Jump to content
IGNORED

Luton not ready

Midred

By Midred
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
Just now, cidered abroad said:

In any other league and sport, if a club's stadium does not meet the requirements at the time of qualifying for promotion, then promotion would not be a granted.

Personally I don't think that is right. My opinion is that so long as the stadium is safe then if you qualify on sporting merit that should not be denied due to facility issues.

It's a rare example of football actually recognising and allowing meritocratic advancement at the expense of commercial gain. 

It's to be applauded in my opinion.

  • Like 21
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bris Red

Bris Red

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

In any other league and sport, if a club's stadium does not meet the requirements at the time of qualifying for promotion, then promotion would not be a granted.

 

Indeed. If they haven’t got the facilities ready in time then they shouldn’t have a place in the Premier league IMO.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Swan and Cemetery

The Swan and Cemetery

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Personally I don't think that is right. My opinion is that so long as the stadium is safe then if you qualify on sporting merit that should not be denied due to facility issues.

It's a rare example of football actually recognising and allowing meritocratic advancement at the expense of commercial gain. 

It's to be applauded in my opinion.

Couldn’t agree more, the objective is winning football matches, not having padded seats. Kenilworth Road maybe old school (and all the better for it), it’s not unsafe. Additional qualifying criteria (other than safety) beyond sporting achievement is embarrassing (see rugby’s attempt at a closed shop). 

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1960maaan

1960maaan

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Personally I don't think that is right. My opinion is that so long as the stadium is safe then if you qualify on sporting merit that should not be denied due to facility issues.

It's a rare example of football actually recognising and allowing meritocratic advancement at the expense of commercial gain. 

It's to be applauded in my opinion.

As I understand it, a lot of the improvements are to things like VAR etc, very specific to the Prem if true. If the likes of the gAss got into the Championship ( stop sniggering at the back ) they would be given a couple of years to seat the Stadium, and rightly so. As long as the Club involved is actively making the changes to fall in line with the League they've joined, more power to them. Promotion is every Clubs dream and that shouldn't really fall down because of petty rules. The Football is the thing. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, The Swan and Cemetery said:

Couldn’t agree more, the objective is winning football matches, not having padded seats. Kenilworth Road maybe old school (and all the better for it), it’s not unsafe. Additional qualifying criteria (other than safety) beyond sporting achievement is embarrassing (see rugby’s attempt at a closed shop). 

Yep, I recently overheard a Doncaster Knights player complaining quite fairly about their recent promotion denial due to facilities. It's mad.

Football gives a 3 year grace period generally. @1960maaan you're correct re getting to "all seater". It's smart as well because often a team that comes up with poor facilities is likely to go back down withing that grace period. Burton are a good recent example of a team coming up to the Championship and having three seasons within which to get their stadium all seater...but they didn't do it initially and they went back down. Good. They didn't waste money getting facilities they don't need and can't maintain.

It's a remarkable instance of football actually being quite smart and not solely thinking about the £££.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
milo1111

milo1111

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Personally I don't think that is right. My opinion is that so long as the stadium is safe then if you qualify on sporting merit that should not be denied due to facility issues.

It's a rare example of football actually recognising and allowing meritocratic advancement at the expense of commercial gain. 

It's to be applauded in my opinion.

It’s not though really is it. They only grant them the extra leeway as it would be a total embarrassment if a team qualified for the so called best sporting competition in the world but then weren’t allowed to take that opportunity.

it would harm the brand.

it’s not about meritocratic advancement.  It’s the organisation that dishes out parachute payments ffs.

Edited by milo1111
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CodeRed

CodeRed

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, The Swan and Cemetery said:

Couldn’t agree more, the objective is winning football matches, not having padded seats. Kenilworth Road maybe old school (and all the better for it), it’s not unsafe. Additional qualifying criteria (other than safety) beyond sporting achievement is embarrassing (see rugby’s attempt at a closed shop). 

All the improvements are solely for the benefit of Sky and the media, the contractual requirement from sky is for extended gantries, 50 camera positions, media studio, communication facilities for up to 100 domestic and international journalists with online connections plus separate  toilets for the media and a canteen for the  sky crew ( you don't expect Carra and Gary Nev to queue for a pie and the 80 year old bogs?) - the facilities for the fans remain largely unaltered. Luton are rebuilding the low rise Bobbers Stand to comply with these requirements and everything required will be housed on that side of the ground together with new floodlights( for TV). The other 3 sides of the ground will be mainly unaltered as their new ground plans will be accelerated as a result of all the Sky money.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Street red

Street red

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, cidered abroad said:

In any other league and sport, if a club's stadium does not meet the requirements at the time of qualifying for promotion, then promotion would not be a granted.

 

Can't see the problem they've been in the top league before playing the likes of Liverpool etc but I suppose modern day standards and all that crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
Just now, milo1111 said:

It’s not though really is it. They only grant them the extra leeway as it would be a total embarrassment if a team qualified for the so called best sporting Compton the world but then weren’t allowed to take that opportunity.

it would harm the brand.

it’s not about meritocratic advancement.  It’s the organisation that dishes out parachute payments ffs.

But it allows access to those payments by merit rather than whoever has been able to improve their stadium to a standard beyond that required for the level they were at.

As to parachute payments - hence my comment that it is a rare example of the encouragement of meritocracy rather than a consistent one. Yes the PL would like a cosy closed shop of 23 teams, but the promotion grace periods are a rare example of that not being pushed too hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here is an interesting one along similar lines.

The opening weekend on the season, we play Preston at home.

That said same weekend, that same day Deepdale is hosting a Liverpool friendly, Liverpool are renting it out from Preston.

What do we think of this. Did this factor in to Preston being granted an away game to us to begin?

Screenshot_20230714-210959_Chrome.thumb.jpg.96bca1857456d05917a4edaa16126c02.jpg

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites
milo1111

milo1111

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Given they have a League Cup game reportedly Tuesday 8th August at Deepdale and then Sunderland at home on Saturday 12th August this seems somewhat cavalier.

I suppose it’s summer so the pitch won’t be heavy. Although looking at the weather lately that’s not a given ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, milo1111 said:

I suppose it’s summer so the pitch won’t be heavy. Although looking at the weather lately that’s not a given ?

They said having looked further that the start of the season clubs can request for varied reasons home or away opening game..whether it is granted is a different thing but unsure whether this is a legitimate reason really.

No major deal but seems a bit odd. Should EFL games not take priority? As it happens away to us no big deal but..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrahamC

GrahamC

Posted
Posted

Seeing as their fans are a right load of salty ******* on social media, still banging on about us signing Naismith, I wonder if anyone has suggested to them switching it to a Premiership standard ground, in say, BS3?

Agree with the sentiment, hope they finish bottom with a record low points total.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Here is an interesting one along similar lines.

The opening weekend on the season, we play Preston at home.

That said same weekend, that same day Deepdale is hosting a Liverpool friendly, Liverpool are renting it out from Preston.

What do we think of this. Did this factor in to Preston being granted an away game to us to begin?

Screenshot_20230714-210959_Chrome.thumb.jpg.96bca1857456d05917a4edaa16126c02.jpg

@Lrrr imagine having to pay £98.99 eh? ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slartibartfast

slartibartfast

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said:

Personally I don't think that is right. My opinion is that so long as the stadium is safe then if you qualify on sporting merit that should not be denied due to facility issues.

It's a rare example of football actually recognising and allowing meritocratic advancement at the expense of commercial gain. 

It's to be applauded in my opinion.

Totally disagree, it's nothing to do with safety.......it's all to do with journos, tv people etc. etc. the "nice to haves" not necessarys, in other words MONEY !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, slartibartfast said:

As is their right .

Exactly it is.

Like I say Preston hosting a Liverpool v Darmstadt game at Deepdale on the opening weekend of the EFL season feels a bit sketchy to me, had we been drawn there opening day may have put them in a bit of a bind.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...