|
Post by roofless on May 23, 2006 22:13:46 GMT
As long as they are financially ok... if not then I assume Alty will stay up by default as the only team going down based on points!
|
|
|
Post by ojiveojive on May 24, 2006 13:26:38 GMT
Jase, complain to the Non League Daily, not me. Roofless, this was taken from the Scarborough site: Boro chief satisfys criteria Boro met up with Conference officials yesterday to discuss the club's financial stability. Chairman Malcolm Reynolds and director Ian Scobbie attended the meeting at Leicester City’s Walkers Stadium to confirm to the Conference that they had come out of administration. The club were originally given a deadline of last weekend to come out of administration or they would suffer relegation. Reynolds said: "We believe we have satisfied every criteria and we will meet up with them again at the AGM next month." So, Tamworth, who would have finished in the relegation places if Altrincham hadn't broken the rules, are saved by the resignation of Canvey Island. Scarborough, who now appear to be out of administration, are saved by the relegation of Altrincham for breaking the rules. Next season will see three relegated from the conference once again so let's hope you can finish 4th from bottom or better
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on May 24, 2006 15:41:18 GMT
Are we back to a North V South play-off final then Ojiveojive.
|
|
|
Post by J Esaj PRA on May 24, 2006 15:41:36 GMT
Jase, complain to the Non League Daily, not me. Wasn't complaining to anyone - just pointing out the lack of factual accuracy. Even the local press in Tamworth is incapable of getting the league table right. / Form the Scabby site: "So, Tamworth, who would have finished in the relegation places if Altrincham hadn't broken the rules, are saved by the resignation of Canvey Island. Scarborough, who now appear to be out of administration, are saved by the relegation of Altrincham for breaking the rules." Close, but no cigar. If anything, Altrincham 'saved' Tamworth and Canvey saved Scarborough. At the end of the day, people can believe what they like. I just prefer to go with the facts! ;D Next season will see three relegated from the conference once again so let's hope you can finish 4th from bottom or better Err, it'll have to be fifth from bottom or better, as the Conference will now relegate four teams every season. The league increased its membership numbers to come into line with the Football League. It has also introduced four up, four down - similar to the FL - which enhances the chances of more rubbish feeder league teams discovering how crap the Conference is for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on May 24, 2006 15:46:53 GMT
So there will not be a North V South play-off final then. It'll be like this season. BTW is it worth "running a book" on who will actually get relegated from the conference next season, as opposed to which teams will finish in the relegation zone ;D
|
|
|
Post by Giggy of Telford on May 24, 2006 15:50:39 GMT
Err, it'll have to be fifth from bottom or better, as the Conference will now relegate four teams every season. The league increased its membership numbers to come into line with the Football League. It has also introduced four up, four down - similar to the FL - which enhances the chances of more rubbish feeder league teams discovering how crap the Conference is for themselves. That's what I'd heard, 4 up and 4 down which is easy enough with 24 teams and 2 feeder leagues.
|
|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on May 25, 2006 17:33:11 GMT
[ That's what I'd heard, 4 up and 4 down which is easy enough with 24 teams and 2 feeder leagues. The really exciting thing is that it can be ANY four out of the twenty four that get the push. Far better than the boring old Football League where the teams that finish at the bottom are automatically relegated...
|
|
|
Post by ojiveojive on May 30, 2006 8:27:38 GMT
Ooops, a senior moment there, 4 down it is
|
|
pies
Stale bacon bap
Super Sexy Sutton
Posts: 230
|
Post by pies on Jun 1, 2006 13:47:04 GMT
Personally i hope Crapshalton lose their appeal as it would be hilarious. Also Leigh only went down on goal difference, whilst the filth fell 2 points short of Hayes, ergo Leigh had a better record and deserve to stay up.
|
|
|
Post by Sultan of Cannock- SRFC on Jun 1, 2006 21:56:59 GMT
Whatever happens you can't lose as a Sutton fan. They've had to go through all the ignomony of a relegation season, they'll struggle again if they're saved plus you'll still have your derby matches.
I was actually hoping that Hednesford stayed up in case we didn't go up, because with respect to the likes of Blyth we couldn't have expected them to bring us a 2000 crowd.
|
|
|
Post by MiB TFC on Jun 1, 2006 23:54:01 GMT
I was actually hoping that Hednesford stayed up in case we didn't go up, because with respect to the likes of Blyth we couldn't have expected them to bring us a 2000 crowd. I may be missing something obvious here and being extremely slow on the uptake, due to it being rather late and following a visit to the pub, but, having read this several times, you're saying Hednesfraud would bring 2000? I think the '0' is a bit sticky on your keyboard.
|
|
|
Post by ambersalamander on Jun 3, 2006 9:51:32 GMT
yeah, 20 is about right ;D
|
|
|
Post by frankiegth on Jun 4, 2006 20:24:32 GMT
This issue has still not been settled. Carshalton, IMO should NOT be relegated, they have a superior record(at the same level) as LeighRMI. As in, Leigh Really Must Improve ;D
|
|
pies
Stale bacon bap
Super Sexy Sutton
Posts: 230
|
Post by pies on Jun 5, 2006 11:34:55 GMT
But didn't Leigh finish closer to survival than the Bobbins?
|
|
|
Post by Giggy of Telford on Jun 5, 2006 12:15:16 GMT
I'll flip a coin for it: HEADS: Leigh stay up. TAILS: Carshalton stay up. ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a ten pence piece . . the coin says . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .It was made in 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Its HEADS so Leigh stay up The sad thing is that's probably the kind of evidence the FA will actually bother looking at.
|
|