Jump to content

Junior football, what is the future?


Burnie_man

Recommended Posts

Scotland is small, most clubs are clustered in the central belt, with a few outliers. The majority are within an hour or two of each other. The 3rd and 4th tier clubs have shown that can easily compete nationally over many years, regionalising then isn't going to make a vast difference to travel anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

Scotland is small, most clubs are clustered in the central belt, with a few outliers. The majority are within an hour or two of each other. The 3rd and 4th tier clubs have shown that can easily compete nationally over many years, regionalising then isn't going to make a vast difference to travel anyway.

They are not the ones that regionalisation should focus on.  If you use England as an example, tier 5 is the National League, Tier 6 is split North and South, then tier 7  and below is far more localised, more on county lines by and large.

Here,  we have tried the East Super League with varying degrees of success but we have to acknowledge the junior fanbase is , ironically, an older one and travel is an issue, so 4 or 5 hour round trips to Tayside aren't helping our game any.  Fans feel no attachment to a game against, say, Carnoustie but are more interested in Bathgate playing us. 

Personally, I'm okay with travel but many aren't and we risk alienating an already dwindling support further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/01/2018 at 15:25, LongTimeLurker said:

If the line of latitude for the boundary is defined by the mouth of the River North Esk they are still in the HL catchment by a few miles,  but Oban is now solidly in LL territory after being very close to the dividing line when it was the River Tay that was used.

The River Tay has never been used as the boundary.  The January 2015 version of the SPFL rules (ie before the play-offs had taken place for the first time) have the line of latitude defined as 56.4513N, which is the same as it is now.  The "North of the Tay" boundary was only ever a loose definition used by journalists etc - I don't think there were ever any official communications which used that as a line.  It would be a pretty confusing official definition to use, because the Tay doesn't run all the way across Scotland - places west of it such as Oban wouldn't really be well defined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Goalie Hamish said:

So for the uneducated who were crap at orienteering does this mean Dundee Junior clubs would come under the Lowland League?

Everything south of Brechin and Montrose would be LL - them included, even Oban on west coast. Centres of population above the line are Fort William and Stonehaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jason King said:

Montrose Roselea are in the North Juniors, so if they decided to go senior at the end of the season would they have to go into the EoS? They could for example apply to replace Fort William in the HL, would the powers that be allow that?

There probably should be a North of Scotland feeder in to the HL...

The current EoS "mission statement" refers to football in Edinburgh and Lothians, Borders, Fife and Stirlingshire.

Would it be unreasonable to expect some interest in both a WoS and a NoS for next season...?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking about more teams joining the structure. I'm watching the documetary BBC had from around 18 months ago and Ann Budge says we have 42 clubs and its too many. Talking about our system and its not working and not producing players. Irony 18 months later we are talking about more clubs joining up.

It talked about the Inverness Thistle and Caledonian FC merger, Hibs and hearts possible merger and when Dundee Utd were going too buy Dundee.

 

Maybe tightening up the game at the bottom could be the answer and improve the Lowland league etc players from top clubs getting loaned out to bottom clubs could help their development.  Who knows

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that the out of his depth Regan has jumped ship, how many of his 'strategies' will go too?

Whether we like it or not, his sacking will effect the junior game. The Pyamid strategy with its Stalinist central control and apparatchics everywhere will probably be reinvented with him gone. Just on that I see Peterhead played Berwick Rangers on Tuesday last, a round trip of around 440 miles. (Attendance unknown, unstated). Then Peterhead go down to Annan midweek on 22nd - 500 miles round trip. Anyone believe this is a good idea? Anyone fancy League 2?

After 8 years he has lost two Performance Directors, offerd 'social unrest' from Rangers fans , OKd Whyte and Green as fit and proper, project Brave in 'tatters', clueless on player protection, gormless in front of Parliamenetary committees, ending up with a racist as Performamce Director, and playing Murrayfield off against Hampden aka 'The National Stadium' in public was probably his step too far. Would hurt too many inflential people.

From the latest set of accounts of The National Stadium Plc up to 31st December 2016.

image.thumb.png.d39b783a9be66b2c2fa788ccd557ccb2.png

Given Queens Park is a company limited by guarantee, the most you can hope to get out of any director is £1. Debt recoverable? Don't you love weasel words like 'the directors believe that the debt is recoverable.'  It either is or it isn't recoverable. But most likely nae chance.

Now I see Mark McGhee is touting Strachan as next Chief Exec. Shows how little McGhee understands about what the job entails. Sad thing is the SFA have the ideal candidate in their midst, but never having been a professional player he will be ignored.  More fools them.

A new broom can sweep clean.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

We are talking about more teams joining the structure. I'm watching the documetary BBC had from around 18 months ago and Ann Budge says we have 42 clubs and its too many. Talking about our system and its not working and not producing players. Irony 18 months later we are talking about more clubs joining up.

It talked about the Inverness Thistle and Caledonian FC merger, Hibs and hearts possible merger and when Dundee Utd were going too buy Dundee.

 

Maybe tightening up the game at the bottom could be the answer and improve the Lowland league etc players from top clubs getting loaned out to bottom clubs could help their development.  Who knows

She's looking at things from the top(ish) end of the scale.  As usual, those in that position are only interested in protecting their financial interests, with little consideration for the good of the game or the fans at large.

Nobody has the right to dictate how many clubs there should be.  If clubs are viable, they have a right to exist.  Some business people forget their roots and if their current opinions had been applied to them when they started, they'd have been burst from the start. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Garret Deasy said:

From the latest set of accounts of The National Stadium Plc up to 31st December 2016.

image.thumb.png.d39b783a9be66b2c2fa788ccd557ccb2.png

Given Queens Park is a company limited by guarantee, the most you can hope to get out of any director is £1. Debt recoverable? Don't you love weasel words like 'the directors believe that the debt is recoverable.'  It either is or it isn't recoverable. But most likely nae chance

Now refer to The Queens Park Football Club Limited.

Tangible assets: £33,308,720.  Total assets less current liabilities: £29,357,701

That might be why the directors believe the debt is recoverable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now refer to The Queens Park Football Club Limited.
Tangible assets: £33,308,720.  Total assets less current liabilities: £29,357,701
That might be why the directors believe the debt is recoverable.

Putting aside that the accounts on the public record are now 14 months old:

It's the £7.5m total funds balance which is more indicative of the true value of the company than the £29.4m TACL figure. The difference being primarily the £21.7m construction grants repayable under certain conditions.

The caveat being the value of the TFA is booked at depreciated cost and not market value. The directors are implying the stadium asset isn't impaired, but still, it's an illiquid asset at best and valued at construction cost, as opposed to sale value as housing plot land, and no provision is made for cost of decommissioning the site.

Some form of impairment becomes necessary when and if the SFA vacate their lease.

The company had £514k in the bank and a rather substantial short term creditor balance of £4.7m. I see Note 8 from the full accounts isn't filed - the accountant has made a bit of a botch of producing filing/filleted accounts (e.g. mismatch B/S x-refs to supporting notes) under the new 1A rules but hey ho. I'd assume much of that STC to be more capital grants to be released to reserves, so still illiquid.

The point being the financial statements look fairly positive to a lay reader, but their cash flow is fairly marginal all things considered. In the absence of the debtor and creditor notes - which is permissible - it's hard to infer the true liquidity position here.

In approving these accounts, the Committee will have necessarily produced financial projections showing cash flow was in place to no less than April 2018, but what may be interesting is how they frame the uncertainties prevalent today when filing the December 2017 financials.

Still the 12-month window this year ought to be within the period of the SFA lease, unless they have served notice to vacate, so December 2018 will be more interesting still. I'd be fairly surprised if some sort of emphasis of matter note wasn't added to these accounts in near future which may be more illuminating.

The 2016 accounts were filed in April, I'd rather suspect the 2017 accounts may be less punctual in current circumstances.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, energyzone said:

Fans of League 1 and 2 clubs who post on this section seem to love playing in a national league. Judging by previous contributions I doubt you'd get many of them wanting to play in a regionalised league.

 

 

23 hours ago, Cyclizine said:

Scotland is small, most clubs are clustered in the central belt, with a few outliers. The majority are within an hour or two of each other. The 3rd and 4th tier clubs have shown that can easily compete nationally over many years, regionalising then isn't going to make a vast difference to travel anyway.

Yeah, most fans of League One and Two clubs don't seem too keen on the regionalisation idea, but I wonder if their clubs are missing out on a fair bit of cash by not having more local matches.

When you think that a high proportion of a core home support will happily turn out for a local away match, but only a small fraction will travel even for as much as an hour for more distant away matches, it seems to me that clubs are throwing away good money from higher away attendances by not embracing more local football.

Part timers compete nationally, but not without money from the SPFL and high ticket prices to help them along.  Is the junior model (local matches, lower prices) more sustainable/self- sustaining for semi pros?  

I was interested by Stuart Brown of Stirling Albion's comments in the Sunday Mail at the weekend, when being interviewed about the possible introduction of colts teams to League Two.  He was concerned that they would lose the gate from 800-1000 fans in a more local match against Clyde or Stenhousemuir if League 2 went to 33 games in order to accommodate colts.  It's difficult to square that concern with part time SPFL clubs' insistence on playing in national leagues, since playing regionally would give them proportionately more of those higher-attendance games (although it might be Alloa and East Stirlingshire rather than Clyde for them in a west-east split of the lowlands).   

For them it seems to be a decision based on the perceived status of competing in a national league, rather than the pragmatism of more money (from higher attendances and sponsorship) of playing in a competitive regional league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42911736

 

THis is the opinion of Michael Stewart so obviously the people at the top.

Q: Were there any positives to his reign?

MS: "There were positives - the pyramid system is a positive for the teams at the lower end and the junior leagues to give them access to the professional leagues. And the creation of an independent judicial panel, to get away from the idea that the SFA were sweeping things under carpet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Le Tout P'ti FC said:


Putting aside that the accounts on the public record are now 14 months old:

It's the £7.5m total funds balance which is more indicative of the true value of the company than the £29.4m TACL figure. The difference being primarily the £21.7m construction grants repayable under certain conditions.

The caveat being the value of the TFA is booked at depreciated cost and not market value. The directors are implying the stadium asset isn't impaired, but still, it's an illiquid asset at best and valued at construction cost, as opposed to sale value as housing plot land, and no provision is made for cost of decommissioning the site.

Some form of impairment becomes necessary when and if the SFA vacate their lease.

The company had £514k in the bank and a rather substantial short term creditor balance of £4.7m. I see Note 8 from the full accounts isn't filed - the accountant has made a bit of a botch of producing filing/filleted accounts (e.g. mismatch B/S x-refs to supporting notes) under the new 1A rules but hey ho. I'd assume much of that STC to be more capital grants to be released to reserves, so still illiquid.

The point being the financial statements look fairly positive to a lay reader, but their cash flow is fairly marginal all things considered. In the absence of the debtor and creditor notes - which is permissible - it's hard to infer the true liquidity position here.

In approving these accounts, the Committee will have necessarily produced financial projections showing cash flow was in place to no less than April 2018, but what may be interesting is how they frame the uncertainties prevalent today when filing the December 2017 financials.

Still the 12-month window this year ought to be within the period of the SFA lease, unless they have served notice to vacate, so December 2018 will be more interesting still. I'd be fairly surprised if some sort of emphasis of matter note wasn't added to these accounts in near future which may be more illuminating.

The 2016 accounts were filed in April, I'd rather suspect the 2017 accounts may be less punctual in current circumstances.


 

Thanks for that analysis! 

So basically if the lease is not renewed the asset is effectively the value of land it sits on less demolition costs? 

Bit of a deficit there right enough... Oops!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that analysis! 
So basically if the lease is not renewed the asset is effectively the value of land it sits on less demolition costs? 
Bit of a deficit there right enough... Oops!

The value of the land it sits on is whatever a buyer is willing to pay to a seller when the buyer knows the seller needs out of there pronto before they get sucked into a financial abyss.

What happens to the £22m (plus) that they owe to the grant funder if they knock the place down to build flats? (Or go cap in hand to government to get the whole lot waived.)

Or the tax which they will presumably become liable for on sale of the asset?

Or the legal and planning costs.

What if GCC decide we've got enough housing stock in this part of town, you can't have your land rezoned for housing? Or we need three new schools and a medical centre, amd X acres of green parkland on your site before you can build a single house.

What about the costs of upgrading Lesser Hampden or Cathkin or Shawfield or god knows where they end up after flitting?

What if their preferred housebuilder goes a bit Carillion on them and they have to fire sale the whole site to GHA before they go bust?

It's too simplistic to suggest that QPFC will be ok come what may. They probably will be ok, of course they will, but there's quite a few bumps in the road - you only have to look at something like Donaldson's College in Edinburgh which is perhaps comparable to a degree in terms of size and complexities to see it doesn't always go smoothly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Le Tout P'ti FC said:


The value of the land it sits on is whatever a buyer is willing to pay to a seller when the buyer knows the seller needs out of there pronto before they get sucked into a financial abyss.

What happens to the £22m (plus) that they owe to the grant funder if they knock the place down to build flats? (Or go cap in hand to government to get the whole lot waived.)

Or the tax which they will presumably become liable for on sale of the asset?

Or the legal and planning costs.

What if GCC decide we've got enough housing stock in this part of town, you can't have your land rezoned for housing? Or we need three new schools and a medical centre, amd X acres of green parkland on your site before you can build a single house.

What about the costs of upgrading Lesser Hampden or Cathkin or Shawfield or god knows where they end up after flitting?

What if their preferred housebuilder goes a bit Carillion on them and they have to fire sale the whole site to GHA before they go bust?

It's too simplistic to suggest that QPFC will be ok come what may. They probably will be ok, of course they will, but there's quite a few bumps in the road - you only have to look at something like Donaldson's College in Edinburgh which is perhaps comparable to a degree in terms of size and complexities to see it doesn't always go smoothly.
 

Several risks there you would hope QP and their advisers will have identified well ahead of time as the clock runs down on the lease... 

Interesting you mention Cathkin, (I saw the excellent BBC Alba documentary last week) although if relocation is being considered I'd have thought Toryglen might be a better option seeing as the SFA are already there - old tenant becomes new landlord.

Edited by Che Dail
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...