GRETNA RESIGN FROM SFL

[CaleyD]

As I said above, the rules do not say you cannot ground share for more than one season and if Gretna were to manage to claw themselves back above the relegation spot then they would have fair argument for pursuing a second season of ground sharing.  Would Gretna really be breaking any rules or not adhering to any criteria if they sought such a solution???...not by my understanding.

We've already established that none of us mind when the rules are bent/interpreted to suit ourselves, or when they are superseded on the basis of "common sense"....I guess that only leaves the argument of how much a team should do to argue their case and when they should start that argument!!!

As for your game being rescheduled as a result of the ground share....if the nonsensical Stadium Criteria had not been in place to start with then Gretna would have no need of a ground share -  so again the cause goes all the way back to the SPL for having such stupid rules in the first place and is not the fault of Gretna FC.

I guess what I really object to is the placing of blame entirely at the feet of Gretna when it is the system that is fundamentally flawed, and the inability of some people to realise that even though we (ICT) brought about some changes to improve it, it's still far from perfect.  Some ICT fans seem to have quickly forgotten that we originally fought for the abolition of the minimum seating criteria and eventually settled on a compromise....what has changed since we got in to the SPL that means we no longer think the minimum seating criteria is wrong?  The only thing that has changed is that we are now part of the establishment, and in the minds of some, anything that helps keep us here seems perfectly acceptable.....not me.

[Heilandee]

I'm not as sure as yerself that there was no time restriction on length of groundshare,sure it was 1 season max but i am open to being corrected, if there IS no time limit, the ruling is completely pointless as any team can groundshare for their time in the SPL however long that may.It's not like the SPL to have loopholes in their legislation tho is it?

[The Mantis]

I think Raydale should be renamed - "New Grant Street"  :015: :015: :015: :015:

[Scarlet Pimple]

Milseome was very sick at the end of the last campaign and probably does not again want to go through the nervous exhaustion he obviously suffered at that time. Who knows, it might cost him his life or at least his future health.

Rules are rules , horrific or not, and they must be complied with or changed.

When ICT visited Gretna (at Motherwell ?)earlier the attendance was the lowest ever in an SPL game. This league cannot survive on attendances like that which are quite ridiculous for the top league in Scotland and, depite intense passionate feelings arising that say every team regardless of size must be allowed into the SPL on merit, the fact is that one season to prove themselves and make an effort to comply with the rules (in this case) is enough.

[CaleyD]

I'm not as sure as yerself that there was no time restriction on length of groundshare,sure it was 1 season max but i am open to being corrected, if there IS no time limit, the ruling is completely pointless as any team can groundshare for their time in the SPL however long that may.It's not like the SPL to have loopholes in their legislation tho is it?

The wording is as follows........

Seating

All SPL clubs must have, by no later than March 31 preceding any season and for the whole of that season, a stadium with no less than 6,000 covered seats for spectators.

Ground Share

If a club intends to "ground share" or occupy a ground other than one owned by the club concerned, then such an arrangement requires the approval of the Board of the SPL.

Nowhere within any of the current documentation/handbook etc can I find any reference to a ground share being restricted to a single season.

Even if a time limit did exist for ground sharing, the SPL would have a very hard time defending a case for a second season of ground sharing.  If Gretna were to get agreement from Motherwell again, then on what basis could they defend a decision that says it was ok last season, but not this season?  After all, the situation would be exactly the same and a "because we said so" argument would be laughed out of court.

Granted, problems could and probably would arise if the team coming up the following season needed to ground share, and on that basis priority would have to be given to the promoted team.

I still can't get my head around why some people think it is ok for them to ground share this season but it wouldn't be next season, it's not like it has any negative effect on anyone...certainly no more so than it might have done this season.

---

Scarlet....your post could have been written by a Partick Thistle Fan back in 2004 as those are the exact same arguments as they used to try and prevent us getting access to the SPL.

[Heilandee]

Fair enough, there is no 1 season written rule in the book,however, the ground shareing concession was brought in to allow ambitious smaller clubs a work round and give them time to gather finace to fund their rules compliant stadium.Gretna are painfully obviously taking the P*** and have made no efforts to even start upgrade work,for this reason, i think the SPL would be quite right to invoke the wording of the ground share rules and simply not grant approval:-

"If a club intends to "ground share" or occupy a ground other than one owned by the club concerned, then such an arrangement requires the approval of the Board of the SPL"

If they were genuinely ambitious and attempting to comply and held back for financial//technical difficulties there may be a case to argue.

[CaleyD]

It's not true that they have "done nothing".  They have plans in place for an upgrade to Raydale and they have also submitted outline plans to the SPL for the new eco-stadium and asked for an extension to development time in order for them to pursue that option.....they have done all these things in a timely fashion.

As I said above...Any team in Gretna's position is not going to start building work when faced with a very real chance of relegation.  ICT left it till the last minutes and Falkirk sailed close to the wind and ended up using temporary seating....what Gretna are doing is no different.

It's Gretna this season, but it will be someone else in another couple of seasons and someone else after that.  Whichever way you spin it the problems are brought about by needless stadia criteria and the only way to put an end to it is to scrap the minimum covered seats figure and allow clubs to develop grounds to what they see as their requirements.

In fact, if I'm right then do Hamilton not only have 5300 seats?  What's happening if they get promoted....why haven't we heard them campaigning and why is nobody on their case?

[Heilandee]

Plans in place and an eco-stadium? as i said, their taking the P***.

Questions are being asked about Accies stadium and their synthetic pitch but no doubt it will wait till end of season till the annual close season fiasco begins.

[CaleyD]

People thought ICT were taking the proverbial when we said we'd put up the 2 new stands and be back in Inverness half way through the season!!!!

Anyways, Gretna have till 31st March to have plans in place should they need them and if Hamilton do win the 1st then that'll be a whole other can of worms.

[Kingsmills]

Gretna, like ICT before them, gave a firm undertaking to have an SPL compliant; ie, 6,000 covered seats, stadium in place by 31st March.

It looks like they will not and appears that they have made no effort to do so.

If they can demonstrate that they have made some sort of real effort to comply but have been frustrated by some third party such as a local planning authority and simply require more time through little or no fault of their own I believe the SPL should have some sympathy with them.

If on the other hand, as appears from the outside to be the case, they have merely ignored the promise they made to their SPL partners including Caley Thistle then the rules should be applied, whether they finish  bottom of the league or not, and they should be excluded from next season's competition with the top team in the first division taking their place.

As Raydale appears to meet the SFL's criteria for First Division grounds there is no reason why they should be demoted any further than the First Dvision.

[chris123]

Aapparentlybecaus

Thats quite the word

[CaleyD]

Lifted directly from the SPL rulebook....

- A2.5.3 A Club participating in the League must:-

-  - A2.5.3.1 itself, or through a subsidiary or holding company of such Club, own its Registered Ground; or

-  - A2.5.3.2 have such other rights of occupation or tenure in its Registered Ground as may be approved by the Board.

- A2.5.4 Any ground which a Club or the Candidate Club registers or is deemed to have registered as its Registered Ground, must, by not later than 31st March preceding any Season and for the whole of that Season:-

-  - A2.5.4.1 subject to Rule H6.7, have satisfied and satisfy the Stadia Handbook requirements for a Club taking part in the League;

-  - A2.5.4.2 have provided and provide individually numbered seats in areas under cover of a roof for not less than 6,000 spectators; and,

-  - A2.5.4.3 have had and have adequate winter pitch protection, as provided in Rule H6.6,

- A2.5.5 Clubs shall take all steps determined necessary by the Board to implement the development of youth football in Scotland in line with the requirements, philosophy and recommendations of the Company.

- A2.5.6 Where a Club or the Candidate Club registers or is deemed to have registered as its Registered Ground for any Season a ground at which it is intended to play League Matches on a pitch utilising a synthetic or artificial playing surface then such Club or Candidate Club must have made an application to the Board in accordance with Rule B23.1.3 by not later than 31st March and must have been granted an approval by the Board in terms of that Rule by not later than 1st June, both preceding such Season.

A2.6 Any application for approval for the purposes of Rule A2.5.3.2 or application for a waiver, relaxation or period of grace for the purposes of Rule A2.7, must be made in writing to the Secretary not later than 31st March preceding any Season or, as the case may be, first Season, in relation to which the ground for which such approval, waiver, relaxation or, as the case may be, period of grace is sought, is to be registered or deemed to be registered in accordance with Rule H6.1, as the Registered Ground of the Club or Candidate Club concerned.

A2.7 The Board may in its absolute discretion waive, relax or grant a period of grace in respect of any Club's or Candidate Club?s requirement to comply with any part of the Membership Criteria and/or Rules A2.6 and H6.1.

H6.1 Each Club and the Candidate Club must, subject to Rule A2.7, register or be deemed to have registered its ground with the Secretary by not later than 1st June immediately preceding each Season. No Club shall play its Home games at any ground other than its Registered Ground without first obtaining the written approval of the Board. A Club?s or Candidate Club?s Registered Ground must be situated in Scotland unless otherwise agreed in writing by the SFA and the Board, save in the case of Berwick Rangers FC for whom approval to have its Registered Ground in Berwick-upon-Tweed, England shall be deemed to have been granted prior to the date of adoption of the Rules. Once a Club or Candidate Club has registered its ground with the Secretary it shall not be required to re-register that ground for each succeeding Season in which it is eligible to participate in the League but shall be deemed, on a continuing basis, to have registered same on 1st June immediately preceding each such Season. A Club which changes its ground must register its replacement ground with the Secretary in accordance with this Rule H6.1.

The rule book actually makes for more interesting reading than the information I quoted from the website earlier as it makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to ground sharing or having to have your own stadium constructed/brought up to standard within any pre-defined timescale.

Again I ask....what is this rule that Gretna would be breaking by pursuing another season of ground sharing?  Granted that they would need permission from the SPL on the basis of rule A2.5.3.2, but the SPL have already set the precedent by allowing them to ground share this season and nothing has changed to justify them denying it again for next season.

I don't necessarily disagree that Gretna appear to be taking the p!ss and not bothering to get the ball rolling, but when push comes to shove that doesn't come in to it......not if you want to stick to the point of "the rules are the rules"......and certainly not if you want the league to be run with any kind of fair and consistent hand.

If Gretna made any sort of undertaking in regards to their plans for building a compliant stadium then it would be deemed to be a "gentlemans agreement" at best, the SPL certainly have no rules with which they could cite it and point out any failure on the part of Gretna FC to meet any contractual obligations in regards to their membership of the SPL.

[Heilandee]

Qoute from Mileson......

"We may have to redevelop Raydale and everything is in place to do that - it's just a matter of pressing a button. In these days of modern build, stands are just like Meccano sets."

Mileson said: "If we're forced to stay at Raydale we have been told we'd still need to play all our matches at Fir Park next season. What we need to do, by March 31, is provide proof that our ground, wherever it may be, will be ready for the start of the season after that.

P.S. When did the SPL ever become associated with a "fair and consistant hand"?  I find it hard to believe i am argueing in their defence,however in this instance i feel they are quite correct and will, as i said above simply refuse to grant approval

[CaleyD]

It matters not what Mileson said....for years everyone used to spout on about the 10,000 seater rule being Scottish Parliament Legislation....not because it was fact, but because they had taken the SPL word for it and never thought to check for themselves.

Telling people what they want to hear is what businessmen are good at, not saying it is right and you can be sure that Mileson would have told the SPL whatever they wanted to hear at that time, just as any other club would have....it makes life easy.

Doesn't change the fact that the SPL, IMO, would not be able to back the "failed promises" argument as there was no contractual obligation on which to base that promise in the first place.

Take a look at rule A2.5.4.....how successful do you think they would be in enforcing that after allowing us to return from Aberdeen part way through the season?....the whole rulebook is a joke.

If the SPL don't want people p*ssing all over the rulebook year after year, then it's about time they got a lot of things nailed down.  Until that happens then every team is going to pick holes in it if suits their own needs...right or wrong, that's just the way it is.

P.S.  It's all your fault we're having this discussion....I was happy with my one comment earlier on in the thread, but you had to take umbrage and challenge my normally well thought out arguments  -  That'll feckin teach ya  :015:

[Scarlet Pimple]

:029:

[Heilandee]

That'll feckin teach ya  :015:

:015: saw this and thought of you......

Anyway, S.P.L. rule A251.1.1 annexe D sub section 14  states " the rules in place at any given time are of no concequence should the SPL board decide they dont suit their position at any given time" so this rule over rules all previous rules

Gretna will go down!

[Johnboy]

Gretna to be booted out of the SPL...?

Words like "who" and "cares" spring to mind here....

[PullMyFinger]

I care.  :blah01:

Call me old fashioned but I think the champions of SFL1 should come up and 12th in SPL down, however a 16 team league would allow 2 up 2 down and would likely make for more competitive league. I don't give a feck for the Self Preservation League rules. If a clubs ground is not up to "SPL" standards there must be other avenues than closing the door. The only adverse effect of this is that clubs with wealthy benefactors or a reasonable turnover from attendances, etc. could come into the SPL without having to upgrade their stadium, thereby allowing them to concentrate on their squads (is this not why we venture down to the game on Saturday, good football to entertain us?). I the long term those clubs will either slip away or invest in their customers experience. The whole "all seater" situation is a disgrace. :008:

Rant over. :023:

[Alex MacLeod]

Below is an extract from the Herald of 18th May last year. Para 3 says to me that there is an SPL regulation being breached.

Protests against Gretna thrown out by SPL                DARRYL BROADFOOT May 18 2007

Gretna will be playing in the Clydesdale Bank Premierleague next season after the Scottish Premier League rejected complaints from St Mirren and Dunfermline that the first division champions had breached rules over stadium plans.

The SPL board convened yesterday morning to discuss submissions that Gretna's promotion was illegal after failing to provide a start and end date for redevelopment of Raydale Park.

Brooks Mileson, the Gretna owner, had been granted permission for his club to groundshare with Motherwell at Fir Park next season and, under SPL regulations, will also require to provide confirmation of stadium compliance by March 31 next year for season 2008/09.

advertisement

[Charles Bannerman]

Anyway, S.P.L. rule A251.1.1 annexe D sub section 14  states

So I see the legacy of Jim Farry still lives on in Scottish football!

[CaleyD]

Below is an extract from the Herald of 18th May last year. Para 3 says to me that there is an SPL regulation being breached.

Protests against Gretna thrown out by SPL                DARRYL BROADFOOT May 18 2007

Gretna will be playing in the Clydesdale Bank Premierleague next season after the Scottish Premier League rejected complaints from St Mirren and Dunfermline that the first division champions had breached rules over stadium plans.

The SPL board convened yesterday morning to discuss submissions that Gretna's promotion was illegal after failing to provide a start and end date for redevelopment of Raydale Park.

Brooks Mileson, the Gretna owner, had been granted permission for his club to groundshare with Motherwell at Fir Park next season and, under SPL regulations, will also require to provide confirmation of stadium compliance by March 31 next year for season 2008/09.

advertisement

I'm not seeing the breach of rule Alex, can you expand?

[Alex MacLeod]

under SPL regulations, will also require to provide confirmation of stadium compliance by March 31 next year for season 2008/09.

If they haven't even set the founds yet how do they comply. I doubt very much whether Motherwell will be prepared to groundshare for another season considering the state their pitch is in at the minute.

WHOLE ARTICLE HERE

Suppose its all down to interpretation but what chance do us minions have of understanding things when the people who form the SPL committee dont seem to understand the rules.

At the end of the day I honestly dont believe Gretna will survive for another season and can foresee a new set of arguements and rule changes with Accies.

[CaleyD]

Your right Alex, it is very much "interpretation", but interpretation is often set by precedent and the SPL have set the precedent that having a compliant stadium can be accomplished with the provision of a suitable ground share agreement.

In regards to how long that can be for, there's nothing to suggest it is limited to a single season...or any set period for that matter.

[Govan Jaggie]

They should be relegated to what ever league their ground is suitable for.  How it meets SFL1 standards got knows.  Send them back to the english league where they started. :sillywave:

[MissICT]

well atleast when caley got in to the spl me started work straight away on building 2 new stands!!