TWO Points Needed

[soccermad67]

The Eastwood town appeal turned down, we dont know for what reasons, But like Guiesley & Solihull they spent the money on Up grading. before which  I think the dead line was 31st march 2011

[Tash]

The Eastwood town appeal turned down, we dont know for what reasons, But like Guiesley & Solihull they spent the money on Up grading. before which  I think the dead line was 31st march 2011

Obviously they didn't spend enough or do enough or they would be able to play in the play offs.

[woad_pilgrim]

Eastwood's statement about them being able to go up if they where champions was incorrect.

http://www.thefa.com/Leagues/NationalLeagueSystem/~/media/Files/PDF/Leagues/Ground%20grading/Grade%20B%20September%202010.ashx/Grade%20B%20September%202010.pdf

From the above document

Note:  Clubs may retain membership of Football Conference NORTH/SOUTH provided that they
achieve a Category “B” grading and have 250 seats under cover.
To qualify for promotion to the Football Conference Premier Division by winning the respective
NORTH/SOUTH Championship and for the club to participate in the promotion play off matches, the
ground must achieve a Category “B” Grading together with 500 seats under cover by 1st April in each
season. These seats may be in two locations.

Eastwood had 500 seats in 3 stands which I'm guessing is what they failed on, and as the ground gading rules clearly state would not have allowed them up if they had won the championship.

[Ferret]

What is the point in putting a clause containing "may" in a compulsory document?  As it stands, that document doesn't exclude the seats being in three, four or any number of different locations.

"A minimum of 500 seats under cover must be located in a maximum of two locations" would exclude three locations.

What is the problem with three locations anyway?  If the document is interpreted strictly in that way then Old Trafford wouldn't qualify for the Conference.......

[Tash]

What is the point in putting a clause containing "may" in a compulsory document?  As it stands, that document doesn't exclude the seats being in three, four or any number of different locations.

"A minimum of 500 seats under cover must be located in a maximum of two locations" would exclude three locations.

What is the problem with three locations anyway?  If the document is interpreted strictly in that way then Old Trafford wouldn't qualify for the Conference.......

What they are actually saying is so long as you have 500 seats you are ok, if you only have 500 seats in total they cannot be spread over more than 2 stands/terraces. If like MUFC you have 70,000 seats then 500 of them are definately going to be in one stand.

[chris b]

Most teams start off with one stand containing a couple of hundred seats. What the document says (or implies) is that you can keep this stand and build another one to make a total of 500 seats.  You don't have to knock it down and start again - or build a 500 seater behind a goal making a total of 700 or something. What you're not supposed to do have is have lots of little bits and pieces around the ground.

Eastwood have 3 lots of seats. My guess is that the two largest don't make a total of 500. Perhaps they also fall foul of "all seating should afford a good view of the pitch..." The newest stand next to the big one is a long way back from the pitch and I've never seen anyone sitting in it.

Another thought looking at the linked document - have they got sufficient toilet facilities? Not that I go around keeping a record of these things...

[Ferret]

What they are actually saying is so long as you have 500 seats you are ok, if you only have 500 seats in total they cannot be spread over more than 2 stands/terraces. If like MUFC you have 70,000 seats then 500 of them are definately going to be in one stand.

..and therein lies the problem. The rules should specifically and unambiguously state exactly what they mean......not some vague statement that can be read in more than one way.