Freebie Friday: Are ground grading rules too tough or is there a need for some relaxing?
Over the top or sense and reason for them all
Welcome to the Friday Freebie and if you’re new to www.footballwriting.co.uk this is the free post coming at you every Friday as a taster of what you can find behind the paywall. If you like what you see and enjoy what you read please consider becoming a paid subscriber for just £5 a month which gets you 8 paid for blogs as a minimum and the 4 free ones also, not bad for your money!
This weeks’ piece comes from a topic that came up on Twitter a couple of weeks ago and it’s one that can cause a heated debate quite often as the season ticks on by, ground grading.
For those of you who are unaware, non-league clubs are subject to a set of regulations needed to play at each particular level of the pyramid. I know there are certain things needed to be able to compete in the Football League, more of those I would expect to be in place with small tweaks to obtain a safety certificate, similar to those who ply their trade in the National League having brought the ground up to standard in order to play at that level.
Once you move downwards right down to Step 6 or even Step 7 you have to satisfy a committee of people that you have either got the necessary things in place or the work has been started and will be completed by the time the deadline is here.
It can be anything from needing to add extra seats to meet the minimum required, an extra turnstile, provision for segregation as you head further up, better press and media facilities, larger changing rooms, it really could be a number of things, plus barriers or hard standing around the pitch.
Up until a few years ago clubs at Step 5 did not have to accept promotion, most citing the extra cost of travelling as you move up, extra work needing doing to the ground and an increase in the playing budget too.
There were clubs who wanted to progress and took the plunge as and when promotion allowed them to, the FA at times allowing a side finishing second to move up if the champions declined.
That has all changed and the title winners now have to move up or face relegation of two divisions, the same for play off winners as well. Clubs do know well in advance of what is needed to bring their ground up to scratch for the level they’re going into, I believe they have until March the following year after promotion to complete the works.
However, we’re not talking about a few quid here and there for everyone, for some it’s in the thousands to meet a standard that at times look out of place with others already at that level.
And by out of place I mean actually better standards than they’re heading off to play at. Some clubs have found a few years ago that changing facilities were too small and not by much more than a few feet, finding the time to complete that kind of work without it happening in the off season is hard.
It can be done, clubs or officials reading this will nod and say, ‘yeah we managed to do it’, others will read that line and say ‘it’s not that easy for us’. However, if you choose to neglect getting the work done and instead think the playing budget is more of a priority then sympathy will be in short supply, especially from those who ensure they play by the rules.
Whose right and whose wrong? Well, take the rules away from the equation and it becomes a different story. It does need to be a case by case judgment I feel at times and here’s why. Some clubs will have a fantastic supporter and volunteer base to make it happen which it is great, others will manage to raise the money but take longer to do it, some will just be struggling to make it happen.
Now, without budget levels being released for everyone to see across the pyramid it’s neigh on impossible to show whether funds can and should have been made available for ground improvements instead of player wages.
I appreciate there are grants available which cover half of the cost, the club has to match that in order to obtain the cash. What I didn’t know until it was pointed out to me is that you can’t apply to the Football Foundation every year for the help, some of it has to be done off your own back to get things done.
Should clubs get longer to fulfil the work? Maybe. If all clubs had two years to complete the work from 31st March when they first know of what their requirements are then that would counter the same time if they refused to go up and were relegated two divisions followed by two promotions, back to the same level if relegated after not completing the ground works.
Some of the rules I find are plain daft, those that comply with health and safety regulations I have no issue with, when it comes to how many seats you should have versus average attendance which is always one of the biggest contentious points to me just creating instead of being sensible.
We’re here for the football, in a more relaxed state than if we were up in the professional game, we’re not thousands of people and if the stadium can securely hold the amount of people on the certificate and exit them safely as well, then where is our issue?
It’s just a long line of FA controls that need an overhaul in my opinion, probably something we won’t see until the independent regulator comes in and shows them how to run the game for all and move it into the 21st century where it belongs.
What do you think? Do you agree that the deadlines are too tough or should clubs balance the playing budget vs the ground grading budget? Let me know your views in the comments.