This query is completely open.

The draw for the 4th round of the FA Cup has now been drawn.

Fourth round draw:

Norwich or Brighton v Plymouth or Dag & Red
Southampton v Cambridge Utd or Millwall
Walsall or Reading v Wimbledon
Blackburn v Bolton or Sunderland
Rochdale v Cardiff or Coventry
Fulham v Charlton
Sheffield Utd v Ipswich
Shrewsbury v Chelsea
Stoke v Bournemouth or Crewe
Brentford v Grimsby or Burnley
Farnborough v Arsenal
Manchester United v West Ham
Gillingham or Sheffield Wednesday v Leeds
Wolves v Leicester
Watford v West Brom
Crystal Palace v Liverpool

(Ties to be played on 25/26 January)

In this country, money (sic) is the issue.

Some of these draws mean that the higher division teams play the lower division team at their home ground.

For example; Farnborough play Arsenal, and Shrewsbury play Chelsea.

Please bear with me.

Most of the players who play for the larger clubs, earn £40,000 per week, the players with the smaller clubs earn about £200.00 per week, and also have some other job/s to sustain a decent living standard.

Would it be more beneficial, for both teams, that the lower positioned team played their Cup Tie at the other's home ground, where the numbers would be higher, where gate percentages are usually 60/40.

If, as the draw states, Shrewsbury have to play Chelsea at home, then the gate would be 7,000, whereas if the game was played at Stamford Bridge, the gate would be 46,000.

Chelsea can fill every game at home, therefore guaranteeing maximum profits, but, for a 'one off' with Shrewsbury, at home, could guarantee Shrewsbury economical survival.

Home grown talent comes from the lower divisions, not another country, shouldn't we be allowed to see for ourselves, even if they lose?

Shouldn't the government intervene and help the others? The tax man would feel better.

I accept all comments, ta.

In reply to:

---

Would it be more beneficial, for both teams, that the lower positioned team played their Cup Tie at the other's home ground.

---

This usually happens anyway, but in rare cases, the 'official' home team do play at home, although I cannot really see Farnborough missing the opportunity to make money from playing Arsenal at Highbury.

I assume that you've read this silverginger.

Farnborough to play at Highbury

From watching Sky Sports News, it's understood that they must play the tie at home if their ground meets the FA's requirements. They cannot do this purely for financial reasons. Looking at the ground though is a different matter. I can't see it meeting their requirements at all.

Boom Boom. Saw the pictures of the ground, definitely agree with you. I would call it dilapidated.

Don't you think, maybe if Shrewsbury had made the same claim, before the 3rd round, then they would have played Everton at Goodison, and now they would play Chelsea at the Bridge.

Shrewsbury will play their game against Chelsea at home, but they will still have the same problems.

Maybe Farnborough has set a precedent, and the rest should watch the 'result' with interest.

With regards to Sky 'claiming' that the figure they will pay for live coverage at Farnborough is a 6 figure, they would get better viewing figures at Highbury, because Sky already have their camera stands set up for all their home games.

Sky wouldn't lose, Arsenal wouldn't lose, Farnborough can't lose, apart from the game.

Just a thought

It's now been announced that the game will go ahead at Highbury. Big payday for Farnborough in the end

Dampner comes down.

Guess who'll get the dosh. The Board. 50/50 corrupt.
The ground will get done up, £75,000, the rest, 50/50 at Highbury, say £200,000.

Fat cats, but I'm with Farnborough.