 

I heard a rumour at the start of the season that Athletic may want to share with us if we got a ground in the Borough, but that surely is a dead end. Having taken twenty plus years to get one ground in the Borough, there would be no chance of a second, so they would be committing to a lifetime of sharing. A better option for them would clearly be a merger.

 

MVSCR are very clear that they will get a new ground back in their own Borough. Obviously we know how difficult that can be, but for a club that was prepared to play in a Middlesex League at one point to preserve their existence, I hope they can one day challenge the Sutton Uniteds of this world on a level playing field.

 

There is one final point which I took up with our people as they didn't seem to have considered it at the time and this was raised by afcca above. As more and more 3G pitches appear, the supply will exceed the demand and revenue will drop either by less rental, or by rental at a reduced price. In ten years time, that sort of revenue may be well down on what clubs with a 3g will have been planning, and at a time that such a pitch is due for renewal, and it may actually kill some clubs off by becoming an albatross around their necks.

 

I promise my next post will be a happy one.

Edited January 17, 2014 by E&E Rich

[Krooner]

On your last point the fact is that as more pitches are laid there will be more suppliers and the costs of such pitches will come down in line.

[Jeff Hamnett TSF]

perhaps Grounds in Epsom and Ewell are like london buses, don't get one for twenty years then two come along at once...

[E&E Rich]

On your last point the fact is that as more pitches are laid there will be more suppliers and the costs of such pitches will come down in line.

Yes, they probably would come down in a few years but by then you would have already had to purchase it. I'm talking about those who are looking into it right now. If you don't get on the bandwagon early, you may not get as much benefit. 

 

tsf. No!

[Redrup No2]

Just to fill you in EE about Lammas current situation. The reason we left Laleham rec was because the council would not grant us permission to put a floodlights up due to a few residents not being happy about it and also winning the league twice and not getting anywhere was a right kick in nuts. So the club decided we would groundshare with ashford so it would give us the chance To progress to the next league which the club believed the players deserved a chance at after the league success. I can tell you that the groundshare situation is not a long term thing for the club as they are currently in talks with the council about building a new ground for club which we hope can be done in the next 2 years but I don't personally don't know the politics side of it and the actual time scale we would be looking at.

[Don't Blame Me]

I wonder how many of the clubs in the same situation of Lammas, MV etc have invited local councillors to games in order to see that football at our level is a hell of a lot of fun? Can't do any harm and it may actually help in the longer term. 

[Tel]

Just to fill you in EE about Lammas current situation. The reason we left Laleham rec was because the council would not grant us permission to put a floodlights up due to a few residents not being happy about it and also winning the league twice and not getting anywhere was a right kick in nuts. So the club decided we would groundshare with ashford so it would give us the chance To progress to the next league which the club believed the players deserved a chance at after the league success. I can tell you that the groundshare situation is not a long term thing for the club as they are currently in talks with the council about building a new ground for club which we hope can be done in the next 2 years but I don't personally don't know the politics side of it and the actual time scale we would be looking at.

The politics side in my view is money, I know grants are available, but are a cash strapped council going to spend huge amounts of money on a local football team?

Hundreds of thousands of pounds would be involved, clubhouse, lights are just a couple of items for a start.

 

Saying that, I wish Lammas all the best in their endeavour for a new home.

 

I saw the draw against Knaphill, how did you not win!

[Krooner]

I think you are wrong ASATTGS.  The council probably don't have to put any money in.  It will be about the neighbours and votes IMHO.

[Redrup No2]

Dunno how we drew it Asattgs dominated it didn't we! Missed so many chances!!

[Dalts]

But got to put the chances away redders!!!

[Redrup No2]

Yep can't argue with that Dalts!

[Craig Fennell]

I wonder how many of the clubs in the same situation of Lammas, MV etc have invited local councillors to games in order to see that football at our level is a hell of a lot of fun? Can't do any harm and it may actually help in the longer term.

Frimley Green have a local councillor at most of their games and Camberley have for years had a councillor appointed to their board/committee. And lastly Frimley Green pay far more for their ground than Camberley (and I'm not talking hundreds of £s different) work that one out when they have a fully enclosed ground compared to FG.

I don't understand and I'm a local councillor who oversees all our leisure facilities. Good idea to get your local cllrs along if you can put up with them! Oh Surrey Heath have got planning approved to build a 3G pitch. Sorry Kroons but had to stop all the comments about councils doing nothing.