Good news about removing squatters.
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
-
art vandalay
- Posts: 633
- Joined: 24 Nov 2009, 22:11
Sounds to me like the usual excuses about why the groundshare won't be ending. There's always a 'reason' why they keep it going and the pitch gets worse and worse.
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29856
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Petition not needed when the manager is in agreement. As Mr Baker says in that article:
"Nevertheless the groundshare does not help and Gary has made his views very clear."
"Nevertheless the groundshare does not help and Gary has made his views very clear."
-
London Exile
- Posts: 3198
- Joined: 06 Dec 2009, 15:48
There's more chance of Nigel Farage being PM than Gloucester City not playing their home games at the World of Smile Stadium next season.
What our club need to do is speak to Borehamwood and pitch specialists about pitch maintenance costs and having done a full research then factor those costs into any new agreement.
If we've under estimated the cost of maintaining the pitch in our annual contracts with Gloucester
City then it's completely our fault and not theirs.
What our club need to do is speak to Borehamwood and pitch specialists about pitch maintenance costs and having done a full research then factor those costs into any new agreement.
If we've under estimated the cost of maintaining the pitch in our annual contracts with Gloucester
City then it's completely our fault and not theirs.
Think Mal has every right to be concerned and say so on here. This is a CTFC forum. Ralph ,with respect I think your response is way OTT, especially for a mod.Ralph wrote:Mal rather than you and your little mate always bitching about GCFC being here, go to the entrances of WR and start a petition the old fashioned way with signatures or something. Do something about it you WUM
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29856
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Nothing new there little Mo.little mo wrote:Think Mal has every right to be concerned and say so on here. This is a CTFC forum. Ralph ,with respect I think your response is way OTT, especially for a mod.Ralph wrote:Mal rather than you and your little mate always bitching about GCFC being here, go to the entrances of WR and start a petition the old fashioned way with signatures or something. Do something about it you WUM
BUT surely there is a limit to the amount of times we can read that #GCO before becoming bored? We all want Glos City off the pitch, but it ain't gonna happen. If it does happen, it will be because GJ gives the club an ultimatum (me or GCFC) or because GCFC find a new home of their own accord. So it's pretty pointless keeping on banging on about it. Plus, the boys proved today you can still play decent football on a rough pitch.
I can't agree, some of the control by Holman and Dayton at the start of the second half in front of me was absolutely brilliant, and a number of others around me said that clearly the pitch wasn't affecting the way we were playing.
As others have said, we have more worries about playing on Braintree's and Eastleigh's pitches. A shite pitch will not be the reason we don't go up (assuming we don't).
As others have said, we have more worries about playing on Braintree's and Eastleigh's pitches. A shite pitch will not be the reason we don't go up (assuming we don't).
-
London Exile
- Posts: 3198
- Joined: 06 Dec 2009, 15:48
I thought Wrighty should've laid it off before losing the ballMalabus wrote:Wright lost control because the ball bobbled and changed direction and they scored.Shade wrote:When did it hamper us today? Seriously, give me 3 moments when it did.
Last edited by London Exile on 30 Jan 2016, 19:45, edited 1 time in total.
Interestingly Worcester City have been paying Kiddie less than half the amount Glos have been paying us (21K) , although Kiddie want to bump it up to 45K next season.
Strange how our groundsman is praised initially, then PB says that more immediate post match remedial work needs to be done which surely is the responsibility of the groundsman.
Strange how our groundsman is praised initially, then PB says that more immediate post match remedial work needs to be done which surely is the responsibility of the groundsman.
Every other post that he makes on here? Getting old..little mo wrote:Think Mal has every right to be concerned and say so on here. This is a CTFC forum. Ralph ,with respect I think your response is way OTT, especially for a mod.Ralph wrote:Mal rather than you and your little mate always bitching about GCFC being here, go to the entrances of WR and start a petition the old fashioned way with signatures or something. Do something about it you WUM
-
RegencyCheltenhamSpa
- Posts: 29856
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
In Gary's video interview after the game when asked about the pitch he said that the ball bobbled on the pitch and caused Wright to lose control for their goal and that we have to be careful.Shade wrote:Wright just held on to the ball for too long. His one f#!$ up of the game, really.
Bromley were very poor, though. We tried a number of short lay-offs which got stuck and didn't reach their intended target five yards away. I'm not complaining and we clearly took our foot off the gas in the second half - but I wouldn't go over the top about either our performance or the state of the pitch.
-
London Exile
- Posts: 3198
- Joined: 06 Dec 2009, 15:48
I thought only the World of Smile Stadium and New Lawn were capable of hosting National League football.
I thought Evesham's ground would require some improvement as would Cirencester's
I thought Evesham's ground would require some improvement as would Cirencester's
Gloucester would have to accept demotion on the last day of the season.London Exile wrote:I thought only the World of Smile Stadium and New Lawn were capable of hosting National League football.
I thought Evesham's ground would require some improvement as would Cirencester's
Evesham have a capacity of 3000 which meets the minimum criteria, 500 seats as well. I'm unsure of other ctiteria. But capacity wise it fits the bill for conference north footballMalabus wrote:Gloucester would have to accept demotion on the last day of the season.London Exile wrote:I thought only the World of Smile Stadium and New Lawn were capable of hosting National League football.
I thought Evesham's ground would require some improvement as would Cirencester's
-
Sprout Picker
- Posts: 1150
- Joined: 20 Nov 2009, 11:20
I heard something similar a few months ago during pre-season. Pray it's true.mattyboi wrote:From what I've heard from a local source in Gloucester where their youth team play, Gloucester will be playing at Evesham United as of next season.
This is the grading regs from 2012:
http://thepyramid.info/misc/ground.htm
Gloucester fall into Category B:
1.3 Capacity
A-E
The stadium must have a minimum capacity of X spectators, including the seated spectators, as certified by the local authority or calculated by a competent person, in accordance with the “Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds”, (Green Guide) current edition at the time of inspection
B-D
There must also be potential to increase the capacity to Y in the future
B
... and a Club must, by the 31st March following the date of inspection, demonstrate how this [increase in] capacity can be achieved.
Values of X and Y:
A: X = 4,000, Y = 5,000
B: X = 3,000, Y = 4,000
C: X = 1,950, Y = 3,000
D: X = 1,300, Y = 1,950
E: X = 1,000
Seats:
A-H
The minimum covered accommodation must be X, [A-G: of which at least Y shall be seats located in one stand,] [A: with no stand having less than 100 seats.] [A-G: These seats may be inclusive of Directors/Committee and press seating.]
Values of X and Y:
A-B: X = 500, Y = 250
C: X = 500, Y = 250
D: X = 300, Y = 150
E: X = 250, Y = 150
F: X = 100, Y = 100
F: X = 100, Y = 50
H: X = 50
http://thepyramid.info/misc/ground.htm
Gloucester fall into Category B:
1.3 Capacity
A-E
The stadium must have a minimum capacity of X spectators, including the seated spectators, as certified by the local authority or calculated by a competent person, in accordance with the “Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds”, (Green Guide) current edition at the time of inspection
B-D
There must also be potential to increase the capacity to Y in the future
B
... and a Club must, by the 31st March following the date of inspection, demonstrate how this [increase in] capacity can be achieved.
Values of X and Y:
A: X = 4,000, Y = 5,000
B: X = 3,000, Y = 4,000
C: X = 1,950, Y = 3,000
D: X = 1,300, Y = 1,950
E: X = 1,000
Seats:
A-H
The minimum covered accommodation must be X, [A-G: of which at least Y shall be seats located in one stand,] [A: with no stand having less than 100 seats.] [A-G: These seats may be inclusive of Directors/Committee and press seating.]
Values of X and Y:
A-B: X = 500, Y = 250
C: X = 500, Y = 250
D: X = 300, Y = 150
E: X = 250, Y = 150
F: X = 100, Y = 100
F: X = 100, Y = 50
H: X = 50
