Kelty Hearts & the EOS League

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 hours ago, Auld Heid said:

 

That's not my decision.

Lesser teams = more potential for others (support/finance)

We all know there are teams who merely survive each season.

Teams who can't progress as don't meet ground criteria etc. Yet these same teams can halt ambitions of progressive clubs.

Surely participation in a league should include a rule that teams must be eligible to progress.

 

Doing away with teams won't increase others support. It would take generations to see if there was any impact. 

[HibeeJibee]

There are as many teams as adult male footballers can sustain. Simple.

How many should be at certain levels or grades (if 'grades' need exist)... how many should be paying wages... etc. etc. is debatable.

"Too many teams" isn't, tbh.

Abolishing/merging clubs is unlikely to redistribute support.

[Che Dail]

3 hours ago, Auld Heid said:

Lesser teams = more potential for others (support/finance)

We all know there are teams who merely survive each season.

Teams who can't progress as don't meet ground criteria etc. Yet these same teams can halt ambitions of progressive clubs.

Surely participation in a league should include a rule that teams must be eligible to progress.

 

Here's a Charles Darwin quote to share with yer progressive chums at Linlithgow:

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives.  It is the one that is most adaptable to change.

Maybe the creation of the pyramid is the start of 'the cull' you're looking for...?

[Auld Heid]

Here's a Charles Darwin quote to share with yer progressive chums at Linlithgow:

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives.  It is the one that is most adaptable to change.

Maybe the creation of the pyramid is the start of 'the cull' you're looking for...?

My opinion not Linlithgow's

The EoS is part of the current pyramid - yet not every team can progress to the next stage - that's fundamentally flawed to start.

Add in the fact in what's a spectator sport crowds are poor.

[Che Dail]

1 hour ago, Auld Heid said:

 

My opinion not Linlithgow's

The EoS is part of the current pyramid - yet not every team can progress to the next stage - that's fundamentally flawed to start.

Add in the fact in what's a spectator sport crowds are poor.
 

 

The old "pyramid is flawed" we've heard before - but it seems from posts elsewhere that a fair portion of EoS clubs are working towards improving their facilities to the right standard. 

Say LTHV win the EoS this season, but don't get their licence in place, you'd surely be reasonably confident that Linlithgow could compete well and finish above them next season, so they wouldnt be holding you back would they?

[lithgierose]

5 hours ago, HTG said:

Brora 16 - 0 Fort William.  Tier 5. Nowhere for Fort William to go because in that half of Scotland,  Tier 6 doesn't exist. Pyramid my arse. 

You not going to tell us the full time score.

[Jambo'ness]

1 hour ago, Auld Heid said:

 

My opinion not Linlithgow's

The EoS is part of the current pyramid - yet not every team can progress to the next stage - that's fundamentally flawed to start.

Add in the fact in what's a spectator sport crowds are poor.
 

 

In probably the best example of a pyramid that we all can see, in England, there are many sides that are not in a position to progress.  it does not prevent those with ambition moving forward and it allows those without facilities or ambitions at the time to carry on, because who knows, in 5 years time they might be in a position to progress.

Even if they can't or don't want to, I really abhor the arrogance of someone wishing to dispense with clubs because his may not climb.

[parsforlife]

The EoS is part of the current pyramid - yet not every team can progress to the next stage - that's fundamentally flawed to start.

No, it's impossible for football to function if we insist that clubs not only meet the criteria of their current league but also leagues above.

[HTG]

29 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

 

No, it's impossible for football to function if we insist that clubs not only meet the criteria of their current league but also leagues above.

 

Correct - the thing about pyramids is their ability to match up to the needs of their users.  They're not supposed to bankrupt those who are content at their level. 

[HibeeJibee]

1 hour ago, parsforlife said:

No, it's impossible for football to function if we insist that clubs not only meet the criteria of their current league but also leagues above.

 

Ultimately it'd mean every level requiring criteria of the top level!

[FuzzyBear]

Doing away with teams won't increase others support. It would take generations to see if there was any impact. 

Correct. If my team disappeared I wouldnt support another team I would find something else to do on a saturday.

[theshed]

Correct. If my team disappeared I wouldnt support another team I would find something else to do on a saturday.

Agree with this totally ; have tried to watch other teams when my teams games are off ; have been to lots of newcastle games too as my family live down there and I've left the match every time with no feeling for the team at all ; if my club went to the wall then I would have to find something else to do as I couldn't support another club

[Che Dail]

1 hour ago, HTG said:

Correct - the thing about pyramids is their ability to match up to the needs of their users.  They're not supposed to bankrupt those who are content at their 

Are you able to point to any current LL club that has near bankrupted themselves getting to that level? 

You should fight it out with Auld Heid - he wants to see the club progress but you seem content at the same level. 

Clubs are more likely to get into difficulties by over-stretching on the playing budget beyond their means than by investing in improvements to their facilities and governance. 

[HTG]

1 hour ago, Che Dail said:

Are you able to point to any current LL club that has near bankrupted themselves getting to that level? 

You should fight it out with Auld Heid - he wants to see the club progress but you seem content at the same level. 

Clubs are more likely to get into difficulties by over-stretching on the playing budget beyond their means than by investing in improvements to their facilities and governance. 

I think you need to go back and re-read my post.  I don't think I've ever seen someone get quite as much of the wrong end of the stick in all my time on this forum. 

[Che Dail]

7 hours ago, HTG said:

I think you need to go back and re-read my post.  I don't think I've ever seen someone get quite as much of the wrong end of the stick in all my time on this forum. 

Haha, really? Sorry!

You agreed that it is "impossible for football to function" (bizarre comment)  if clubs have to improve to a level above their current position. 

And I took it that you think doing so could bankrupt clubs who would otherwise be content at their current level.

I just think there's not a great understanding of what's actually required in terms of licensing, or the value of having quality benchmarking which is what it is.

Realistically the vast majority of  junior clubs will not have to worry about getting to the highest level of the licence criteria as they're not likely to reach beyond the LL.

 

[lithgierose]

19 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

Haha, really? Sorry!

You agreed that it is "impossible for football to function" (bizarre comment)  if clubs have to improve to a level above their current position. 

And I took it that you think doing so could bankrupt clubs who would otherwise be content at their current level.

I just think there's not a great understanding of what's actually required in terms of licensing, or the value of having quality benchmarking which is what it is.

Realistically the vast majority of  junior clubs will not have to worry about getting to the highest level of the licence criteria as they're not likely to reach beyond the LL.

 

Last paragraph could apply to the majority of LL clubs as it currently stands ?

[Che Dail]

34 minutes ago, lithgierose said:

Last paragraph could apply to the majority of LL clubs as it currently stands ?

I would think that in time many of the current LL clubs would find themselves replaced by SL clubs.

Having said that there's nothing to stop the most ambitious clubs reaching the very top - the ones not content to sit at their current level that is. 

[HTG]

12 hours ago, parsforlife said:

 

No, it's impossible for football to function if we insist that clubs not only meet the criteria of their current league but also leagues above.

 

 

12 hours ago, HTG said:

Correct - the thing about pyramids is their ability to match up to the needs of their users.  They're not supposed to bankrupt those who are content at their level. 

 

10 hours ago, Che Dail said:

Are you able to point to any current LL club that has near bankrupted themselves getting to that level? 

You should fight it out with Auld Heid - he wants to see the club progress but you seem content at the same level. 

Clubs are more likely to get into difficulties by over-stretching on the playing budget beyond their means than by investing in improvements to their facilities and governance. 

Auld Heid was of the view that a pyramid doesn't work unless clubs are not only compliant with the standards of the league they are playing in but also the league or leagues above. Parsforlife took issue with that view and I agree with him. 

If a club isn't ready or able to move up because they don't have the money or manpower but they meet the standard required to pla at the level they're at, then that's fine. Pyramids are about finding your level not always forcing clubs down a road they can't handle  (and as a club with a licence, money isn't always the biggest stumbling block).

I never said anything about Lowland League clubs being bankrupted to get licenced (or Highland League). Let's say Bo'ness moved to the EoS league next season. They might have to stay there for 3 years (this is only an example) because that's how long it takes them to become compliant.  Maybe they could do it in 2 years but that would be too steep for them.  If you follow Auld Heid's logic they'd be punted from the EoS because they don't meet the requirements of the Lowland League. 

That's all I was disagreeing with. But ...

We talk about clubs all the time on here who fire money at players at the expense of their infrastructure.  There are far too many clubs (in my view) who have gone in the other direction in the Highland League.  There are teams lurking about the bottom half of that league who spend what they get from the SFA almost entirely on making sure they have all the boxes ticked but nothing to bolster the quality of their team. In a proper pyramid, a team getting beat 16 - 0 should be a hint that you're not good enough on the pitch and heading for relegation.

Fort William have one point from 18 games and a goal difference of -81. Strathspey have 3 points from 17 games and a goal difference of -70. This is at Tier 5 of Scottish football.  Next season, they'll once again take their place in the first round proper of the Scottish Cup without having to play preliminary ties because they're licenced and in the pyramid. And they will always be licenced because they don't need to worry - ever - about dropping to Tier 6 because Tier 6 doesn't exist. Yet there are dozens and dozens of clubs who are not in Tier 6 - or any Tier - who could readily take goals off Fort William or Strathspey. And they could upgrade their facilities and take goals off Fort William but they wouldn't get a bean for their efforts because there is no realistic option in place for them to join a pyramid.  So the incentive to invest to licence criteria level isn't there. They're not all playing in middens either as you'll be aware. 

[Auld Heid]

2 hours ago, HTG said:

 

 

Auld Heid was of the view that a pyramid doesn't work unless clubs are not only compliant with the standards of the league they are playing in but also the league or leagues above. Parsforlife took issue with that view and I agree with him.   Or at least making the efforts to comply -  If your don't comply or try then is that level appropriate? 

If a club isn't ready or able to move up because they don't have the money or manpower but they meet the standard required to pla at the level they're at, then that's fine. Pyramids are about finding your level not always forcing clubs down a road they can't handle  (and as a club with a licence, money isn't always the biggest stumbling block).  All very well finding your level but  surely a pyramid only works if it flows from top to bottom.    

I never said anything about Lowland League clubs being bankrupted to get licenced (or Highland League). Let's say Bo'ness moved to the EoS league next season. They might have to stay there for 3 years (this is only an example) because that's how long it takes them to become compliant.  Maybe they could do it in 2 years but that would be too steep for them.  If you follow Auld Heid's logic they'd be punted from the EoS because they don't meet the requirements of the Lowland League. 

That's all I was disagreeing with. But ...

We talk about clubs all the time on here who fire money at players at the expense of their infrastructure.  There are far too many clubs (in my view) who have gone in the other direction in the Highland League.  There are teams lurking about the bottom half of that league who spend what they get from the SFA almost entirely on making sure they have all the boxes ticked but nothing to bolster the quality of their team. In a proper pyramid, a team getting beat 16 - 0 should be a hint that you're not good enough on the pitch and heading for relegation.

Fort William have one point from 18 games and a goal difference of -81. Strathspey have 3 points from 17 games and a goal difference of -70. This is at Tier 5 of Scottish football.  Next season, they'll once again take their place in the first round proper of the Scottish Cup without having to play preliminary ties because they're licenced and in the pyramid. And they will always be licenced because they don't need to worry - ever - about dropping to Tier 6 because Tier 6 doesn't exist. Yet there are dozens and dozens of clubs who are not in Tier 6 - or any Tier - who could readily take goals off Fort William or Strathspey. And they could upgrade their facilities and take goals off Fort William but they wouldn't get a bean for their efforts because there is no realistic option in place for them to join a pyramid.  So the incentive to invest to licence criteria level isn't there. They're not all playing in middens either as you'll be aware. 

 

[HTG]

The pyramid works perfectly well in England with teams not moving out of their level of capability. 

Our old friends at Spennymoor opted not to move up for several seasons because although they were doing fine at their level, the costs attached to the next level were significant. Once that had all their ducks lined up, the moved up. The pace at which a club can do that will vary. 

Taking this back to Kelty for a moment, it's evident that they are being well backed by external funding. Without that, it might have taken longer for them to get to licence level. 

Nobody wants a club to go to the wall in the name of progress but you're right to an extent that there should be some evidence of taking small steps. 

Having teams at Tier 5 who are conceding an average in excess of 5 goals per game is evidence of a pyramid where a club is nowhere near finding its level.