Of the playoffs due to not having a 10 year lease on Gateshead Stadium.

I try to stick up for council but now  if i find out they've cocked up and add to the the extortionate monthly council tax... well maybe its time for a change!

link

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68869062

(21 Apr 2024, 1:28 pm)Rob44 wrote Of the playoffs due to not having a 10 year lease on Gateshead Stadium.

I try to stick up for council but now  if i find out they've cocked up and add to the the extortionate monthly council tax... well maybe its time for a change!

link

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/68869062

It's an utter disgrace. 

The EFL and the Council need to hang their heads in shame. 

Kim McGuinness has came out and said the 10 year terms would kick in if they were promoted. 
But why not just give them it? 
It's not as if a lease can't have get out clauses. 

You've then got the issue of Sutton and Harrogate who were both promoted, despite there being issues with their stadiums.

Not sure how the EFL need to hang their heads in shame as the rules will have been made clear before the start of the season. It is an absolute joke that it's come to this as results have earned them their spot there, especially their clinical dismantling of pools on the 26th of March which was absolutely painful for me to watch.

Sutton and Harrogate issues were purely down to having an artificial pitch, an issue that was resolved before the new season started, albeit Harrogate being able to rearrange their first home game down to the fact they went up through the play offs

(21 Apr 2024, 9:27 pm)beefcake wrote Not sure how the EFL need to hang their heads in shame as the rules will have been made clear before the start of the season. It is an absolute joke that it's come to this as results have earned them their spot there, especially their clinical dismantling of pools on the 26th of March which was absolutely painful for me to watch.

Sutton and Harrogate issues were purely down to having an artificial pitch, an issue that was resolved before the new season started, albeit Harrogate being able to rearrange their first home game down to the fact they went up through the play offs

The rules were made clear, but they've refused to engage and have left it until after the season has finished to make the announcement. 

Quite what the 10 year deal is supposed to bring or stop, is beyond me. 
Coventry? What use was an agreement/lease then? 
Bury had all the agreements in the world. Meant absolutely nothing. 

Then you look at the Sutton and Harrogate examples and you see that they were allowed to be promoted, despite not meeting the rules agreed at the start of the season. 
Yet for some reason, the EFL were OK bending the rules and let them both go up. 
But they're not keen on bending the rules for Gateshead.

They've played the season, they've had an impact on the teams across the division and for what?
Teams were relegated and promoted based on their results across the season, including the games vs Gateshead.

(21 Apr 2024, 9:49 pm)Andreos1 wrote The rules were made clear, but they've refused to engage and have left it until after the season has finished to make the announcement. 

Quite what the 10 year deal is supposed to bring or stop, is beyond me. 
Coventry? What use was an agreement/lease then? 
Bury had all the agreements in the world. Meant absolutely nothing. 

Then you look at the Sutton and Harrogate examples and you see that they were allowed to be promoted, despite not meeting the rules agreed at the start of the season. 
Yet for some reason, the EFL were OK bending the rules and let them both go up. 
But they're not keen on bending the rules for Gateshead.

They've played the season, they've had an impact on the teams across the division and for what?
Teams were relegated and promoted based on their results across the season, including the games vs Gateshead.

Maybe its due to Gateshead Council, they have a feeling they're going to sell the International Stadium and it'll leave Gateshead high and dry so the EFL have straight up said no?

(22 Apr 2024, 12:07 am)deanmachine wrote Maybe its due to Gateshead Council, they have a feeling they're going to sell the International Stadium and it'll leave Gateshead high and dry so the EFL have straight up said no?

It's both imo. 

The EFL for insisting on a rule, which is potentially meaningless anyway. The timing of the announcement, shambolic. 

And the council for seemingly not being interested or able to resolve.