Jump to content
Guest

Club Licence

Recommended Posts

Guest

Having read a report on Kelty v Burntisland and tribute being paid to both teams for achieving a club licence I decided to have a look at Recreation Park, home of Burtisland Shipyard.  It seems that after five years of hard work and support from the council etc  the club have realised their ambition and gained a Club Licence. Have to say the place looks no better than a public park with little in the way of hard standing or graded terrace. I also wondered how on earth BSC obtained a licence at Lochburn Park when visiting with Talbot a few seasons back, such was the state of the place. Is it not time to call the SFA out on this? Get them to admit if a club cut the grass and have somewhere to get changed any club in tier 6,  higher, or with intention to join will pass the ground criteria for a licence. However, if clubs don't comply to the current so called pyramid, you can whistle. Comparing Talbot's Beechwood with Burtisland's Recreation Park, it could be the Bernabau such is the gulf. But Talbot, with resources and backing most of the teams in tier 5 & 6 could only dream of, are not considered because they won't comply to an abomination of a structure. Does that small observation not completely verify how utterly ludicrous the whole scene is in the lower end of football in Scotland? It is like a scene dreamed up by a fertile imagination from someone commissioned to write a comedy based on football, with the title absurd. You could not make it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it not be better to call out the SJFA?

As far as I’m aware SFA invited all clubs into the pyramid and Lowland League, SJFA told the SFA few years back no we are fine how we are. 

Playing devils advocate but why should SFA encourage Junior clubs to be Licenced thus getting them the perks of funding and automatic Scottish Cup entry when TJ turned them down.

The pyramid is far from perfect especially for the West clubs but if they are desperate to be Licenced and part of the pyramid they need to get talking. Come up with a WOS League at Tier 6 proposal, get like minded clubs from the West committed , make up a small committee to run the league and get round the table with the SFA non professional game board.

Im sure it would be welcomed to provide a balanced competitive pyramid system at Tier 6 and saves the SFA from stepping on the SJFA’s toes by inviting their best clubs.

TJ may even have a plan for his clubs for all we know.

Edited by kefc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

57 minutes ago, Isabel Goudie said:

Having read a report on Kelty v Burntisland and tribute being paid to both teams for achieving a club licence I decided to have a look at Recreation Park, home of Burtisland Shipyard.  It seems that after five years of hard work and support from the council etc  the club have realised their ambition and gained a Club Licence. Have to say the place looks no better than a public park with little in the way of hard standing or graded terrace. I also wondered how on earth BSC obtained a licence at Lochburn Park when visiting with Talbot a few seasons back, such was the state of the place. Is it not time to call the SFA out on this? Get them to admit if a club cut the grass and have somewhere to get changed any club in tier 6,  higher, or with intention to join will pass the ground criteria for a licence. However, if clubs don't comply to the current so called pyramid, you can whistle. Comparing Talbot's Beechwood with Burtisland's Recreation Park, it could be the Bernabau such is the gulf. But Talbot, with resources and backing most of the teams in tier 5 & 6 could only dream of, are not considered because they won't comply to an abomination of a structure. Does that small observation not completely verify how utterly ludicrous the whole scene is in the lower end of football in Scotland? It is like a scene dreamed up by a fertile imagination from someone commissioned to write a comedy based on football, with the title absurd. You could not make it up!

FFs this happened December 2015:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, Elvis is dead, man has landed on the moon etc etc :)

In all seriousness the criteria is far reaching and is quite onerous. Admittedly the ground forms a large part of the criteria, but the rest of it should not be underestimated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patches O'Houlihan said:

In other news, Elvis is dead, man has landed on the moon etc etc :)

In all seriousness the criteria is far reaching and is quite onerous. Admittedly the ground forms a large part of the criteria, but the rest of it should not be underestimated.

Aye but but £100,000 toilets.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sake Isa leave it son. Stop creating these threads. They bore and just run on and on.
Create one thread and stick to it.
You're giving all Talbot fans a reddie here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Isabel Goudie said:

Comparing Talbot's Beechwood with Burtisland's Recreation Park, it could be the Bernabau such is the gulf. 

They have a changing pavilion with accessible toilets, a covered enclosure and a fence round the ground.

It's as much a public park as Beechwood. 

Only thing they don't have is the social club but you don't need that for Entry Level license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Isabel Goudie said:

Having read a report on Kelty v Burntisland and tribute being paid to both teams for achieving a club licence I decided to have a look at Recreation Park, home of Burtisland Shipyard.  It seems that after five years of hard work and support from the council etc  the club have realised their ambition and gained a Club Licence. Have to say the place looks no better than a public park with little in the way of hard standing or graded terrace. I also wondered how on earth BSC obtained a licence at Lochburn Park when visiting with Talbot a few seasons back, such was the state of the place. Is it not time to call the SFA out on this? Get them to admit if a club cut the grass and have somewhere to get changed any club in tier 6,  higher, or with intention to join will pass the ground criteria for a licence. However, if clubs don't comply to the current so called pyramid, you can whistle. Comparing Talbot's Beechwood with Burtisland's Recreation Park, it could be the Bernabau such is the gulf. But Talbot, with resources and backing most of the teams in tier 5 & 6 could only dream of, are not considered because they won't comply to an abomination of a structure. Does that small observation not completely verify how utterly ludicrous the whole scene is in the lower end of football in Scotland? It is like a scene dreamed up by a fertile imagination from someone commissioned to write a comedy based on football, with the title absurd. You could not make it up!

Shippy have extended their changing rooms built a new fence and got a wee enclosure and we have some decent toilets and its perfect for a wee club like us. Yer post reeks of arrogance or it reeks of pish cannae decide whit :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion the SFA want F,all to do with the juniors thats why there is so little in way  of a viable structure on the table.The association can handle a few East junior teams moving,knowing full well that there West compadres will remain in the status quo when faced with joining South of Scotland league.Why would they want to grant licensee's that also come with a vote,that gives teams a say on any decisions the SFA decide to immplement in the future.(correct me if thats wrong).We have already saw this week how smaller league teams can use their vote to deny old firm colt teams parachuted into league 2.Rather than giving more power and voting rights to the wee provincial clubs and juniors, that gain a licence,i feel the SFA are under pressure from Rangers  and Celtic and the rest of premiership clubs to curtail the small clubs influence  in decisions on how the game develops in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Isabel Goudie said:

Having read a report on Kelty v Burntisland and tribute being paid to both teams for achieving a club licence I decided to have a look at Recreation Park, home of Burtisland Shipyard.  It seems that after five years of hard work and support from the council etc  the club have realised their ambition and gained a Club Licence. Have to say the place looks no better than a public park with little in the way of hard standing or graded terrace. I also wondered how on earth BSC obtained a licence at Lochburn Park when visiting with Talbot a few seasons back, such was the state of the place. Is it not time to call the SFA out on this? Get them to admit if a club cut the grass and have somewhere to get changed any club in tier 6,  higher, or with intention to join will pass the ground criteria for a licence. However, if clubs don't comply to the current so called pyramid, you can whistle. Comparing Talbot's Beechwood with Burtisland's Recreation Park, it could be the Bernabau such is the gulf. But Talbot, with resources and backing most of the teams in tier 5 & 6 could only dream of, are not considered because they won't comply to an abomination of a structure. Does that small observation not completely verify how utterly ludicrous the whole scene is in the lower end of football in Scotland? It is like a scene dreamed up by a fertile imagination from someone commissioned to write a comedy based on football, with the title absurd. You could not make it up!

Well you know the score apply to join the East of Scotland or the South and take it from there, Club Licence in the post.

So who are the next clubs to get licensed, Bonnyton, Lothian...  any news on that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should have a look at Golspie Sutherland's park, Isa. Another licenced team for you to froth at the mouth about...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Patches O'Houlihan said:

In all seriousness the criteria is far reaching and is quite onerous. Admittedly the ground forms a large part of the criteria, but the rest of it should not be underestimated.

This a hundred times over. So Isa, get them guys at Talbot to blow the dust off the annual accounts :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Isabel Goudie said:

Having read a report on Kelty v Burntisland and tribute being paid to both teams for achieving a club licence I decided to have a look at Recreation Park, home of Burtisland Shipyard.  It seems that after five years of hard work and support from the council etc  the club have realised their ambition and gained a Club Licence. Have to say the place looks no better than a public park with little in the way of hard standing or graded terrace. I also wondered how on earth BSC obtained a licence at Lochburn Park when visiting with Talbot a few seasons back, such was the state of the place. Is it not time to call the SFA out on this? Get them to admit if a club cut the grass and have somewhere to get changed any club in tier 6,  higher, or with intention to join will pass the ground criteria for a licence. However, if clubs don't comply to the current so called pyramid, you can whistle. Comparing Talbot's Beechwood with Burtisland's Recreation Park, it could be the Bernabau such is the gulf. But Talbot, with resources and backing most of the teams in tier 5 & 6 could only dream of, are not considered because they won't comply to an abomination of a structure. Does that small observation not completely verify how utterly ludicrous the whole scene is in the lower end of football in Scotland? It is like a scene dreamed up by a fertile imagination from someone commissioned to write a comedy based on football, with the title absurd. You could not make it up!

Like  any organisation or association, the SFA is entitled to set out the rules of membership.  If clubs don't like the rules, they don't join.  The licensing rules have already changed and will continue to do so (evolve) over time.  Not perfect, but they were drawn up to encourage clubs, not exclude them from Membership, taking into account the SJFC  'traditions'. 

Junior clubs should stop moaning, and consult with/or ballot their members to find out as to whether or not they want to join the 'exclusive'  SFA Pyramid Club. If not, stay as they are , and let's see how things have turned out in ten years time.

Of far more interest IMO, it would be interesting to know from Pie Shoppers, if they are aware of clubs who appear to be actively preparing for licensing, albeit without going public .And what do ambitious players consider is best for them in their playing career ?  Pyramid or Junior ?

As an aside, does anyone know when is the next Licensing Committee Meeting is taking place ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Duraglit shareholder said:

In my opinion the SFA want F,all to do with the juniors thats why there is so little in way  of a viable structure on the table.The association can handle a few East junior teams moving,knowing full well that there West compadres will remain in the status quo when faced with joining South of Scotland league.Why would they want to grant licensee's that also come with a vote,that gives teams a say on any decisions the SFA decide to immplement in the future.(correct me if thats wrong).We have already saw this week how smaller league teams can use their vote to deny old firm colt teams parachuted into league 2.Rather than giving more power and voting rights to the wee provincial clubs and juniors, that gain a licence,i feel the SFA are under pressure from Rangers  and Celtic and the rest of premiership clubs to curtail the small clubs influence  in decisions on how the game develops in the future.

It's more like the Juniors, or rather TJ, wanted 'F' all to do with the SFA.  He probably saw his powers would be diminished and like most administrators, thought of himself first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Isabel Goudie said:

Having read a report on Kelty v Burntisland and tribute being paid to both teams for achieving a club licence I decided to have a look at Recreation Park, home of Burtisland Shipyard.  It seems that after five years of hard work and support from the council etc  the club have realised their ambition and gained a Club Licence. Have to say the place looks no better than a public park with little in the way of hard standing or graded terrace. I also wondered how on earth BSC obtained a licence at Lochburn Park when visiting with Talbot a few seasons back, such was the state of the place. Is it not time to call the SFA out on this? Get them to admit if a club cut the grass and have somewhere to get changed any club in tier 6,  higher, or with intention to join will pass the ground criteria for a licence. However, if clubs don't comply to the current so called pyramid, you can whistle. Comparing Talbot's Beechwood with Burtisland's Recreation Park, it could be the Bernabau such is the gulf. But Talbot, with resources and backing most of the teams in tier 5 & 6 could only dream of, are not considered because they won't comply to an abomination of a structure. Does that small observation not completely verify how utterly ludicrous the whole scene is in the lower end of football in Scotland? It is like a scene dreamed up by a fertile imagination from someone commissioned to write a comedy based on football, with the title absurd. You could not make it up!

Why don't you go to the sfa licence page, download the green guide and work through it to tick off where Talbot comply or don't comply and then you can have a dig at other clubs for just getting on with it. 

Incidentally, I do think it's a tougher ask for clubs who play in "traditional" environments with gradients than for one level venues. It's also harder for clubs with their own ground as opposed to turning up at one where the work has been done for you and you then just pay the rent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 hours ago, HTG said:

Why don't you go to the sfa licence page, download the green guide and work through it to tick off where Talbot comply or don't comply and then you can have a dig at other clubs for just getting on with it. 

Incidentally, I do think it's a tougher ask for clubs who play in "traditional" environments with gradients than for one level venues. It's also harder for clubs with their own ground as opposed to turning up at one where the work has been done for you and you then just pay the rent. 

My Rosey Posey chum, with respect can I suggest you are perhaps teaching your Grannie how to suck eggs. You are surely aware that Talbot were all geared up to press the licence button, before they realised that unlike you're own club, they had the rug well and truly pulled. However, as usually happens with these posts, people dive in with preconceived bias without actually interpreting what my point is. Another poster new to our forum "Robert James" another missing the point.

 

12 hours ago, Robert James said:

Like  any organisation or association, the SFA is entitled to set out the rules of membership.  If clubs don't like the rules, they don't join.  The licensing rules have already changed and will continue to do so (evolve) over time.  Not perfect, but they were drawn up to encourage clubs, not exclude them from Membership, taking into account the SJFC  'traditions'. 

Junior clubs should stop moaning, and consult with/or ballot their members to find out as to whether or not they want to join the 'exclusive'  SFA Pyramid Club. If not, stay as they are , and let's see how things have turned out in ten years time.

Of far more interest IMO, it would be interesting to know from Pie Shoppers, if they are aware of clubs who appear to be actively preparing for licensing, albeit without going public .And what do ambitious players consider is best for them in their playing career ?  Pyramid or Junior ?

As an aside, does anyone know when is the next Licensing Committee Meeting is taking place ?

My man, organisations are entitled to set out rules, but if I'm not mistaken we are not in the People's Republic of China, North Korea or a modern day Stalingrad, therefore the people are equally entitled to challenge it. Consequently I for one will not “stay as they are , and let's see how things have turned out in ten years time” I consider that the SFA have gone about this the wrong way and continue to do so. I use the example of Burtisland to highlight just one more point to suggest that the whole concept of the current so called pyramid is a dugs dinner and they could not have made a bigger James Hunt of it had that been their aim all along, now there’s a thought!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Robert James said:

  Not perfect, but they were drawn up to encourage clubs, not exclude them from Membership, taking into account the SJFC  'traditions'. 

The pride of Perth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Isabel Goudie said:

Having read a report on Kelty v Burntisland and tribute being paid to both teams for achieving a club licence I decided to have a look at Recreation Park, home of Burtisland Shipyard.  It seems that after five years of hard work and support from the council etc  the club have realised their ambition and gained a Club Licence. Have to say the place looks no better than a public park with little in the way of hard standing or graded terrace. I also wondered how on earth BSC obtained a licence at Lochburn Park when visiting with Talbot a few seasons back, such was the state of the place. Is it not time to call the SFA out on this? Get them to admit if a club cut the grass and have somewhere to get changed any club in tier 6,  higher, or with intention to join will pass the ground criteria for a licence. However, if clubs don't comply to the current so called pyramid, you can whistle. Comparing Talbot's Beechwood with Burtisland's Recreation Park, it could be the Bernabau such is the gulf. But Talbot, with resources and backing most of the teams in tier 5 & 6 could only dream of, are not considered because they won't comply to an abomination of a structure. Does that small observation not completely verify how utterly ludicrous the whole scene is in the lower end of football in Scotland? It is like a scene dreamed up by a fertile imagination from someone commissioned to write a comedy based on football, with the title absurd. You could not make it up!

Jeezo let it go and no need to slag another club again, first Dalkeith and now Burntisland.  If Talbot want a licence they know what they need to do but I get the impression you only wanted one if you could stay Junior and have your cake and eat it. Sorry old bean that door has been locked and rightly so and maybe the other Junior clubs with a licence should have it removed if they don’t join the Pyramid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×