[themaclad]

Gateshead have been barred from taking part in the National League play-offs after failing to meet the entry criteria for membership of the English Football League.

The club failed to secure a "10-year security of tenure" at the International Stadium, where they have played since 1971-72, by 1 March.

The National League said Gateshead cannot be replaced in the play-offs.

Gateshead finished sixth in the table and were set to play Solihull Moors.

"Gateshead Football Club are extremely disappointed to find ourselves in the position as outlined in the statements released by the EFL and the National League," the club said.

"Rest assured we will continue to challenge both on their decisions, and we will endeavour to ensure that footballing matters are decided on the pitch.

"Therefore our players and staff remain 100% focused on the task in hand, and we wish to go on record to express our gratitude to the National League for supporting our challenge to the EFL."

Gateshead's planned eliminator on Tuesday, 23 April has now been cancelled.

The National League initially said Solihull would get a bye to the semi-finals but then adjusted the draw based on final league positions.

Altrincham, who finished fourth, will now get a bye to the semi-finals, where they will travel to Bromley, while Solihull will host FC Halifax Town on Wednesday for the right to visit Barnet in the last four.

In a statement, the National League said it was "extremely disappointed" that Gateshead would not be able to take part after supporting the club's application for the security of tenure, allowing them to extend the lease on the stadium, which is owned by Gateshead Council.

"Unfortunately, the response received was not supportive of the club's requirements and placed the club at risk of a refusal of membership to the EFL and therefore forfeiture of any right to participate in the play-offs," the statement said.

"On 28 March 2024, following the deadline for licence applications to the EFL had passed, the council offered options to the club. However, in the opinion of the EFL these options still did not satisfy their requirements."

An appeal by the club, which was supported by the National League, was rejected by an EFL arbitration panel.

"As the EFL strongly believes in the principles of promotion and relegation it is therefore highly disappointing that appropriate solutions have not been put in place over the previous two-year period, as avoidable circumstances are preventing Gateshead from progressing up the pyramid even if the club achieves success through sporting merit," an EFL statement added.

"The League hopes that Gateshead and the relevant stakeholders can address this matter so that the club can meet the obligations of EFL membership and be eligible for promotion in future seasons."

[themaclad]

Council leader Martin Gannon has said Gateshead Football Club have been offered a 10-year lease to remain at the International Stadium and stability as per English Football League guidelines, despite being denied the chance of promotion.

The National League withdrew their play-off place after the EFL said Gateshead would not meet criteria - a "10-year security of tenure" - relating to their tenancy at the venue because of council uncertainties around a new stadium operator.

In reply, the council said the stadium would remain in its hands but that any terms between the club and said operator would need to be renegotiated.

"It's not that the stadium is up for sale," Gannon told BBC Look North.

"The provision that seems to be causing all the dispute is that we've written in that the football club will have the right to renegotiate terms with the new operator.

He added: "They can't negotiate with the council if we're not operating the stadium. That wording was agreed with the National League.

"We've given them a licence, if they get promoted they will get a licence from Gateshead Council for the continued use of the stadium."

The Tynesiders are considering taking legal action following the decision of both the National League and the EFL to deny them an opportunity to gain entry to the '92' and give the town a 'league' club for the first time since 1960.

On Monday, the club confirmed it had served notice to take both the EFL and the National League to arbitration, under FA rules, over the decision.

Fans have had their say, calling the decision "unjust".

Gateshead's planned eliminator on Tuesday, 23 April has now been cancelled.

The National League initially said Solihull would get a bye to the semi-finals but then adjusted the draw based on final league positions.

Altrincham, who finished fourth, will now get a bye to the semi-finals, where they will travel to Bromley, while Solihull will host FC Halifax Town on Wednesday for the right to visit Barnet in the last four.

In a statement, the National League said it was "extremely disappointed" that Gateshead would not be able to take part after supporting the club's application for the security of tenure, allowing them to extend the lease on the stadium.

"Unfortunately, the response received was not supportive of the club's requirements and placed the club at risk of a refusal of membership to the EFL and therefore forfeiture of any right to participate in the play-offs," the statement read.

"On 28 March 2024, following the deadline for licence applications to the EFL had passed, the council offered options to the club. However, in the opinion of the EFL these options still did not satisfy their requirements."

An appeal by the club, which was supported by the National League, was rejected by an EFL arbitration panel.

"As the EFL strongly believes in the principles of promotion and relegation it is therefore highly disappointing that appropriate solutions have not been put in place over the previous two-year period, as avoidable circumstances are preventing Gateshead from progressing up the pyramid even if the club achieves success through sporting merit," an EFL statement added.

"The League hopes that Gateshead and the relevant stakeholders can address this matter so that the club can meet the obligations of EFL membership and be eligible for promotion in future seasons."

[Lord Snooty]

Disgraceful.

[themaclad]

Think a couple of seasons ago they had financial issues so in a way can understand why the league have done this

[St Charles Owl]

While it seems harsh, and certainly a bit pedantic, at the end of the day Gateshead knew the rules and left it until after the last minute to get this sorted. I have sympathy, but not much.

[Devongone]

One would have thought that the rules would have legislated for the event of any club finishing in the top seven not qualifying for EFL membership and been catered for by the next team down the table in eighth becoming eligible.

As things are at the moment Bromley can't go up either, because of their artificial pitch - so they need to dig it up - if they reach Wembley and win. Sutton gained promotion first and then dug up their pitch. So why couldn't Gateshead satisfy tenure requirements once they were in a position to be promoted.

Altrincham have now gained an advantage by not playing, and their semi-final opponents a disadvantage.

The deeper truth however is that Gateshead should not be an EFL club at the moment, despite having a good team. They do not have the support or the finance and are only steps away from a time of complete instability.

If clubs which really cannot sustain EFL membership keep gaining promotion from the National League that surely weakens the Football League? I don't know the answer to that one, other than that their status of being unavailable for promotion should be known much earlier in the season. By battling to achieve a top seven place Gateshead effectively deprived another club of an opportunity to progress ..... but in the National League that club's own eligibility and/or suitability might well also have been in doubt.

[Lord Snooty]

Would I be right in saying that the National League is being run by idiots? Or is that me just generalising all football bosses?

[Devongone]

It does seem the National League has a problem at the top. They originally announced Solihull would get the bye - forgetting which finishing positions play which in the play-offs. Then they corrected themselves, but I think that according to their own rules the club finishing eighth should simply have taken Gateshead's place and there would have been no byes. (And no byes is unlikely when Jonny Bairstow keeps wicket!)