Dev

There's a really simple and obvious solution for the "won't vote for 20% chance of relegation" excuse. The clubs play each other a boring 4 times each league season so 36 league games. Three Divisions of 10 teams is boring so change it to two Divs of 16 which allows for two additional (non B teams) clubs and 30 games per league season. If even more league games are wanted then go 2 Divs of 18 so 34 League matches. If existing SFL clubs are afraid of falling out of the league when there's two extra places (2x16 team Divs) or six extra places (2x18 team Divs) then maybe they should be relegated?

"What's in it for them". This attitude in Scottish football is at the heart of what's been wrong with the game for decades. It's not confined to the SL Div.2. Time for change at the very top i.e. SFA to bring in people who put football first. The LL uses the promotion issue (i.e. using the SL relegation constraint) as a way to justify keeping relegations/acceptance of good clubs from below fully knowing that their case is shot full of holes. The LL (and the SL) also know that they are on a loser once enough clubs who are no longer tied to the "old" ways change leagues and stop the nonsense i.e. unless the SFA finally steps in. This will affect the LL first though.

HI Are you really Alex (Gartcairn FC)? If so could you make this clear? Obviously that's not an obligation but it may help if there's some open-ness about that? Just a thought.

Thanks for the info. Shame it isn't done for other Pyramid divisions, apart from the LL. Are there any latest figures available for the Premier Division?

The possibility of the WoS failing to provide a licenced club to compete in the LL promotion play-offs needs to be addressed and, if a change of wording by the LL, somehow just cannot be done, then the WoS may consider making the top division "all licenced clubs" in say five seasons time? Wouldn't be popular though.

Good to see that on the thread as it reminds us of what's what re promotion. Clearly the LL needs to amend the rule so that it reads something along the lines of say: “Qualifying Clubs” means the champion club highest placed SFA Licenced clubs from within the Qualifying Leagues which are eligible for promotion to the SLFL in terms of the rules of the SLFL.

Cheers!

Is there an SFA rule or reg which actually states that this would be the case? Just asking!

Anyone know when the SGM is being held? I hope they are positive about the potential two new teams.

Are there many new clubs in the Highlands Amateur Leagues in 2024? I see Mallards FC (where are they?). Haven't checked for more yet.

FWIW Let's have a meaningful competition for ALL Pyramid clubs - albeit with regionalised early rounds so clubs aren't faced with expensive long distances to travel unless they make the later rounds - with clubs not forced to enter. Surely the SFA has the funding now to set this up having qualified for a major competition for the first time in so long. The SFA could also now properly fund its' own Licencing Department - failure to do so at present is shambolic.

Hi Thanks. Looks good.

Re a previous point: "The under 20's and younger at, say, Gartcairn also gain the benefit of regular use of the senior sides' facilities, with changing facilities, lights, seats etc. or is it the other way round? i.e. the seniors use the Under age players park?" Do the youngsters get to borrow the first teams' pitch at all e.g. for matches and or training sessions? I am guessing that they do use them but no idea if they really do so maybe a red herring question. If they do have use do you think that it adds meaningfully to their progress?

How does the Player Pathway function at Gartcairn? Some clubs have failed with this. Would you say that it's working well at Gartcairn? Are there many coming through to the first team squad and getting match-Day experience? There talk about expensive non-Pathway players coming in. Are they a good fit? i.e. no complaints from parents/young Pathway players as has happened elsewhere? Just interested as the club could be a good example for others to follow. Similar to the above: other clubs may benefit from following Gartcairn's approach to improving the performances at first team level. Any tips?

There's been a fair amount of poking fun at the likes of Gartcairn and St Cadocs but the League tables don't lie. They've made huge progress. That's to be applauded. It isn't as though they've broken any rules & Regs. Presumably the senior teams at these clubs are one and the same as the boys, girls and youth teams? Logically that gives the opportunity for youngsters to progress as far as they can as amateurs or semi-pros so what's wrong with that? How do these clubs make it work given what can happen when Youth clubs talk of creating Player Pathways? Anyone any idea? The under 20's and younger at, say, Gartcairn also gain the benefit of regular use of the senior sides' facilities, with changing facilities, lights, seats etc. or is it the other way round? i.e. the seniors use the Under age players park? Interesting to see how they make it work to mutual benefit given what has happened to one or two other clubs which sought to provide a player pathway. Either way it looks like a good set-up. St Cadocs though seem to have a way to go yet re facilities but, apart from that they're doing well.