DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
AUFC
HTML https://aufc.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 352--------------------------------------------------
Re: That Court Case.
DIR By: elmofudd
Date: February 1, 2017, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
“The FA have confirmed that the application for re-entry on
their Register of Football Turf Pitches by dispensation of The
Homelands pitch has been successful."
Dispensation = exemption from usual rules I do believe yet they
go on to say:
"The league is satisfied that Homelands Stadium complies with
all its requirements as much as any other club’s ground
complies.”
Something doesn't add up ???
#Post#: 353--------------------------------------------------
Re: That Court Case.
DIR By: Mushy
Date: February 1, 2017, 1:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Game on... but then I told you that the other day! Trump indeed
hahaha
#Post#: 354--------------------------------------------------
Re: That Court Case.
DIR By: Man of Kent
Date: February 1, 2017, 9:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It now appears that the purveyors of doom were more than a bit
premature for SCEFL have confirmed the pitch at the Homelands is
recognised by the FA and all the talk of AUFC needing to ground
share was incorrect.
#Post#: 355--------------------------------------------------
Re: That Court Case.
DIR By: Medway Rebel
Date: February 2, 2017, 4:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Nothing on the SCEFL web site and Kentish Football, who broke
the story, now gone quiet. If the pitch failed the inspection
some remedial work will surely be needed. As usual, more
questions than answers.
#Post#: 356--------------------------------------------------
Re: That Court Case.
DIR By: confusedofashford
Date: February 2, 2017, 7:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Man of Kent link ---
>
> It now appears that the purveyors of doom were more than a bit
premature for SCEFL have confirmed the pitch at the Homelands is
recognised by the FA and all the talk of AUFC needing to ground
share was incorrect.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: Mushy link ---
>
> Game on... but then I told you that the other day! Trump
indeed hahaha
>
--- End Quote ---
MofK, I think the phrase re-entry explains it all. It was
removed, and it was only prudent that the clubs made preliminary
enquiries as to groundsharing, as was suggested by SCEFL, if you
read what they said properly. The only reason that they can
continue to play there is that Glyn Jones managed to persuade
the FA to allow both clubs to complete their seasons with the
proviso, I understand, of major works being undertaken during
the close season to remedy the mistakes made when the pitch was
originally laid.
Be in no doubt, the pitch failed the inspection on several
grounds, all due to how it was laid, but is not actually
considered any more dangerous than many grass pitches, just not
up to the standards expected of an artificial pitch.
Mushy, you stated that the ground would be returned to its
former owners, and I am still yet to see any evidence of this
Trump like "alternative fact" being true!!
#Post#: 357--------------------------------------------------
Re: That Court Case.
DIR By: Medway Rebel
Date: February 2, 2017, 7:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I accept what you say "confused", but having read the KM article
I can't help feeling that Glyn Jones will try to unload the
ground a.s.a.p.
#Post#: 358--------------------------------------------------
Re: That Court Case.
DIR By: confusedofashford
Date: February 2, 2017, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agree MR, Jones and VBar are almost certainly looking to offload
Homelands asap, because they just want to get their money back.
I do think that there are 2 things that they are pretty
determined about, though. Firstly, they are not willing to sell
it on the cheap, and secondly it sounds very much like they are
determined that football should continue there for the
foreseeable future, but maybe not as AUFC, unless his major foe,
Mr Crosbie, gives up the club.
We shall have to see what the future brings.
#Post#: 359--------------------------------------------------
Re: That Court Case.
DIR By: elmofudd
Date: February 2, 2017, 12:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Was there not a buyback option or has that now expired /
rescinded?
Clearly, if sold, whoever buys it has to allow for some major
"remedial" works to the pitch.
#Post#: 360--------------------------------------------------
Re: That Court Case.
DIR By: hadderz
Date: February 2, 2017, 1:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There were emails from the league secretary closing the pitch
down that were later rescinded. These I was shown by a club
secretary and were as reported by Kentish football.
Those who are meant to be looking after the fans interests under
the convenant are quiet, seemingly backing DC rather than being
impartial.
#Post#: 426--------------------------------------------------
Re: That Court Case.
DIR By: Mushy
Date: March 22, 2017, 4:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mushy link ---
>
> An alternative view is the case went well and the ground will
be transferred back within 2-3 weeks.
>
--- End Quote ---
Just pushing this back up... you were told, but sadly didnt
listen. Now for promotion!!
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page