Poor Brown

[simmoram1995]

Breaking news:

Gateshead have been kicked out the playoffs by the EFL and National League 

Gateshead have been barred from taking part in the National League play-offs after failing to meet the entry criteria for membership of the English Football League.

The club failed to secure a "10-year security of tenure" at the International Stadium, where they have played since 1971-72, by 1 March.

feel for Dejaune this stinks!!! 😡

 

 

[eddielewis]

From what I've read of the situation National League teams have to apply for promotion to the Football League at the start of the league season which was accepted so the EFL and National League both knew of Gateshead's ground situation which I don't think has changed for years.

To just boot them out at this stage is just cruel. Why should there need to be a 10 year security on a stadium when EFL clubs for example aren't required to show an equivalent financial security for that long of a period.

 

[RamLad1884]

Absolute joke of a decision from the EFL and to make the decision at this stage of the season. 
 

Has far wider implications as will have a knock on effect to the money from ticket sales for not just Gateshead. 

[Carl Sagan]

Sounds as though the National League has been supporting Gateshead against the EFL, but the EFL won't budge, despite Gateshead playing at their ground since 1971. However, Gateshead Council has refused to guarantee they can stay there for 10 more years. 

The stadium is obviously a huge community asset but from my experience of seemingly perverse council planning decisions, I'm making an educated guess as to why the council has refused. If it's up for election in May, I hope the club organizes a local campaign and they're all voted out. 

The club claims they're still preparing for the game, but I don't see what avenues are left to them. 

[eddielewis]

2 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

Sounds as though the National League has been supporting Gateshead against the EFL, but the EFL won't budge, despite Gateshead playing at their ground since 1971. However, Gateshead Council has refused to guarantee they can stay there for 10 more years. 

The stadium is obviously a huge community asset but from my experience of seemingly perverse council planning decisions, I'm making an educated guess as to why the council has refused. If it's up for election in May, I hope the club organizes a local campaign and they're all voted out. 

The club claims they're still preparing for the game, but I don't see what avenues are left to them. 

I find it hypocritical of the EFL to allow Coventry twice the 11th hour to find a home ground to play at both Northampton and Birmingham just for the upcoming season but they can't allow Gateshead if hypothetically they got promoted (big chance they would not) let's say until the end of July to find a solution to their ground.

[DavesaRam]

I reckon we Rams fans may have a song we dust down and to sing to the EFL come Saturday on behalf of Gateshead, and specially for Mr Brown!

[LazloW]

The EFL will no doubt hide behind their usual "rules are rules... and the clubs make the rules" nonsense. Well, seems yet again that the rules are just plain daft. No common sense. Just about everything that comes out of the EFL, EPL and FA seems designed to make life for football fans worse and, with it, the game. 

[Poynton ram]

Could NUFC have done anything to help out Gateshead seeing as they are neighbours? Not sure if they could have or even tried but huge respect if they did. No idea where NUFC reserves play, ironic if Gateshead. Is that season over for Brown now? 

[Tamworthram]

48 minutes ago, eddielewis said:

From what I've read of the situation National League teams have to apply for promotion to the Football League at the start of the league season which was accepted so the EFL and National League both knew of Gateshead's ground situation which I don't think has changed for years.

To just boot them out at this stage is just cruel. Why should there need to be a 10 year security on a stadium when EFL clubs for example aren't required to show an equivalent financial security for that long of a period.

 

It looks like they have to apply in November and confirm they have met all the qualifying criteria, presumably including security of tenure which I agree seems a little over the top, by 1st March.

My guess therefore is that their application was accepted SUBJECT TO meeting the criteria which they must have failed to do. 

If this is true, Gateshead would have known they couldn't gain promotion until they had secured the required tenure. I would imagine the announcement has been made so late because 1) they were trying to negotiate a longer lease and 2) they appealed the decision and therefore an official announcement couldn't be made until the appeal had been heard.

The timing is horrible and perhaps, as soon as they had earned their place in the play offs, the club should have gone public on the possible barrier (assuming they didn't).

Tamworth will be playing in the National League next season but they will know they can't gain promotion to league 2 as it stands as they play on a 3G artificial turf pitch. So, similarly to Gateshead, they can apply in November but they'll know they'll need to change the pitch if, by some miracle, they finish in the play off places (or above) and want to go up/compete in the play offs.

That's my reading of the situation anyway.

 

[Tamworthram]

22 minutes ago, eddielewis said:

I find it hypocritical of the EFL to allow Coventry twice the 11th hour to find a home ground to play at both Northampton and Birmingham just for the upcoming season but they can't allow Gateshead if hypothetically they got promoted (big chance they would not) let's say until the end of July to find a solution to their ground.

I think the difference is because Coventry were already members of the EFL. I assume clubs don't have to reapply every year 

I sympathise with Gateshead but I think they were already given between November and March to find a solution. If they'd been given until the end of July that could have thrown up all sorts of issues including fixture lists.

[Old Spalding Ram]

Pinched from elsewhere.

This decision is based on the club failing to meet the 10-year security of tenure at their stadium, required for new teams applying to enter the EFL which was required by 1 March 2024.

The club requested a 10-year security of tenure from Gateshead Council. This was refused. The National League wrote to the council in support of the application by the club highlighting the impact on the club, its supporters, and the local community if the security was not given.

Unfortunately, the response received was not supportive of the club’s requirements and placed the club at risk of a refusal of membership to the EFL and therefore forfeiture of any right to participate in the play-offs.

Being a member of Gateshead Council could well be a rather precarious pastime at the moment!

[Chesterfield_Ram]

1 hour ago, Poynton ram said:

Could NUFC have done anything to help out Gateshead seeing as they are neighbours? Not sure if they could have or even tried but huge respect if they did. No idea where NUFC reserves play, ironic if Gateshead. Is that season over for Brown now? 

I believe NUFC reserves do play at Gateshead. I’ve seen them on tv playing there in the youth champions league. Having a look it seems they’re a bit nomadic, also playing at st James park and Kingston park (Newcastle Falcons rugby ground).

[Chesterfield_Ram]

I’m not sure on the exact details, but going by the EFL’s rules they are imposing here surely a number of teams who sold their ground to the owner or didn’t own their ground would have failed to meet this rule. Aston Villa, Coventry, us, Reading, Wednesday. I can’t ever remember MM saying that we had an agreement for x amount of years, not that I’m complaining that we weren’t kicked out of the EFL, but this doesn’t seem fair to me. Also, it’s not like Coventry who moved around when they didn’t have their own ground; Gateshead have been tenants at the venue since 1977.

[Elwood P Dowd]

21 minutes ago, Chesterfield_Ram said:

I’m not sure on the exact details, but going by the EFL’s rules they are imposing here surely a number of teams who sold their ground to the owner or didn’t own their ground would have failed to meet this rule. Aston Villa, Coventry, us, Reading, Wednesday. I can’t ever remember MM saying that we had an agreement for x amount of years, not that I’m complaining that we weren’t kicked out of the EFL, but this doesn’t seem fair to me. Also, it’s not like Coventry who moved around when they didn’t have their own ground; Gateshead have been tenants at the venue since 1977.

I thought the 10 year ground rule was only applicable on joining the league.

[Chesterfield_Ram]

2 hours ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

I thought the 10 year ground rule was only applicable on joining the league.

Must be the case, as I’ve never heard of this particular rule before.
 

However, I do know that teams have to prove they can follow the rules of the league, which is why they have to apply to join when coming in from the national league. From the Price of football podcast I recall them talking about how teams have to provide business plans to join the league 2 after promotion when the national league to show they can meet ffp rules. Also, my local team Chesterfield have been talking about how they have had to upgrade their floodlights to meet the minimum standard the EFL sets out.
 

I just presume the application process, where Gateshead were rejected, was used to prevent teams not being ready to at the season.

[Tamworthram]

11 hours ago, Chesterfield_Ram said:

Must be the case, as I’ve never heard of this particular rule before.
 

However, I do know that teams have to prove they can follow the rules of the league, which is why they have to apply to join when coming in from the national league. From the Price of football podcast I recall them talking about how teams have to provide business plans to join the league 2 after promotion when the national league to show they can meet ffp rules. Also, my local team Chesterfield have been talking about how they have had to upgrade their floodlights to meet the minimum standard the EFL sets out.
 

I just presume the application process, where Gateshead were rejected, was used to prevent teams not being ready to at the season.

I’m not sure about a business plan but there is definitely a list of criteria teams in the National League have to meet before they are allowed to join the EFL. The list includes floodlights, playing surface, ground capacity and presumably, security of tenure of the ground they play at. Ten years does sound a bit excessive but I would imagine Gateshead have known all along that this was a requirement.

[Chesterfield_Ram]

22 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

I’m not sure about a business plan but there is definitely a list of criteria teams in the National League have to meet before they are allowed to join the EFL. The list includes floodlights, playing surface, ground capacity and presumably, security of tenure of the ground they play at. Ten years does sound a bit excessive but I would imagine Gateshead have known all along that this was a requirement.

I think there is, as in a recent interview with the chesterfield owner he spoke about how the EFL have been supporting the club in submitting their business plan for next season. Then again it did sound a bit more like a financial forecast,than a business plan that we’ve been under, when their owner was talking about it.

[Srg]

Gateshead council have said that they have the 10 year lease, but I think the problem is that they're essentially trying to sell it or get investors, at which point, whoever those individuals who put the money in are, are free to renegotiate the deal.

[Elwood P Dowd]

28 minutes ago, Srg said:

Gateshead council have said that they have the 10 year lease, but I think the problem is that they're essentially trying to sell it or get investors, at which point, whoever those individuals who put the money in are, are free to renegotiate the deal.

That would explain the issue as the EFL require security of tenure.

[ram59]

Maybe football loving Starmer should have encouraged his labour controlled council to support their local football team a bit more.

The national recognition a town or city gets, when they've got a league football team is not to be underestimated. It helps commercial activity within the area.