Jump to content

Club Licence


Guest

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Robert James said:

Helpful extract from the constitution, thanks.

So not a "closed shop", but not a fluid  "pyramid" either. Promotion rules/criteria within the pyramid from the EoSL and SoSL to the Lowland are clear, whereas  promotion to the Highland League is by 'grace and favour' voting only. 

 

The Highland League/EoSFL/SoSFL are all dependent on "grace and favour" voting. Just as entry into one of the the Junior Regions would be dependent on the same. Supposedly the BSC suggestion of a WoSFL came about from having their reserve team rejected from the Juniors.

The Highland League certainly have more requirements to meet than any of the other leagues though. As you need to have a club licence and floodlights. Floodlights being quite cost prohibitive for many, which is why they're not needed for a entry level club licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HTG said:

There really shouldn't be a difference in requirement at tier 5. If one part insists on it then so should the other.  And that should have been the case from day 1.

Chances are if any club in the North received a club licence without having floodlights, they might well be able to get in with the SFA forcing the issue. At the same time it could see a North Junior or North Caledonian club go for their licence but avoid having to join the pyramid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HTG said:

There really shouldn't be a difference in requirement at tier 5. If one part insists on it then so should the other.  And that should have been the case from day 1.

The lowest level of the pyramid in the North is tier 5. The lowest level of the pyramid in the Lowlands is tier 6. You submit an application to the lowest tier in the region your clubs is based in. One part insists on it and so does the other.

A debate about the geographical split and structure in different regions is a separate (and valid) question, but the application process at the bottom level is the same regardless of region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Marshmallo said:

The lowest level of the pyramid in the North is tier 5. The lowest level of the pyramid in the Lowlands is tier 6. You submit an application to the lowest tier in the region your clubs is based in. One part insists on it and so does the other.

A debate about the geographical split and structure in different regions is a separate (and valid) question, but the application process at the bottom level is the same regardless of region.

Sorry but enforcing a different standard on a tier 5 applicant based on geography is nonsense. There are tier 5 teams in the south who couldn't or wouldn't be tier 5 teams in the north. 

But the current pyramid is a mish mash of bollocks so we shouldn't be surprised. The sfa never wanted it. It's the absolute minimum to shut UEFA up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, HTG said:

Sorry but enforcing a different standard on a tier 5 applicant based on geography is nonsense. There are tier 5 teams in the south who couldn't or wouldn't be tier 5 teams in the north. 

But the current pyramid is a mish mash of bollocks so we shouldn't be surprised. The sfa never wanted it. It's the absolute minimum to shut UEFA up.

When it comes to floodlighting, the Lowland League does have a requirement that a club can provide an alternative ground for midweek fixtures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

When it comes to floodlighting, the Lowland League does have a requirement that a club can provide an alternative ground for midweek fixtures.

That wouldn't get you into tier 5 up north. I get the point that they're trying to be practical but the bottom line is after 5 years we still don't have an aligned standard in the pyramid. I daresay they'd be just as practical about clubs who nearly meet the LL reqts ... not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HTG said:

That wouldn't get you into tier 5 up north. I get the point that they're trying to be practical but the bottom line is after 5 years we still don't have an aligned standard in the pyramid. I daresay they'd be just as practical about clubs who nearly meet the LL reqts ... not. 

 

It might very well be good enough in future. Look at how Cove Rangers have used multiple grounds in a season while they deal with their issue regarding a new ground. The Highland League could adopt the same type of ruling on floodlights that the Lowland League has to deal with future applicants that don't currently have their own floodlights.

There are different versions of the Highland League's rules & constitutions from the last 5 years available on their website. That's because they aren't set in stone and are going to evolve. Both the Highland & Lowland Leagues main requirement for entry is that the clubs have a SFA Club Licence. How they deal with the issue of fixture congestion prevention through the use of floodlights differs, but the intent is the same. Neither approach is designed as a barrier to entry but as a means to minimise a fixture backlog.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
3 minutes ago, non_sequitur said:

No been around for a while but telt at Shippy a couple of weeks back that they'll need lights to keep there licence is that true? how long have they got?

It's true, there will likely be a derogation for clubs who currently have a license. However, how long Shippy will have to install floodlights is not clear yet as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Marten said:

It's true, there will likely be a derogation for clubs who currently have a license. However, how long Shippy will have to install floodlights is not clear yet as far as I know.

Cheers Marten, be good to have them and see them play under lights but theres hooses across the road and right behind the cover so no sure how chuffed they would be with that plus the cost

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, non_sequitur said:

Cheers Marten, be good to have them and see them play under lights but theres hooses across the road and right behind the cover so no sure how chuffed they would be with that plus the cost

It's worth mentioning that there are no rules about lux etc. So pretty basic lighting could already work as long as long as it's good enough to play under. It might not be as costly as it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, non_sequitur said:

Cheers Marten, be good to have them and see them play under lights but theres hooses across the road and right behind the cover so no sure how chuffed they would be with that plus the cost

Suppose if they are used for an hour or two, on up to a dozen Saturdays during Nov-Jan and maybe some midweek games hopefully it shouldn't be too bad. Won't know about the light spill behind the floodlights until the club gets someone to do an obtrusive light calculation, which will be required for the planning application anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Marten said:

It's worth mentioning that there are no rules about lux etc. So pretty basic lighting could already work as long as long as it's good enough to play under. It might not be as costly as it seems.

That's not correct.

200 lux minimum is the recommendation for entry level licence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Marten said:

It's true, there will likely be a derogation for clubs who currently have a license. However, how long Shippy will have to install floodlights is not clear yet as far as I know.

Derogation  details (eg timescales for floodlight compliance) not yet announced. 

Some indication  of the 'application' of derogation may emerge from the meeting of the Club Licensing Committee later this month. Alternatively full SFA ratification/approval  may be required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Robert James said:

Derogation  details (eg timescales for floodlight compliance) not yet announced. 

Some indication  of the 'application' of derogation may emerge from the meeting of the Club Licensing Committee later this month. Alternatively full SFA ratification/approval  may be required.

I doubt they'll ever announce anything. We'll only have an indication by the fact new licenses are awarded with no existing floodlights.

Then you'll probably hear rumours from them or current members panicking over how long they've got to get floodlights installed.

It's not like the derogation process applies solely to floodlights it can apply to any part of the criteria. You've got 99% ticked but there's just this measly 1% to go  sort of situation. For all we know clubs have had licenses renewed/awarded with a derogation in place for other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

 

It's not like the derogation process applies solely to floodlights it can apply to any part of the criteria. You've got 99% ticked but there's just this measly 1% to go  sort of situation. For all we know clubs have had licenses renewed/awarded with a derogation in place for other things.

I don’t really accept that. I imagine you’ve seen the hotel inspectors episode in Fawlty Towers - it’s similar to that. They inspect the ground/paperwork/whatever, give you a list of actions to take, and give you 3 months* to fix it or your license is refused (or revoked). In Whitehill’s case, having spent over 30k on a perimeter fence, in good faith, the fence was deemed not good enough to prevent people seeing into the ground, so another 3k was needed to fix this. In those circumstances you just burst a gut to get the work done. That’s why nobody has lost their licence, and nobody who is serious about the license has failed to get it.

Floodlights are a biggie though, a special case. You can’t just magic them up overnight.

Edited by The Mantis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Mantis said:

I don’t really accept that. I imagine you’ve seen the hotel inspectors episode in Fawlty Towers - it’s similar to that. They inspect the ground/paperwork/whatever, give you a list of actions to take, and give you 3 months* to fix it or your license is refused (or revoked). In those circumstances you just burst a gut to get the work done. That’s why nobody has lost their licence, and nobody who is serious about the license has failed to get it.

Floodlights are a biggie though, a special case. You can’t just magic them up overnight.

image.png.9e264928ed10acdb7bd1a3193f0ddaa8.png

The situation you describe is what I would consider the "Club Addresses the Variances and updates SFA". You've had your audit, you get the list of things you need to bring up to code and you run around trying to get it all done.

Derogation i'm thinking is more like: You've been audited in December,  you get most things sorted they ask for, but your pitch dimensions don't meet the requirement. You put in your derogation application because you can't rip up the pitch mid-season and you'll sort it in the summer.

Which is where I think floodlights will fall. Don't have floodlights for December audit, but here's the plan plus the funding and the plan gets accepted. Next review planning permission is holding things up, get a renewal on the basis that it'll be sorted soon. Then that's likely to be the last chance unless there's some exceptional circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

The situation you describe is what I would consider the "Club Addresses the Variances and updates SFA". You've had your audit, you get the list of things you need to bring up to code and you run around trying to get it all done.

Derogation i'm thinking is more like: You've been audited in December,  you get most things sorted they ask for, but your pitch dimensions don't meet the requirement. You put in your derogation application because you can't rip up the pitch mid-season and you'll sort it in the summer.

Which is where I think floodlights will fall. Don't have floodlights for December audit, but here's the plan plus the funding and the plan gets accepted. Next review planning permission is holding things up, get a renewal on the basis that it'll be sorted soon. Then that's likely to be the last chance unless there's some exceptional circumstances.

I think that’s spot on. Pitches and floodlights just about covers it. But my point was (and really  I should have trimmed your quote to just the final sentence) that if anybody had already been granted derogation in the 6 years of the LL then we would have heard about it.

Edited by The Mantis
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...