Ross. Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 6 minutes ago, Isabel Goudie said: Correct, but the SFA are not held accountable for fabricating this, clubs in the pyramid are happy to play along while the Juniors are derided for being cynical. The division is helpful to the governing body and those already in the pyramid (so called) as they, despite the fact it's a complete mess, get what they respectfully want. So, the Juniors will continue to be the fall guys and the pyrimiders will continue acting out " The Emperors New Clothes". Plus sa change! The Juniors deserve a lot of the criticism aimed at them, perhaps not down to individual clubs but certainly the people employed to represent them at the top level. While there is no doubt the set up was designed to deal with the bare minimum of requirements, it was known about long before it was implemented and guys like TJ should have been on at the SFA to ensure he knew everything about it and could put everything across to the clubs he represents for discussion at the outset. Obviously there were elements of getitupye involved from both associations and that has undoubtedly had a negative impact on the junior sides who perhaps would have been interested at the outset, but that is still no reason to criticise Edusport or BSC, who are simply looking out for their own members interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Che Dail Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Isabel Goudie said: Correct, but the SFA are not held accountable for fabricating this, clubs in the pyramid are happy to play along while the Juniors are derided for being cynical. The division is helpful to the governing body and those already in the pyramid (so called) as they, despite the fact it's a complete mess, get what they respectfully want. So, the Juniors will continue to be the fall guys and the pyrimiders will continue acting out " The Emperors New Clothes". Plus ca change! Have you read the Emperor's New Clothes? To save you the hassle, in summary: Nobody dared question him until someone stands up and points out he's got no clothes on. Sounds familiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 hours ago, Isabel Goudie said: Not directly perhaps, but would suggest that not to comply would not look good in an application. Also not being on the Quality Mark list would mean financial aid would be harder to come by. A Quality Mark has no influence on an SFA Licence application, although some requirements for a Licence do overlap those for a Quality Mark apparently, so there is some crossover. I'm not aware that a Quality Mark provides easier access to "financial aid", do you have any examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Isabel Goudie said: Correct, but the SFA are not held accountable for fabricating this, clubs in the pyramid are happy to play along while the Juniors are derided for being cynical. The division is helpful to the governing body and those already in the pyramid (so called) as they, despite the fact it's a complete mess, get what they respectfully want. So, the Juniors will continue to be the fall guys and the pyrimiders will continue acting out " The Emperors New Clothes". Plus ca change! Let's face it Isa, you've got the hump because Talbot, when they eventually got round to deciding that they would quite like an SFA Licence and reap the financial benefits like Linlithgow, were told that the rules had changed and you needed to be in the Pyramid. No difference from Kelty in that regard, but Kelty were prepared to make the jump for their long term benefit. If Talbot had been at the forefront of Pyramid discussions all those years ago, then maybe things would have been different, Edusport would not have been where they are now, but you were happy to play long with TJ & Co in deriding it instead. You reap what you sow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 40 minutes ago, Che Dail said: Have you read the Emperor's New Clothes? To save you the hassle, in summary: Nobody dared question him until someone stands up and points out he's got no clothes on. Sounds familiar. My good man, is that not precisely what I am trying to do? Good to know that you're a literary person, perhaps interpretation needs some homework though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudger Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 I think Isa and Burnie are both right to a degree. Unfortunately there are two versions of the word community. The conventional one and the SFA Quality version. Again unfortunately, senior clubs mainly, use the community as a cash cow. Setting up youth teams paid for by parents and call it community involvement. Listen not just senior club's that do that. Junior club's also set up youth teams run and paid for by parents and the club have no involvement what so ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 18 minutes ago, Burnie_man said: A Quality Mark has no influence on an SFA Licence application, although some requirements for a Licence do overlap those for a Quality Mark apparently, so there is some crossover. I'm not aware that a Quality Mark provides easier access to "financial aid", do you have any examples? In both counts there is nothing written in stone to say you need to comply with the Quality Mark. But having been involved in ground improvements at Beechwood for nearly thirty years, I would suggest going forward with a club licence it would be advisable. Also, funding? Many funding applications request similar criteria to those in the Quality Award, it therefore makes complete sense to comply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 20 minutes ago, Burnie_man said: Let's face it Isa, you've got the hump because Talbot, when they eventually got round to deciding that they would quite like an SFA Licence and reap the financial benefits like Linlithgow, were told that the rules had changed and you needed to be in the Pyramid. No difference from Kelty in that regard, but Kelty were prepared to make the jump for their long term benefit. If Talbot had been at the forefront of Pyramid discussions all those years ago, then maybe things would have been different, Edusport would not have been where they are now, but you were happy to play long with TJ & Co in deriding it instead. You reap what you sow. Yes I have the hump. My club have got their finger out and invested in their stadium over three decades long before any club licence and the apparent carrot. The stadium itself would be fit for licence, mostly way above the criteria. It is certainly not right that the SFA change the goal posts and Banks o Dee and Lithgie have their cake and can eat it, this is in actual fact discriminating against every other club in the Juniors and only shows how ad hoc the whole affair is. However, now that is off my chest, it is in actual fact irrelevant. My point is, and I agree that the Juniors were complicate, what we have is, due to all the points I have made, a complete abomination. Continually blaming Junior intransigence both past and present is convenient to the SFA and the clubs in the pyramid. It is in their best interests to retain division. Talbot and most of the Juniors were for many reasons not motivated to discuss a pyramid back then. That does not mean that they, or anyone else, cannot point out the irregularities and illogicalities of what's in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 15 minutes ago, Isabel Goudie said: Yes I have the hump. My club have got their finger out and invested in their stadium over three decades long before any club licence and the apparent carrot. The stadium itself would be fit for licence, mostly way above the criteria. It is certainly not right that the SFA change the goal posts and Banks o Dee and Lithgie have their cake and can eat it, this is in actual fact discriminating against every other club in the Juniors and only shows how ad hoc the whole affair is. However, now that is off my chest, it is in actual fact irrelevant. My point is, and I agree that the Juniors were complicate, what we have is, due to all the points I have made, a complete abomination. Continually blaming Junior intransigence both past and present is convenient to the SFA and the clubs in the pyramid. It is in their best interests to retain division. Talbot and most of the Juniors were for many reasons not motivated to discuss a pyramid back then. That does not mean that they, or anyone else, cannot point out the irregularities and illogicalities of what's in place. Out of curioisty did Auchinleck never try and pursue this beyond the SFA, whether that's UEFA or the courts. The fact that there is no mechanism in the North to join the pyramid would surely highlight the double standard at play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 45 minutes ago, Isabel Goudie said: In both counts there is nothing written in stone to say you need to comply with the Quality Mark. But having been involved in ground improvements at Beechwood for nearly thirty years, I would suggest going forward with a club licence it would be advisable. Also, funding? Many funding applications request similar criteria to those in the Quality Award, it therefore makes complete sense to comply. You're confusing the two again. Club Licencing does open doors as far as funding is concerned (SFP in particular), I'm not aware Quality Mark does, but if you can provide specific examples I'll look into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 26 minutes ago, Isabel Goudie said: Yes I have the hump. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 hours ago, Burnie_man said: You're confusing the two again. Club Licencing does open doors as far as funding is concerned (SFP in particular), I'm not aware Quality Mark does, but if you can provide specific examples I'll look into it. I’m not BM, i’m Saying it’s generally a wise thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daleboy1969 Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 9 hours ago, Isabel Goudie said: Yes I have the hump. My club have got their finger out and invested in their stadium over three decades long before any club licence and the apparent carrot. The stadium itself would be fit for licence, mostly way above the criteria. It is certainly not right that the SFA change the goal posts and Banks o Dee and Lithgie have their cake and can eat it, this is in actual fact discriminating against every other club in the Juniors and only shows how ad hoc the whole affair is. However, now that is off my chest, it is in actual fact irrelevant. My point is, and I agree that the Juniors were complicate, what we have is, due to all the points I have made, a complete abomination. Continually blaming Junior intransigence both past and present is convenient to the SFA and the clubs in the pyramid. It is in their best interests to retain division. Talbot and most of the Juniors were for many reasons not motivated to discuss a pyramid back then. That does not mean that they, or anyone else, cannot point out the irregularities and illogicalities of what's in place. I personally think it's a disgrace a club like Talbot who have constantly upgraded there facilities over the decades should be barred from sfa membership .having visited the tips that guise as lowland league grounds ( we have clubs with no grounds that have sfa licence ) it's shocking and cannot be justified .the biggest non league clubs in Scotland exempt from sfa membership is a complete farce .and not all the blame can be laid a Tom Johnston's door .look South for guidance .no need to re-i vent the wheel .Talbot desrve better treatment from the sfa and any other club that's put 30 years off steady progress off the field and on . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Hamish Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 I personally think it's a disgrace a club like Talbot who have constantly upgraded there facilities over the decades should be barred from sfa membership .having visited the tips that guise as lowland league grounds ( we have clubs with no grounds that have sfa licence ) it's shocking and cannot be justified .the biggest non league clubs in Scotland exempt from sfa membership is a complete farce .and not all the blame can be laid a Tom Johnston's door .look South for guidance .no need to re-i vent the wheel .Talbot desrve better treatment from the sfa and any other club that's put 30 years off steady progress off the field and on . Been to a few myself, which ones do you think are tips? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mantis Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 18 minutes ago, daleboy1969 said: biggest non league clubs in Scotland exempt from sfa membership is a complete farce . Exempt? 13 minutes ago, Goalie Hamish said: Been to a few myself, which ones do you think are tips? Volunteer Park Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dipple burn Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 22 minutes ago, daleboy1969 said: I personally think it's a disgrace a club like Talbot who have constantly upgraded there facilities over the decades should be barred from sfa membership .having visited the tips that guise as lowland league grounds ( we have clubs with no grounds that have sfa licence ) it's shocking and cannot be justified .the biggest non league clubs in Scotland exempt from sfa membership is a complete farce .and not all the blame can be laid a Tom Johnston's door .look South for guidance .no need to re-i vent the wheel .Talbot desrve better treatment from the sfa and any other club that's put 30 years off steady progress off the field and on . After the South of Scotland League carrot was dangled in front of us for a ground certificate which we quiet tightly refused, the BRC (Beechwood Regeneration Committee) has since built a new catering block and memorabilia shop. Are in the process of installing roller shutters to the groundsman's building and souvenir shop and will be looking at a feasible plan to turn the large portacabin they have bought into a hospitality room and kitchen. We might not have a certificate but we have one hell of a ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santheman Posted January 5, 2018 Share Posted January 5, 2018 22 minutes ago, Dipple burn said: After the South of Scotland League carrot was dangled in front of us for a ground certificate which we quiet tightly refused, the BRC (Beechwood Regeneration Committee) has since built a new catering block and memorabilia shop. Are in the process of installing roller shutters to the groundsman's building and souvenir shop and will be looking at a feasible plan to turn the large portacabin they have bought into a hospitality room and kitchen. We might not have a certificate but we have one hell of a ground. And that in one paragraph sums up the complete farce that is the pyramid at the moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 Talbot have, for whatever reason, not applied for a licence. The requirements aren't onerous - even Golspie managed. Obviously, Talbot do not think it in their interest. A licence is not all about the ground either, it's off field stuff too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillonearth Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 1 hour ago, Goalie Hamish said: Been to a few myself, which ones do you think are tips? Been to nearly all of them and I wouldn't say any are "tips" although the ones groundsharing at various SPFL grounds don't do a great deal for me - they tend to be soulless enough even with a decent crowd in, all the more so when there are only a few dozen present. My favourites are the ones that have a more traditional non-league feel to them like Dalbeattie or Whitehill. Gala's also pretty special with the 1960s brutalist stand that looks like a lower league ground in Moldova or somewhere. Selkirk's worth a visit as well - like someone there got a job lot of free timber and subsequently went a bit mental making Heath Robinson wooden terracing... The only ones I'd say are a bit "meh" are CSS, Edinburgh Uni and Vale of Leithen - the latter's saved by being in a truly stunning part of the country though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted January 6, 2018 Share Posted January 6, 2018 2 hours ago, Cyclizine said: Talbot have, for whatever reason, not applied for a licence. The requirements aren't onerous - even Golspie managed. Obviously, Talbot do not think it in their interest. A licence is not all about the ground either, it's off field stuff too. Not for "whatever reason". Specifically because they were told they'd have to play in the SoSFL which was madness. If Pollok were to apply to be licensed (which they're not all THAT far away from being able to do) they'd be told to do the same - or else to play in the EoSFL which is even crazier! Even if they were put straight into the LL, their two away "local derbies" would be vs East Kilbride (not too bad) and vs BSC ... in Alloa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.