First of all I'd like to say in principle i whole heartedly agree with the Charter Standard Scheme and many of the other schemes that the FA have introduced to improve overall standards.

BUT ...... I'm not sure about the introduction of Annual Renewals.

Our Club first received their Charter Standard in 2005, renewed in 2008 and should have been up for renewal in 2011. Each time we've submitted our applications well ahead of the deadlines, and each time the FA have taken an age to process them.

I'm aware of the pledge that only 'incomplete' re-application will have to be discussed. The aim is to improve standards on an annual basis, BUT , and here's my concerns, IF the FA are effectively 'rubber stamping' existing renewals, HOW can that IMPROVE standards, surely with at least THREE TIMES the normal workload being submitted each year, the extra workload alone must surely lead to poor practice and questionable checking.

This time last year, we were all threatened with the 'You must have a qualified ref by September' by the FA, many said then the maths couldn't support such a practice, when push came to shove it couldn't, and the whole thing was put back 12 months.

Don't get me wrong the idea is a good one, the practice and COST of Child protection / First Aid training is massive.

The FA's school report would read:
"Tries hard, but seldom puts its potential into practice"

Darrellm64 wrote:
First of all I'd like to say in principle i whole heartedly agree with the Charter Standard Scheme and many of the other schemes that the FA have introduced to improve overall standards.

BUT ...... I'm not sure about the introduction of Annual Renewals.

Our Club first received their Charter Standard in 2005, renewed in 2008 and should have been up for renewal in 2011. Each time we've submitted our applications well ahead of the deadlines, and each time the FA have taken an age to process them.

I'm aware of the pledge that only 'incomplete' re-application will have to be discussed. The aim is to improve standards on an annual basis, BUT , and here's my concerns, IF the FA are effectively 'rubber stamping' existing renewals, HOW can that IMPROVE standards, surely with at least THREE TIMES the normal workload being submitted each year, the extra workload alone must surely lead to poor practice and questionable checking.

This time last year, we were all threatened with the 'You must have a qualified ref by September' by the FA, many said then the maths couldn't support such a practice, when push came to shove it couldn't, and the whole thing was put back 12 months.

Don't get me wrong the idea is a good one, the practice and COST of Child protection / First Aid training is massive.

The FA's school report would read:
"Tries hard, but seldom puts its potential into practice"


The Charter Standard Committee meet every other month, and your application has to be first checked by the Football Development Officer. SHCFA have a new FDO in place (since September), and the initial check process is going a lot faster now. The completed applications then go to the Committee to approve. Each appplication at a meeting is discussed at length.

Regarding Health Check renewals, the initial checking is done in this case by the League Secretary, SHCFA FDO and SHCFA CWO. Any applications that they cannot agree on will be taken to the Committee.

The Annual Health check means that clubs keep on top of things, instead of waiting 2.5 years before rushing around to get the renewal in. This should be viewed as a positive.

The rules regarding referee's has been a requirement since 2008.

Regarding cost, this League and the County FA have put on FREE course for 1st Aid and Welfare. Since Bessacarr FC have obtained Charter Status we have received over £200 in vouchers, to spend on equipment. We have used the £200 that we would have spent on equipment to put people on to training courses.

I think you miss my point, or i didn't make it very clear.

Using the referees as an example. Last year S&H waived the big 'insurance' stick at clubs," You must have a qualified referee or ...". ( And YES it is a good idea, but one poorly thought through)

Doing the simple maths, there was NO WAY that S&H could have coped with the the numbers of 'new' referees that were being pushed through.

So at the eleventh hour it was altered, from sept 2009 to sept 2010.

My point was WILL the 'health checks' be the same, only time will tell.

Secondly are they 'health checks' or renewals?
As i understand it,if we as a club don't submit a 'health check', our award is removed.
So in fact its not a check to make sure that everything's ticking along , its annual renewal by the back door. My concern was, and still is, what if the same system applies as the referees, GREAT idea, unworkable in the short term, or worse still, a reduction in standards, a reduction in quality applications just so the system 'appears' to work?

Our club was one of the first awarded the Charter Mark, but my fear is that overall standards will be reduced.

As far as I am aware, the regulations regarding ref's have been and remain in place since 2008, but that is a different issue. This issue is an FA regulation

Regarding the health check, this is its name but you are right in saying it is a renewal.

The checks are to be done in small manageable chucks (by Leagues) and every League concerned will take its time to check the applications submitted. Its only the clubs doing the renewal, so in the DDJSFL that is about 60 clubs to be done by March, The Millennium League in May, SDJFL in July, Sheffield Girls League in Sept and then adult teams in November. The work is spread out, so I can't see a problem arising. In some cases where leagues have large numbers of teams, the applicants may get separated in terms of their alphabetical order A-M and N-Z.

This process allows the County FA and League Secretaries a month to go through the applications, and also get back to clubs that need additional information and support, before the Charter Standard Committee meets to discuss applications.

I truely hope you're right, that everything comes off okay, which will then allow the County FA and leagues to tackle the thornier problem, of clubs/teams who view success in terms of silverware ( at any and all costs ) not in terms of players who enjoy participating.