The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

Hadnt thought about this until seeing a discussion elsewhere but surely Peterborough and most definitely Alvechurch do not have grounds good enough to meet the grading requirements for promotion. I think that’s obvious but after hearing of teams being removed from playoffs for that reason they must have passed it. This is not me saying we should take their place as I actually hope Alvechurch win it now. Just a strange situation.

Having chatted to a couple of Alvechurch supporters at the away game I get the impression they will be in their new ground for next season. Could be wrong though

FA Ground Grading ‘C’ for Step 2 football has dispensation with regard to the requirement for a minimum of 500 seats. In respect of promoted clubs they effectively have 3 seasons to satisfy this requirement. Whoever gets promoted from the play offs this season will probably get relegated back to Step 3 within that period.

There's also the unpublished 2011 clause regarding the application of several other unwritten requirements if the club in question is AFC Rushden & Diamonds, and the relaxation of all other requirements if the club in question is not AFC Rushden & Diamonds.

davealbon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:11 am There's also the unpublished 2011 clause regarding the application of several other unwritten requirements if the club in question is AFC Rushden & Diamonds, and the relaxation of all other requirements if the club in question is not AFC Rushden & Diamonds.

you mean like St ives not needing to have a separate set of toilets, whereas we had to go and buy some, that kind of thing Dave!

bozzer wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 7:00 am

davealbon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:11 am There's also the unpublished 2011 clause regarding the application of several other unwritten requirements if the club in question is AFC Rushden & Diamonds, and the relaxation of all other requirements if the club in question is not AFC Rushden & Diamonds.

you mean like St ives not needing to have a separate set of toilets, whereas we had to go and buy some, that kind of thing Dave!

That would be one of many, many examples, yes!

davealbon wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 6:11 am There's also the unpublished 2011 clause regarding the application of several other unwritten requirements if the club in question is AFC Rushden & Diamonds, and the relaxation of all other requirements if the club in question is not AFC Rushden & Diamonds.

We’ve always said from day one Dave when Bob was on the Board and also UCL it mattered not, ground grading was a 12 page document, question 1 Are you AFC R& D if yes complete rest of document, if no turn to page 12 sign and return.

Didn't we have to contend with the D&D floodlights failing AFCR&D grading but passing Wellingborough grading the same day

Although not technicaly ground grading,but what has happened to the pitch at hayden road,lumpy, bumpy ,thread bare and dry?i went to a cup semi final at the Dog and Duck and it was superb ,it was like the first game of the season,,,has our budget dropped for pitch work? I know pants has moved on,but a bit of water and feed wouldnt have gone a miss,the last game you could see all the dust flying up every time a player kicked the ball and potentially dangerous

SouthRushdenJFC wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:16 pm Didn't we have to contend with the D&D floodlights failing AFCR&D grading but passing Wellingborough grading the same day

Am only aware of one situation where we had to get 2 companies to do readings (both passed) as one league wouldn't accept the reading from a particular company as they were not their "approved" supplier. I did raise this with an NFA infrastructure contact as given floodlights were an FA grading issue , and all suppliers use calibrated meters we should only need one set of readings. This is to be followed up as our next readings are due early 2023.