Jump to content

gaz5

Gold Members
  • Content Count

    625
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

gaz5 last won the day on June 20 2012

gaz5 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,068 Excellent

About gaz5

  • Rank
    Third Division Apprentice

Profile Information

  • My Team
    Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

3,650 profile views
  1. I think a key line of argument will be Rod Petrie's mantra of last year when discussing this at the EoS meeting: "No one should be forced to play in a league they don't want to". That was repeated ad infinitum. If he was serious about that, and if I were the LL reps I would parrot that back as a key part of the proposal, supporting Rods belief. We know there are plenty of teams in the West who want nothing to do with the pyramid. Follows that to meet that requirement the only way forward is a new WoS league in the pyramid, the SJFA outside of it and everyone is free to choose where they want to play, no one is forced to go where they don't want to. Job done.
  2. I think, technically, you only have to play at a licenced ground for licenced competitions matches. Stirling Uni, for example, often utilised the Gannochy in years gone by for cup ties, rather than Forthbank or Falkirk. Perhaps it's not as common these days and it would make sense that all games (or certainly the majority) are played at the licenced ground, regardless of competition.
  3. That implies he'd ever "found it" in the first place. [emoji1787]
  4. Fairly accurate. We were terrible start to finish and Burntisland more than good value at 3-0.
  5. Tomato / Tomato. Both as bad as each other. [emoji846]
  6. I've read that 3 times and I've literally no idea what the hell you mean. [emoji846] If you mean I'm on the committee, I'm not and never have been.
  7. Shit, maybe we got it wrong if your imaginary census returned those results! [emoji1787]
  8. Perhaps a better simile would be "like a 103 year old great aunt dying in a care home who now has a new lease of life and is looking alive again in their new surroundings". I suspect that at least a few people have noticed . [emoji6]
  9. I think the honest answer to that is that the paper wasnt put together with input from any of the league's other than the SJFA and whoever put it together hadn't thought about that as an option. I don't think there's anything sinister in it not being there. TBH, if you've seen the paper its pretty clear that not a lot of time or effort went into putting it together. It's pretty much the dictionary definition of back of a fag packet.
  10. To try and play the arbitration role here, I think it's worth pointing out that there seems to be a large degree of misunderstanding around the current position and the purpose of the options paper. - There is a paper in existence that contains 4 options - All league's represented at the PWG had been asked to provide feedback on all 4 options and any additional ideas to move the issue forward. There's no expectation that league's pick 1 and come back saying "that's our choice", like seems to be what was discussed at the WRSJFA meeting. It was supposed to collect views on all available options, of which a WoSFL, though not in paper used to spark debate, is certainly a viable option to bring to the table. If during discussion it seems that option is the path of least resistance, what's wrong with that. I don't think it's the case that proposal is a "threat", rather it hasn't been explained properly to delegates at the West meeting what the purpose of the paper was. It wasn't a vote. To give perspective, we were asked to (and have) give feedback on all 4 options in the paper and general thoughts on structure. We weren't asked to just pick one.
  11. You're assuming you would need to convince 12 Junior clubs to begin with? Some non junior teams may see it as an opportunity to get in early? Might be a case of opening it up for application and if you get enough interest, junior or otherwise, the West feeder issue is resolved and any juniors not applying have missed their chance for Tier 6 next season. Then you are into a situation as happened in the East when Kelty moved over wondering what will happen the year after.
  12. [emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] I'm not from Denny or a team in Tier 6 mate, but nice try. You like to look at the things that you claim are "interesting" but ignore the realities of having to deliver those things staring you in the face. That's the sort of attitude that led to "Tier 6 done deal" last year and is looking like it will have the West sitting on the sidelines for at least another year.
  13. You don't need one, just bring the whole West Region as it is into Tier 6 like everyone has already agreed to other than the SJFA. I think the reference to the appropriate level was in the SJFA proposing and backing Tier 5, a level above where it should be done and where the teams in the East moved to. As an aside: The reason the EoS (and I expect LL) won't back the LL split in your previous question is that the plan to do that contains ERSJFA at Tier 6 as a parallel feeder, which has already been rejected unanimously. That's been sneaked back into plan Z.
  14. Why does splitting the LL "end the Lowland League's existence"? Are you suggesting that the SFA will/can bin the Lowland League entirely, regardless of whether LL teams agree to it and start again with Lowland League East and West and entirely new rules? That is exactly my issue with your posts. The probability of that is tiny. For starters if the SFA had that power they would have done it last season with the EoS and ERSJFA. Or is it more likely that what option z means is that the current LL splits, their official structure remaining in place, into 2 league's? And to do that the LL need to agree to it. See my previous post.
×
×
  • Create New...