Caramel Wafer Posted June 23, 2013 Share Posted June 23, 2013 ^^^ Wrong thread for that, because it's really about the restructure of the junior grade's east region, but can definitely understand why the LL is attractive for the top SoS clubs. I'm new on here, just trying to find my way around. But winning the South of Scotland League again and not going up or into the Champions League is extremely underwhelming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Just resurrecting an old thread as it appears that re-construction is back on the agenda at the East AGM and not in a good way. Proposed by Lochgelly Albert and supported by Lochore Welfare. Superleague of 16 Clubs, unchanged. Three relegated. Premier League scrapped, and replaced by the old North/Central/South District Leagues, but with only the winners of each league promoted. As it stands today, 15 clubs would be in the North (Tayside and Angus), 13 in the Central (Fife & Perthshire), and 16 in the South (Lothians). Seems complete madness to me, clubs could yet again be stuck in 15/16 club divisions (potentially larger), with little chance of promotion. What the proposers forget was that it was the problem of only one promotion spot per District league that drove change in the first place, bigger leagues, more guaranteed home games and more promotion spots on offer, the game has moved on. It appears to be driven by those who don’t want to travel the length of their own shadows to matches, and want to turn the clock back where their logic is local matches = bigger crowds, bigger sponsorship, more interest etc etc. That is flawed logic. We have a strong set-up, we are attracting new clubs (Kennoway, Easthouses and Craigroyston), others are rumoured to be looking at joining, we have some in the West Region proposing that they should copy what we do. Why on earth would anyone vote to change that and go back to a failed set-up. Hopefully clubs see sense when this ridiculous idea is debated. A lot of points are covered in the previous 5 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 It's just these backwards neebors yahursir that bring up this pish. They should join the amateurs if they want local fixtures. Next they will propose bringing coal mining back BTW I dont class Tayport as neebortown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 It's just these backwards neebors yahursir that bring up this pish. They should join the amateurs if they want local fixtures. Next they will propose bringing coal mining back BTW I dont class Tayport as neebortown Think we're upto 61 clubs next season, and if some chat is to be believed, more the following season. If a few clubs want more local football then you're right, maybe the amateur game is where they should be. Other clubs will be around to replace them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Dair Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Just resurrecting an old thread as it appears that re-construction is back on the agenda at the East AGM and not in a good way. Proposed by Lochgelly Albert and supported by Lochore Welfare. Superleague of 16 Clubs, unchanged. Three relegated. Premier League scrapped, and replaced by the old North/Central/South District Leagues, but with only the winners of each league promoted. As it stands today, 15 clubs would be in the North (Tayside and Angus), 13 in the Central (Fife & Perthshire), and 16 in the South (Lothians). Seems complete madness to me, clubs could yet again be stuck in 15/16 club divisions (potentially larger), with little chance of promotion. What the proposers forget was that it was the problem of only one promotion spot per District league that drove change in the first place, bigger leagues, more guaranteed home games and more promotion spots on offer, the game has moved on. It appears to be driven by those who don’t want to travel the length of their own shadows to matches, and want to turn the clock back where their logic is local matches = bigger crowds, bigger sponsorship, more interest etc etc. That is flawed logic. We have a strong set-up, we are attracting new clubs (Kennoway, Easthouses and Craigroyston), others are rumoured to be looking at joining, we have some in the West Region proposing that they should copy what we do. Why on earth would anyone vote to change that and go back to a failed set-up. Hopefully clubs see sense when this ridiculous idea is debated. A lot of points are covered in the previous 5 pages. If it's such a ridiculous idea it won't be voted in so you have nothing to worry about. It is surely up to Lochgelly / Lochore if they wish to propose this, if others agree they will vote for it, if they don't they won't. What isn't needed is you on your high horse saying things like 'travel the length of their own shadow' and 'ridiculous idea'. It obviously isn't a ridiculous idea to them or they wouldn't be proposing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor meldrew Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Your getting yourself in a frenzy about it, calm down ffs!!!! Whatever the outcome of the vote will need to be accepted, the clubs that vote will decide which way it goes. If it's purely only a handful of Fife clubs (with no ambition in your opinion) that want to change it back then you've nothing to worry about as majority will vote status quo. If there's more clubs that want change then you'll just need to accept it. Imo it will stay as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor meldrew Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Looks like Dan got in as I was writing my post, but sums it all up really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 If it's such a ridiculous idea it won't be voted in so you have nothing to worry about. It is surely up to Lochgelly / Lochore if they wish to propose this, if others agree they will vote for it, if they don't they won't. What isn't needed is you on your high horse saying things like 'travel the length of their own shadow' and 'ridiculous idea'. It obviously isn't a ridiculous idea to them or they wouldn't be proposing it. Regarding the second paragraph it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, as you are yours. This is a forum for airing views, feel free to give your thoughts. Re the first, absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Your getting yourself in a frenzy about it, calm down ffs!!!! Whatever the outcome of the vote will need to be accepted, the clubs that vote will decide which way it goes. If it's purely only a handful of Fife clubs (with no ambition in your opinion) that want to change it back then you've nothing to worry about as majority will vote status quo. If there's more clubs that want change then you'll just need to accept it. Imo it will stay as it is. It's healthy to debate Victor, and it's an important subject to explore as to why clubs want to go -imo- backwards when we seem to be attracting clubs from the so-called better senior game/pyramid.Re you're last point, you're probably right, hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor meldrew Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Of course it's good to debate, and theirs different arguments for going back and staying the same depending on what suits each individual side. Only correct way is to vote on it and see. It's mainly an issue for the Fife sides and whether you agree with their reasons of not isn't going to change that. Being a Fife boy myself I know what it's like in both the old setup and current setup and the travelling in the north league is horrible if in honest. I liked the old setup but also don't mind the new setup with exception of travelling. South league is obviously better for that for Fife clubs. I don't mind if it changes or stays the same but don't think I'd really like another year in the north league for travelling reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 How do you view only the 1 promotion spot in each District? It was that problem that the current set-up addresses and is healthy for competition. A few clubs would still be in District Leagues and not Premier/Super if not for second auto promotion spot brought in 2 seasons ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victor meldrew Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Obviously top 2 is the better option. I know it's not in the new proposal BUT if it was to go back to district leagues the Fife Journeyman had right idea with at least having 2nd places in playoff. Obviously that would need to be a new proposal again before it could happen though. Either way I can't see it changing, but clubs are right to ask the question if they feel it would be s benefit to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Dair Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Regarding the second paragraph it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, as you are yours. This is a forum for airing views, feel free to give your thoughts. Re the first, absolutely. Ah, the old it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Of course you are but it seems like you're trying to force it upon others. You seem to think of yourself as the self appointed spokesman for all clubs in the lower leagues whenever this topic is raised and if I'm being totally honest you come across as very self righteous and sanctimonious towards anyone who disagrees with you. Of course though, the above is only my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juniorexpert1 Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Am I right in saying every team promoted as runners up are still in the premier or super league? Yet Thornton and Edinburgh and Kirriemuir teams promoted as champions are now back in district leagues? Surely another reason for needing 2 up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Ah, the old it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Of course you are but it seems like you're trying to force it upon others. You seem to think of yourself as the self appointed spokesman for all clubs in the lower leagues whenever this topic is raised and if I'm being totally honest you come across as very self righteous and sanctimonious towards anyone who disagrees with you. Of course though, the above is only my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Upto you how you want to read it, snipe from the sidelines or challenge my opinions directly, play the ball and not the man so to speak, debate usually flows better that way. Let's hear your views of if you agree with the current set-up, the new proposal, or something completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Am I right in saying every team promoted as runners up are still in the premier or super league? Yet Thornton and Edinburgh and Kirriemuir teams promoted as champions are now back in district leagues? Surely another reason for needing 2 up? 2013/14: North: North End and Forfar WE South: Edinburgh Utd and Dundonald Premier: Penicuik and Fauldhouse 2014/15: North: Thornton and Kennoway South: Haddington and Falkirk Premier: Tayport and St.Andrews 2015/16: North: Downfield and Glenrothes South: Tranent and Whitburn Premier: Jeanfield and Dundonald 18 promotions over 3 seasons. Under the proposed new format that would reduce to 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Any new proposition should be inclusive of EoS Super league Premier league North Central South Or Super league North D1 and 2 South D1 and 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Dair Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Upto you how you want to read it, snipe from the sidelines or challenge my opinions directly, play the ball and not the man so to speak, debate usually flows better that way. Let's hear your views of if you agree with the current set-up, the new proposal, or something completely different. There really is no need for me to challenge your opinions directly as I have no strong views on the topic either way. From a personal perspective, a Fife league (or Central as it was) would suit me better but that is only a personal thing due the travelling involved in us being in the North league. What I objected to in your post was the tone and the sly digs. Fine, you don't agree with these proposals, I think we all know and accept that but let others form an opinion of their own without you telling them they're being backward or living in the past etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 As a entirely neutral point of view (with westerly geographical leanings). The idea is shite. The Junior format for regional football was the format to build the pyramid. The top 2 east and west Divisions have been a success as far as I can see, watching games in both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F_T_Y Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 You are only having travel over the tay or forth bridge. Not a marathon trek the way some people go on. This would be a backward step. The east is a perfect set-up and the west region should follow suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.