It was reported in the Coventry Telegraph last night that an agreement had been reached for Coventry City to ground share with Northampton Town at the latter’s Sixfields Stadium while a new permanent stadium is built at an undisclosed location somewhere in the Coventry area.
The Telegraph reports that the Football League Board were due to discuss the proposal today. The League has made no announcement so far.
Northampton’s chairman David Cardoza told the BBC that “There’s some legs in this, but it’s not near done and dusted,” adding: “It’s speculation at the minute.”
If Northampton and Coventry do reach a deal to share the Sixfields and the proposal is ratified by the Football League; Northampton will play second-fiddle to Coventry City on the 10 occasions when both teams are due to be home.
Internet forums and the media have quoted Football League regulations on ground sharing, particularly regulation 13.4 which states: “Ground sharing will only be approved at the discretion of the Board. The Board will not generally approve any ground-sharing arrangement where the club plays its matches outside the conurbation, as defined by the Board, from which the Club takes its name or with which it is otherwise traditionally associated.”
Many people have interpreted this by saying that a club can only ground share within 30 miles of its existing stadium – but such a condition is not stipulated in the regulations. That may be one of the Football League’s unpublished rules, or it may be that it has been applied to a different club. But the regulations themselves state it is at the discretion of the board; and the conurbation requirement will only be applied “generally”.
But little attention has been paid to the Football Association’s rules which would also apply to any ground sharing.
The Football Association’s rule 2.3.1 states that where two clubs enter a ground-sharing agreement “the Club playing in the most senior competition has priority of fixtures at all times”.
This means that if Coventry City and Northampton Town do agree a ground-sharing arrangement, League One Coventry City’s fixtures would take priority over League Two Northampton.
Northampton’s home matches against Newport, Torquay, Scunthorpe, Exeter, Morecambe, York, Southend United, Bristol Rovers, Mansfield and AFC Wimbledon would have to move to a Friday or Sunday (FA rule 8.13) to make way for Coventry’s home matches against Bristol City, Preston North End, Colchester, Gillingham, Brentford, Crawley Town, Carlisle, Shrewsbury, Port Vale and Stevenage.
But the possibility of a ground share being ratified by the FA is slim, if the Association applies its rules correctly. The same rule (2.3.1) states that: “Ground sharing may not be permitted when one of the sharers retains the use of another ground unless that club can show by means of a refused planning permission or similar that it cannot meet the requirements of the Criteria Document at that ground.”
Coventry City’s present landlord, Arena Coventry Limited (ACL), has repeatedly said that it wants Coventry City to continue playing at the Ricoh Arena. The difficulty is that it won’t negotiate with the proposed new owners while the club is still in administration. ACL says it can only negotiate with the administrator as legally, the administrator is the person responsible for running the club until it exits administration.
The FA rule also states that, except in an emergency, any ground sharing agreement must be completed by the 31st March if a club is to be permitted to ground share in the following season.
- The Northampton Chronicle and Echo’s report of the story contains a peculiar line: “The deal would not be a groundshare, but purely a rental agreement.” I have absolutely no idea what they mean by this. Both the Football Association and the Football League require member clubs to have their own ground with security of tenure; but will allow the sharing of a ground, either with another member club, or with another sporting club, but such sharing agreements require the consent of both the FA and the Football League. The rules do not cover any situation that could be described as “purely a rental agreement”.
Footy Law 
Could you just clarify where it says in rule 8.13 that the team with primacy has to play on the Saturday while the other team has to move to Friday or Sunday? Seems to me that rule gives rise to the sharing clubs coming to an amicable agreement. You perhaps should address that part of your article as its not factually correct and you are misquoting the rule.
Section 5 of the Football League regulations govern the playing of fixtures in the Football League. As a whole, the regulations protect Tuesday and Saturdays as the main playing days, with exceptions allowed for televised matches and clashes with the FA Cup (which takes precedence).
The League Board can approve re-arrangements of League Matches at its discretion; but the regulations governing when they can do this are cumbersome (read the whole of section 5 – it is too much to summarise here).
The up-shot is that they expect fixtures to be played at the time specified by the League, not at a time that’s convenient to the club.
The FA’s rules state: “the Club playing in the most senior competition has priority of fixtures.”
I think that is clear – not the priority to choose when to play (no club can choose when to play, it has to play on the dates specified by the League) but the priority of which of the two clubs plays on the designated day.
The FA’s rule 8.13 discusses fixture clashes.
It states: “Clubs with ground sharing agreements must arrange for home matches to be played on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. If a clash of fixtures occurs with the sharing Club and for any reason a match is unable to be played on a Saturday, the match must be played on either the day before ie on Friday, or the day after ie on Sunday. If Clubs are unable to agree on the date then it will be played on the Sunday unless the Board decides otherwise. The decision of the Board shall be final and binding.”
Note: the rule doesn’t give any suggestion that the clubs can decide which club plays on a Saturday and which plays on a Friday or Sunday – merely that if an agreement can’t be reached on whether the other match (whatever the “other match” is) is played on a Friday or Sunday, the League’s Board decides.
The reason it doesn’t say anything about which club plays on the Saturday is because it doesn’t have to: the rules already dictate that the club playing in the senior competition (in this case League One) takes priority and it would be played on the Saturday if that is what the fixtures say.
That’s YOUR interpretation of the rule and perhaps your article should be clearer in that fact. Your article states it as a fact that Northampton would HAVE to move their fixtures. It makes no allowance for the fact that the club with primacy are within the rules you quote allowed to ask to move their fixture. Might be approved might not be but the option is available and you should reflect that.
Equally one could interpret the rule on primacy to be used to resolve a dispute where the clubs can’t agree.
Interesting article but generally very biased in it’s viewpoint. It also should be clearer when you are making an opinion based on your interpretation of a rule as opposed to a factual statement.