Gateshead Kicked Out

[Itsmeerc]

If Gateshead can't be promoted shouldn't they be kick out the league? I'm sure I read somewhere of a team who finished top but we're demoted two divisions as their ground wasn't fit for the league above.

I mean, that was us the first time we got relegated back to the conference, Underhill no longer met EFL ground standards, so no.

I posted this in the hope that someone would remember the club this happened to. In effect Gateshead are preventing other clubs from gaining promotion, as their place in the playoffs has been taken up by a club that is banned from being in the EFL. There's a fair chance that Gateshead will be top 7 next year and the same thing happening thus taking the playoffs down to 5 clubs.

The issue wasn’t the quality of Gateshead’s ground but the lack of assurance that they will be able to play there for at least 10 years. From what I’ve read this has actually now been resolved with the council, it just wasn’t done in time for them to be allowed to take part this year. So if this is accurate, it shouldn’t be an issue from next season onwards. Begs the question why the council could provide these assurances in the required timeframe.

[Mickbee]

They need to move out of that shithole if they have ambitions of getting back into the League, more so if the Council won't back them. Feel sorry gor the players and fans, less so their admin who should surely have checked all this prior to the season started.

[John Hunt]

If Gateshead can't be promoted shouldn't they be kick out the league? I'm sure I read somewhere of a team who finished top but we're demoted two divisions as their ground wasn't fit for the league above.

Kick a man when he's down...

[MCB]

Most importantly I hope the supposed 'football loving" Geordie's rise up against their council. They've done amazingly well this year without being financially doped that so many clubs are in this league

[becbee]

Most importantly I hope the supposed 'football loving" Geordie's rise up against their council. They've done amazingly well this year without being financially doped that so many clubs are in this league

They clearly only care about The Toon Army who have their wonderful stadium and their Saudi billions. There were only 815 home supporters last Wednesday when they had what we thought at the time was a crucial 6 pointer v Aldershot.

Which clubs in NL do you believe to be financially doped and by whom?

[ETBee]

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!

[becbee]

I appreciate that it's a long time ago but I remember when Macclesfield Town were denied promotion to EFL because their ground was deemed to not meet requirements, despite the fact that Chester had been playing L2 matches there shortly before.

[hoofer2]

I appreciate that it's a long time ago but I remember when Macclesfield Town were denied promotion to EFL because their ground was deemed to not meet requirements, despite the fact that Chester had been playing L2 matches there shortly before.

...and Stevenage

[Tuesds]

It’s pretty straightforward - if you’re a tenant in your stadium, the EFL requires a written assurance from your landlord that you have ten years’ security of tenure. Even in their statement yesterday claiming that they had recently written to the league to give them the assurances they were seeking, Gateshead Council stated that this included “a 10 year agreement between the council and Gateshead Football Club, that includes a break clause in the agreement to ensure that any new operator is able to negotiate new terms with the club.”

That ‘break clause’ gives the lie to the claim the league have been given the assurances they need. That’s not ten years’ security of tenure.

I don’t know if Gateshead Council has already commenced the tender process and hence can’t change the terms on which potential stadium operators are biddding, but clearly what they should do/have done is make Gateshead FC’s use of the stadium a condition of taking it on.

Clearly they’ve not done that/aren’t prepared to do that, not only causing the club’s disqualification from the play-offs but also potentially putting the club in a very vulnerable position in the near future, with a new commercial landlord who apparently has no obligation to maintain their tenancy.

[Itsmeerc]

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!

Given we were a league club not too long ago, you’d certainly hope so! Can’t see us having any issues, I seem to remember TK throwing around mystical phrases like “League One” when we built the Hive, and I’m sure it was built with every intention of meeting league requirements. He also stated that our tenure at the Hive was extended “indefinitely” by the council, so should be fine on that side too.

[jerroll]

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.

[pgbee]

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!

Given we were a league club not too long ago, you’d certainly hope so! Can’t see us having any issues, I seem to remember TK throwing around mystical phrases like “League One” when we built the Hive, and I’m sure it was built with every intention of meeting league requirements. He also stated that our tenure at the Hive was extended “indefinitely” by the council, so should be fine on that side too.

What is our capacity , given one end is an abandoned building site, that is a difference between now and when we were in L2?

[pgbee]

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!

Given we were a league club not too long ago, you’d certainly hope so! Can’t see us having any issues, I seem to remember TK throwing around mystical phrases like “League One” when we built the Hive, and I’m sure it was built with every intention of meeting league requirements. He also stated that our tenure at the Hive was extended “indefinitely” by the council, so should be fine on that side too.

What is our capacity , given one end is an abandoned building site, that is a difference between now and when we were in L2?

Just found it, 5419. Which is ok

[rudebwoyben]

Another point which no one has raised is how on earth have Solihull been accepted into the play-offs when Jaguar Landrover want to expand their site and have told Solihull that they have to vacate Danson Park in the near future?

[jerroll]

Presumably as it stands they have the required 10 years on their lease which legally means they are eligible.