Ground grading farce or future ?

[Ray mysterio]

For me it has to be farce the county league now under the guidance of a so called English fa is becoming a league of just friendly games. If the top three in the divisions or bottom two cannot go down or up due too grading rules, then surely all games are irrelevant. It must be very frustrating for teams that no matter how they compete they know at the end of season it will all be for a lost cause.

Just wanted the rest of the forums thoughts......??

[Barbie]

The ultimate extent of that argument is that if we can't get our grounds up to Premier League standards, we should all pack up and go home now.
There will be a 'highest possible level' for most clubs. It doesn't mean that striving to reach that point isn't worth anything.
Peacehaven's team of the 90s won the league on a regular basis without going up to a higher level. History still labels them a great side.
Rye have never won the league. It remains to see how they will be remembered.
Bosham will probably never see senior football again - should they not strive to be as good as they can be in Div3?

History is littered with the carcasses of clubs who have flown too high too fast - when their catchments suggested that higher level football was inappropriate. Colne Dynamoes, Stamco, Croydon Athletic.

[Bob M]

Personally I'm in favour of Ground Grading. If a club spends money on players to attain a high position in their respective division (within the County League) and not on their club, ground or facilities then its wrong.

When you travel away there are a certain levels you expect for your following supporters, players and management. Somewhere to sit, hot food, protection from the weather, security and safety all playing their part. Somewhere to park your car, being able to put on games at night with decent lights in senior football and a clubhouse to enjoy an after match drink or whatever.

I've been to grounds this term, no stand, no seats, no hot food, no after match food no acknowledgement that you have even arrived at a ground and dirty unclean changing rooms. Ground grading will support higher standards and if you want to spend a grand a week on a player budget thats fine but get your house in order first.

The clubs not now having the appropriate grading for their level should be relegated. This is part of the weakness we show that makes us vunerable as a league when it comes to the pyramid restructure.

[bignose07]

Bob M - that really is the most sensible and encouraging post I've read for ages. Nice work Sir!

We at Shipley have rural, humble facilities that are a million miles away from say a Three Bridges or Hassocks but that is why they are div 1 and we are div 3. We were formed in '94 so are still a pup in comparison and have recently survived just our third season within the County set up.

We are proud to be a part of div three and I personally like the fact that pre determined standards must be attained in order to step up from a feeder league. Progressive standards as you move up divisions are a must for the very reasons you mention. These are clearly set out in the league guide book. We have worked our knackers off (like many others) in order to effect the work that was deemed required when initially inspected a few months back, namely; increasing the size of the dugouts & officials changing room and additional showers. Roughly about 2.5k with players and management pitching in doing sparky work, block and brick work & plastering amongst other. The frustration occurs when you visit other clubs and you see the inconsistencies throughout a division. Four school chairs in a dugout smaller than our original spacious but deemed unfit ones, 1 shower that doesn't work for the entire away team, no programme, subs running the line, the list goes on. There really does appear to be a gap between the clubs who play the game when it comes to attaining the standards required for your respective division and those who don't and I fully hope the league have the balls ensure the rules are policed. The real irony is that in many cases the clubs who have a revenue stream appear to make less of an effort with facilities than those without a dime.

[Ray mysterio]

I totally agree with the above comments and "well said" the so called smaller clubs without the enormous budgets seem too have a far greater "inviting" atmosphere and a greater sense of community at the grounds.

In terms of facilities I agree with the grading (if they are upheld).

My only concern is that teams seem too get too this stage of the season and deem themselves "safe" regardless of there positions in the league.

How can this possibly help football at grassroots level, as in my option the level has dropped considerably in the last 10 years.

[Martlet]

I was going to add a long comment, but actually Bob M and Bignose sum up my feelings perfectly!

[blueboybird]

Spot on gentleman. Clubs have known for long enough now to get their houses in order and ourselves and many others out there have put in the hours and the little money we have to ensure our clubs comply with the rules. If you don't want to comply with the ground grading regs, don't play in the league. Simple. Two very sensible, genuine posts. Nice to see them out there.

[MLS71]

I live in East Grinstead. Both the Hockey Club and Rugby Club have grounds which if they were playing in the SCFL as i understand it their grounds would not be good enough for SCFL Div1. Both the aforementioned clubs are higher up in the leagues in their respective codes. Anyone know why the F A are so intent on driving through these regulations. I agree there needs to be ground standards. Even so the money needed for some clubs to find is alot. God knows how they manage.

[Ray mysterio]

Some good points from MLS71 it must be extremely difficult to cope the financial constraints that are now put on our local football clubs. Not only do they have the ground grading expense but also now we seem too have sky high prices too pay the officials for the games as well as the general running of the clubs.

I must admit I do worry for a lot of our local sides but as has been mentioned the rules have been stipulated, it will be interesting too see if they are up held in county 2 this year come the end of the season.

Will be an eventful few weeks ahead anyway I'm sure ..................!!

[sussextogo]

On slightly different tangent take a look at the FA document below. Examples of good and bad construction which relate to the Grade F requirement of Div 1 SCFL. All i can say is the bad examples look just like the some of grounds in the division, of which, some have recently been awarded grade F.
Are the FA really overseeing the ground grading ? You decide.

http://www.thefa.com/GetIntoFootball/pa ... _Jan11.pdf

[Bob M]

On Ground Gradings, I read in the Argus with interest that Dorking Wanderers believe they are coming up into division one. No disrespect but they must have done a lot of work (and all by the deadline date too). Well played if you have managed it.

[guerrero]

There are going to be a lot of grounds around with lovely facilities as they plotted their way up the pyramid,left desolate as the money and ambition wanes.

[Chiv]

There are going to be a lot of grounds around with lovely facilities as they plotted their way up the pyramid,left desolate as the money and ambition wanes.

What is it exactly, that makes a good club ?

Dorking for div 1 ? Midhurst reserves played there this year and when our last two players emerged from the cold showers, the groundsman ushered them to their car, so he could lock up.

No club house / shed open. Nout.

When the 1st team played them, we took more supporters with us than turned up to watch them.

[Twin Fan]

I was at Rye on Saturday. You can still watch the game from the towpath and you can still get in through the unmanned gate off the towpath. What is their ground grade?