What a load of ........

All things unofficial about AFC Rushden & Diamonds and general football talk.
diamondal
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:38 pm

What a load of ........

Post by diamondal »

codswallup.....
As KC informed us at the meeting on Tuesday, the Conference supremos will not permit clubs in the same league to groundshare. When are they going to get their heads out of their own backsides? The way things are going there will be very few clubs in the lower leagues (not just R&D and K*ttering) that will be able to afford to carry on managing their own grounds etc. As KC informed us that the utility bills alone come to £10K a month (eg. water, gas, electric). Even in Leagues 1 and 2, some clubs groundshare with Rugby clubs and they admit they would not be in existance if it wasn't for groundsharing.
Hopefully some Conference bod reads this forum and will realise that if they don't soon change their attitude they will soon destroy the feeder league system that no doubt pays their salaries. I repeat, I am not talking about mergers here but common sense ground sharing that in my opinion would help save many clubs that are on the breadline.
Stalin
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:47 am
Location: USSR

Re: What a load of ........

Post by Stalin »

I have to say a ground share makes perfect sense.

Even if you lived in K*ttering, Nene Park is only 20 minutes away.

Two teams playing here would be the best way of paying the big overheads, plus it would be pretty funny siting in the Airwair as an "away fan".

If the Giants and Jets can share a stadium in New York or Inter and AC in Milian then two teams in the football conference should have no problems.

God, you could even sell the ground rights for a few pounds to appease the Poppies so they don't have to play at Nene Park, - "something" Community Stadium
Oundle Diamond #2
Posts: 1612
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 3:50 pm
Location: London

Re: What a load of ........

Post by Oundle Diamond #2 »

If this happened, we might need some new sears in the airwair 8-) :lol:
diamondphil
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 12:50 pm

Re: What a load of ........

Post by diamondphil »

Has anyone approached the subject of the naming rights to the Stadium??
I feel sorry for people who don't drink................when they wake up in the morning, that's the best they're going to feel all day.
Formic
Posts: 4156
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:48 pm
Has Liked: 11 times
Been Liked: 19 times

Re: What a load of ........

Post by Formic »

I've just had a call from the PR and Media Director of the Football Conference regarding the statement on this thread which he had seen.

He would like me to put things straight by advising that in fact there is no Conference rule preventing ground sharing - even if both clubs are in the same league. Hayes & Yeading would have had this situation had Woking gained promotion.

He confirmed that the three factors that do apply are that there must be an approved contract / lease in place between the two clubs, the ground must meet the grading criteria, and that clubs cannot take advantage of ground sharing in order to avoid relegation or gain promotion.
BartonRaz
Posts: 5824
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 10:56 pm
Location: Irthlingborough
Has Liked: 5 times
Been Liked: 178 times

Re: What a load of ........

Post by BartonRaz »

Formic wrote:I've just had a call from the PR and Media Director of the Football Conference regarding the statement on this thread which he had seen.

He would like me to put things straight by advising that in fact there is no Conference rule preventing ground sharing - even if both clubs are in the same league. Hayes & Yeading would have had this situation had Woking gained promotion.

He confirmed that the three factors that do apply are that there must be an approved contract / lease in place between the two clubs, the ground must meet the grading criteria, and that clubs cannot take advantage of ground sharing in order to avoid relegation or gain promotion.
I'm going to guess that we all heard the same thing at the forum given that a few of us have now ratified what was said by KC regarding the issue of groundsharing.

Could it be argued that K*ttering are looking to groundshare to avoid relegation? This MAY have been what KC meant.
They say we've lost our money we're not famous anymore.....

AFC Rushden & Diamonds - Member No: 291
davealbon
Posts: 2307
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 1:40 pm
Location: Rushden
Has Liked: 10 times
Been Liked: 53 times

Re: What a load of ........

Post by davealbon »

If I remember rightly, KC didn't say the Conference won't allow two sides in the same division to ground share, but rather they don't like it. There is a big difference.

We all know that there is no consistency whatsoever when it comes to the Conference board, and that they pretty much make things up as they go along. So just because a ground share isn't against their rules it still doesn't mean they would allow it. Even if it helped one, maybe two, of its members survive. :roll:
AFC Rushden & Diamonds Member No. 297
Stalin
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 9:47 am
Location: USSR

Re: What a load of ........

Post by Stalin »

For both sets of fans, probably me included 10 - 12 years ago, the thought of the Poppies calling Nene Park home would / will fill them with anger and hatred.

Personally, in these current financial times, I can’t help but think that this is truly a once in a lifetime opportunity to save two local football clubs.

The more I think about it, the more the idea makes sense.

I think there is a stigma about ground sharing but to me it makes perfect business sense.

What better way to sweat the facilities when two teams call Nene Park home.

Every football club in the county looks at ways of utilising its facilities on non match days, what better way of safe guarding the Diamonds and Poppies futures by having 50 plus match days at Nene Park.
diamondal
Posts: 413
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:38 pm

Re: What a load of ........

Post by diamondal »

davealbon wrote:If I remember rightly, KC didn't say the Conference won't allow two sides in the same division to ground share, but rather they don't like it. There is a big difference.

We all know that there is no consistency whatsoever when it comes to the Conference board, and that they pretty much make things up as they go along. So just because a ground share isn't against their rules it still doesn't mean they would allow it. Even if it helped one, maybe two, of its members survive. :roll:
Disagree Dave. I sat in the front row on Tuesday and i,ll swear KC did say what I quoted in the 1st post, if he didn,t (and I am an old git and partially deaf ) I heartily apologise. Anyone else hear what he said ?. :?
HiHoRushden&Diamonds
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 2:00 pm

Re: What a load of ........

Post by HiHoRushden&Diamonds »

diamondal wrote:
davealbon wrote:If I remember rightly, KC didn't say the Conference won't allow two sides in the same division to ground share, but rather they don't like it. There is a big difference.

We all know that there is no consistency whatsoever when it comes to the Conference board, and that they pretty much make things up as they go along. So just because a ground share isn't against their rules it still doesn't mean they would allow it. Even if it helped one, maybe two, of its members survive. :roll:
Disagree Dave. I sat in the front row on Tuesday and i,ll swear KC did say what I quoted in the 1st post, if he didn,t (and I am an old git and partially deaf ) I heartily apologise. Anyone else hear what he said ?. :?
I'm pretty sure davealbon is correct, KC never said they won't allow it, just that they don't like it so therfore it is likely to be difficult for it to happen especially because the two clubs are in the same league.
Post Reply