OnlyBarnet.com - Barnet FC Fans Forum

jerroll wrote: ↑22 Apr 2024, 08:23

ETBee wrote: ↑22 Apr 2024, 07:42 I think I am right in saying that it is the EFL that has the 10 year rule, not the NL. So Gateshead could have taken part in the play offs and the rule would only have come into effect if they had won at Wembley. Obviously the issue would then have to be addressed, and possibly resolved. The EFL also has a rule that teams are not allowed to have plastic pitches so why are Bromley in the play offs? What guarantees have Bromley given the EFL and NL that they will replace the pitch by a certain date if they won promotion? It seems that the EFL imposed an arbitrary, though perhaps sufficient, deadline on Gateshead to get the 10 year deal but have not imposed a similar deadline on Bromley, other than an assumption that it would be sorted out, like Sutton.

I think a good lawyer could make something of this.

I suspect that there are several teams in the NL who do not fulfill the full range of EFL requirements. I do hope that TK has ensured that we do!

Harrogate and Sutton both were able to remove the artificial pitch and install a grass one during a closed season so there is proof it can be done plus Bromley would have more time to do so due to the earlier end to our season. Although they have significantly more money Spurs can remove their pitch and put it back in a fortnight when they host the NFL games. The 10 year tenure was why (despite going out of the league prior to the move to the hive) people assumed the move to the Hive was initially for only 10 years as that had to be secured to satisfy Football league requirements at the time.

DerekRocholl wrote: ↑22 Apr 2024, 10:06

jerroll wrote: ↑22 Apr 2024, 08:23

ETBee wrote: ↑22 Apr 2024, 07:42 I think I am right in saying that it is the EFL that has the 10 year rule, not the NL. So Gateshead could have taken part in the play offs and the rule would only have come into effect if they had won at Wembley. Obviously the issue would then have to be addressed, and possibly resolved. The EFL also has a rule that teams are not allowed to have plastic pitches so why are Bromley in the play offs? What guarantees have Bromley given the EFL and NL that they will replace the pitch by a certain date if they won promotion? It seems that the EFL imposed an arbitrary, though perhaps sufficient, deadline on Gateshead to get the 10 year deal but have not imposed a similar deadline on Bromley, other than an assumption that it would be sorted out, like Sutton.

I think a good lawyer could make something of this.

I suspect that there are several teams in the NL who do not fulfill the full range of EFL requirements. I do hope that TK has ensured that we do!

Harrogate and Sutton both were able to remove the artificial pitch and install a grass one during a closed season so there is proof it can be done plus Bromley would have more time to do so due to the earlier end to our season. Although they have significantly more money Spurs can remove their pitch and put it back in a fortnight when they host the NFL games. The 10 year tenure was why (despite going out of the league prior to the move to the hive) people assumed the move to the Hive was initially for only 10 years as that had to be secured to satisfy Football league requirements at the time.

There was no such assumption, the 10 year term at the Hive was a stipulation Harrow Council made as a trade off that allowed them to remove a load of other potentially expensive provisions they were seeking to impose on the Club/TK to try to assuage local resident concerns if the move was made permanently.

I think the constraint was applied by Harrow Council as freeholder rather than as a planning condition and it was therefore removed when TK bought the freehold.

TottenhamBee wrote: ↑21 Apr 2024, 19:14 Apparently the top brass at Bromley are "ambivalent" to say the least about promotion to the EFL because it would cost them a shed load of money replacing their illegal in the EFL plastic pitch....

Roy57 wrote: ↑22 Apr 2024, 21:28

TottenhamBee wrote: ↑21 Apr 2024, 19:14 Apparently the top brass at Bromley are "ambivalent" to say the least about promotion to the EFL because it would cost them a shed load of money replacing their illegal in the EFL plastic pitch....

With what has happened to Gateshead very surprised the EFL have not made Bromley show proof they have funds to convert there artificial pitch to a grass one in time for the start of next season if they were to get promoted. But would need to still show it before the start of the play offs as what would happen if they won the final but then declared they did not have the funds, would make yet further embarrassment to a already lets say confused in-laws professional play off elimanator.

Roy57 wrote: ↑22 Apr 2024, 21:28

TottenhamBee wrote: ↑21 Apr 2024, 19:14 Apparently the top brass at Bromley are "ambivalent" to say the least about promotion to the EFL because it would cost them a shed load of money replacing their illegal in the EFL plastic pitch....

With what has happened to Gateshead very surprised the EFL have not made Bromley show proof they have funds to convert there artificial pitch to a grass one in time for the start of next season if they were to get promoted. But would need to still show it before the start of the play offs as what would happen if they won the final but then declared they did not have the funds, would make yet further embarrassment to a already lets say confused in-laws professional play off elimanator.

John Hunt wrote: ↑23 Apr 2024, 12:57 This is crazy. They should just scrap the play offs and promote the team who finished second.

rudebwoyben wrote: ↑23 Apr 2024, 12:44 Did you see how much Wrexham were in loss by for last season? I don’t think Southend would have had any issues!

letchbee94 wrote: ↑19 May 2024, 15:07 What is the deal with tem for next season? Can they still compete in national league if they are not allowed promotion to football league?

Norfolkbee wrote: ↑23 Apr 2024, 12:28 Irrelevant now, but, if Sarfend had squeezed into a play-off spot, would they have been allowed to take part, considering today's news of losses pushing towards £3million.