gaz5

Yep, 3-1 Dunipace

As I've said, the combining of the WRSJFA (which no one had objections to and the EoS lobbied FOR) and the ERSJFA as a "package" is the reason that Petershill and Cumnock are not in the pyramid next year. That package deal, and refusal to break it up (despite dropping the North like a hot tattie when it suited) is why Cumnock and Petershill are not in. The EoS rejected (as did the LL) a batshit crazy plan, made concessions in the West and Tayside league's and invited East juniors to join them. The SJFA rejected those alternatives, interestingly without seemingly presenting the options to their members like the EoS and LL did. If I agree to buy your car (the outcome) and send my mate to pay who turns up and tries to do so in turnips of an equivalent cash value (batshit crazy plan), you are quite within your rights to tell me "no, you have to come yourself to sign the paperwork and pay in actual cash" (counter proposal that would work for all parties). If my mate refuses to come and present the alternate proposal to me and keeps shouting "turnips" it's not then your fault, having offered a workable solution, that I haven't got the car (the outcome) and my mate is left with a big bag of turnips (batshit crazy plan). A deliberately stupid analogy, but essentially what you are suggesting by layimg the outcome at the door of the EoS for not accepting their bag of turnips initially. [emoji846]

So you agree, the SFA can't do anything on their own, it's consensus that is required, which is exactly what I said in the last paragraph. That was my point in opposition to what you had suggested initially with the view that the SFA would step in if they didn't get what they want. They can't "step in", it requires consensus. That's why the juniors at Tier 6 was never a "done deal" and I'd be amazed if anyone at the SFA ever used that terminology.

They don't currently have a say. That "fuss" was because IM wanted the LL/EoS/SoS to rewrite their rules to say that IM could choose. They refused (AFAIK) and there's no way the SFA can force that rule change. I think as we've seen in the last few years with Colt teams, Juniors at Tier 6 etc. people seem to greatly over estimate the power the SFA have over league's and rules. National team, Scottish Cup and Licensing seems to be (based on just what we've seen) their reach. Anything involving the league's or league rules etc. needs agreement/consensus from the league's in question. The SFA don't appear to have sole decision making rights there, and rightly so.

I think what you mean is had TJ not inexplicably linked ERSJFA to WRSJFA then buried his head in the sand when given the opportunity to unlink the two, WRSJFA would be in next year. The EoS rejected the East, they didn't link the East to the West or refuse to allow the West on board, they lobbied FOR that. As far as I can tell, the EoS did more to get the West Juniors into the pyramid next year than any other organisation. I can see why you are trying to confuse matters and lay blame with the EoS because they didn't roll over and take the Junior telt, but the facts remain that West Region clubs are not in the pyramid next year for one reason and one reason only, because TJ and the SJFA didn't want them there (or because they are incompetent beyond measure, but I don't believe that to be the case).

They're not officially in the process till the SFA accept the applications and take the £2k fee. The visit from the licencing dept was pre emptive. Non of the 3 applicants, juniors or otherwise, are "in the process" yet as far as I'm aware. If Petershill and/or Cumnock are then we are in the odd scenario where the SFA would be progressing clubs outside of the pyramid before those inside it. That would be interesting ground. [emoji846] On the subject of the EoS "blocking" WRSJFA pyramid access, that is a falsehood in its entirety. It was made clear by the EoS and LL that they had no issue with the West, that if the SJFA paused the east for a year to allow further time to discuss the issue no one would object to the West joining for season 19/20. That offer was declined by the SJFA. The only blocker to Talbot (or any other West team) being in the Pyramid next year was TJ and the SJFA. Obviously there will be people who will believe otherwise, but I was in the room, along with many others on here, so know the reality. I know it happened because I was one of 3 delegates on the night who made representation to RP and IM in front of the room that the West Juniors SHOULD enter for next season. On all three occasions this was raised the room was asked for objections to West entry. On all 3 occasions, no objections were raised, there was unanimous support from EoS clubs to allow the West in next year following the JPP. This hasn't happened despite the EoS lobbying FOR it, not against it. So, who stopped it?

Correct. We have also had a pre visit from licensing in the last few weeks. It's the licence department being both proactive and helpful in the expectation that the application is accepted. Our visit was very positive. But we have still had no official notification that the SFA have accepted our application, we were hoping for that from the board meeting on Thursday past (20th) but not heard anything (yet). Our £2k cheque has long since passed its expiry date without being deposited.

The penalty was a foul, no doubt, but I'd take issue with "no decision was incorrect". The ref let Argentina take the free kick that led to the penalty while Scotland were making a sub, so a player short. That can't be allowed surely. If VAR can check a keeper stepping an inch of the line, surely it can check for the ref making a c**t of it at the sub. That said, agree, the penalty was the final nail in an epic collapse and the shitness of VAR will cover up for that to a degree. On the plus side, VAR might push up spectator numbers in lower league and non league games fans get fed up with it. Have to say, at far, it has been an absolute disaster (for me).

Oh dear indeed. Whats your point caller? No one is ever said Dunipace didn't bring an Ams team on board, or add an under 19's for next season using an existing local side. I've also never said the jump from Ams to Seniors at Bo'ness or Linlithgow is too much or used it as a justification for anything we've done or haven't done. We started our 20's from scratch last season as well, for what it's worth. I've never said that having a junior side as a feeder is a bad thing for anyone. That's for each individual club to decide. What I have said it's that we decided it wasn't for us because we've had a level of success already from the teams we have. For us, we didn't see having a junior team as a net benefit, for now, based on the the cost/benefit and the teams we already have (or are adding) providing a level of success we are happy with in terms of our pathway. I've also wished the teams the best of luck and said I'll be interested to see what the output is compared to ours. Thanks for screenshotting back to me a statement I wrote, which is relevant to nothing I've said before in this particular thread, just in case I'd forgotten what I'd said. [emoji846] You've had a bit of a nightmare here.

ERSJFA have already split themselves in exactly this way because they thought it was better for their clubs. In essence, they've made it far easier to amalgamate LL area clubs into the EoS and HL area clubs into a Tayside league feeding HL because they've done all the hard work and split the region along those lines already.

There's much more to licencing than the ground, so it's not quite as simple as that. But to directly answer your question, no, it wont be immediately possible, the licenced changing rooms at Dunipace are not available on the same licence ready configuration to anyone hiring the park. The first team changing room in particular is solely for the use of our first team. Given we are based there for both training and games it has been extensively revamped with kitchen, A/V system, seating, flooring, toilets, showers, physio room and individual pods for each player to leave their gear in so they don't need to take to and from the ground between sessions. That entire side of the building is closed to the public, only access for First Team and kit man. It would take significant additional outlay to make the public changing rooms licence ready for another club to use to piggyback the rest of our facility for a licence. I'm sure we would be open to the conversation of spending that additional money, but given the benefits licensing brings one might expect a negotiation to take place around a rental agreement for anyone else who wished to use our ground to be licenced as opposed to just renting it for playing games. Oh, and timescales, we are nearly there. Everything should hopefully be in place in the next 4 to 6 weeks, most of which is awaiting the council decision on planning. All the infrastructure required is bought and awaiting install, we just want to make sure the council is all ok with everything first.

So why have the changed for next year and had it been confirmed it is only for one season, like the EoS was from the outset, given that's your comparison? 100% season after next they are going back to a region wide superleague? Guess who Rod told everyone at the meeting had been told repeatedly about it? Go on, have a guess. [emoji39]

I was in the meeting. There's a huge difference. EoS was ok having 3 conferences FOR ONE SEASON to solve a unique issue (influx of clubs) and sort out a region inclusive premier League for the following season. It was a temporary, one season only, affair. The ERSJFA are proposing their 2 league structure in perpetuity, rolling back from what was already an inclusive, region wide Premier league, when there was no issue to sort. These two scenarios are entirely different and this has been explained previously.

Fair point on Linlithgow CFC, I thought they had added "Rose" to the name based on the posters on here quoting their return. Which was kinda the point I was making. I've not called either club a "tribute act" and I don't have any issue with either club doing whatever they want to do. As I said in the post you quoted, good luck to both and I've said that in posts before, any club looking to better themselves is a good thing. I know Linlithgow Thistle are a very well run club, don't know much about Linlithgow CFC so can't comment there. My issue, as I said, is with other people passing them (you?) off as something they are not. It's as much a disservice to those clubs as it is Junior football. You are not Bo'ness United returning from the EoS. You're reading too much into my "leading" comment. That was tongue and cheek fur the poster I responded to. [emoji846] Yes, the "more likely" to produce a player through Juniors was how it was sold to us as well. We had 38 EoS appearances from 20's players last season, 6 from our amateurs, from 11 different players. We've promoted 3 20's and 2 of our Ams in pre season. And we also had a good number of first team appearances (15+) in our 20's/Ams for players coming back from injury. We decided the junior route was less likely for us to produce players and we didn't want a second team where players would expect "compensated", when we don't have that with 20's or Ams. There's also the "registration" issue, where at present our 20's can just play for the first team any time and we can send first team players back for 6 games a season at any time. That also wasn't possible with the junior route, given the registration issue with it. Will be interesting to see how many players from these junior teams step up to the senior teams.

What's your point here? Dalkeith and Dunipace were in the initial 13 applicants to be accepted into the EoS league last season. Part of the "leading" group if you will. Both clubs did their due diligence and decided that the EoS was the best place for them to grow and, from our point of view certainly, in the year since then no one has changed their minds in the slightest. In fact, quite the opposite, we couldn't be happier. We didn't change our name to "Auchinleck Talbot" before we moved to the EoS to try and pass ourselves off as someone else, we went as we were and publicised our reasons behind the decision. As did Dalkeith. So really, your comparison is, well, apples and pears. Everything about the EoS league, from the meetings to the people to the way it is run has done little but confirm that our decision was the right one. Further, when we compare our experiences of the two setups, the EoSL and EoSFA in our single season thus far have provided a better "product" for us to consume and sell to our community than we've had in the last 20 years. Fixture lists, night games under lights, a season with an end date and an off season, cup draws, no holdup for months to get a game played, no mad end of season rush to play 3 games a week not having played for months in winter due to "the cup", no getting games a week or two in advance, answers to emails prompt and informative, an approachable leadership who genuinely seem like they are there to help, joined up thinking with the league and association above, match balls, defibrillators, training balls, insurances, under 20's, access to funding etc. etc. It's all in advance of the Junior "product", at an organisational level, in our experience. That's not "talking down" the juniors, that's pointing out quantifiable differences that have made things better for us. And the football on the park? Still the same game. No one comes to our games thinking "this doesn't feel Junior anymore" because no one came to our games thinking that in the first place. In terms of the new clubs in the juniors and being sold as "teams moving back" or "having a safety net" that simply isn't the case in my view. Syngenta (who will be renting our ground) wanted to move to the EoS, but were refused on the basis of not meeting the criteria. (I won't even make the point that in order to be accepted into the juniors they are having to rent an EoS ground and what Clydebank might think of that after what they and Yoker were told about ground sharing between teams in different associations not being allowed - seems that "rule" has changed this season). The team who will be Sauchie also discussed with us the potential of running a reserve team in the Juniors, mainly as a place for our 20's to go if they were too old but not ready for our First Team. We declined. Sauchie have decided to go ahead with that. Two other clubs have changed their names to look like something they're not and some people have jumped on it. Good luck to them, I actually don't have any issues with them moving to the juniors and I'm sure most others don't either. I think what most people take issue to is folk other than those clubs themselves trying to make it out to be something that it's not.

FTFY. Honestly, 1/10, must try harder.

I can't make up my mind if you guys actually believe this shite or if you've got the hooks out looking for bites.

Our Under 20's averaged about 60 ish, highest just under 100, for our home games. Obviously it was free entry, which helped, but we were still pleasantly impressed with the interest. Folk like a Friday night game.

Everyone will have their own ambitions and plans for their 20's I'm sure, I don't think it's ever likely to be one size fits all at our level, just like it isn't higher up the tree here or indeed all across the world. Our ambition, with a (nearly) full youth setup of boys and girls from as young as 5 and a facility they can all use, is to have that pathway where we not only get players into our first team, but push players on to the highest level they can play at. Easier said than done, sure, but for a club like ours the right aim. Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Pie and Bovril mobile app

Obviously not one of the "bigger" clubs, but at Dunipace last season our numbers were as follows: - 15 separate under 20's in competitive first team squads - 9 of those made their senior debut in those games - 7 of those started one or more games - 2 started 5 games or more - 38 appearances in the first team by under 20's players in total, most of those starts - 3 players promoted to senior side for next season Given it was our first year running a 20's side, we're delighted with those numbers and the success of the team. We want to regularly develop players into our first team and beyond, it's very much the model we are aiming at. Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Pie and Bovril mobile app

Fair enough. I'm just keen to understand the reality of the situation, given the amount of my own personal time and effort I've put into our licence application in the last 18 months and the amount we've either already spent / plan on spending going forward to achieve / maintain the licence. Given we haven't even had so much as an email from the SFA (excluding the licencing guys who have been great) since February to say when we will be passed to licencing, I don't expect they will be overly bothered about giving us the info you're talking about, because you know we're wee and insignificant and not part of the club. [emoji34]

So you have any idea what it means? Does anyone? [emoji846] Distribution of license payments is currently based on licence type (Entry, Bronze etc.). Voting rights, fair enough. But does anyone actually know what changes were presented/proposed and have been agreed here?

Surely won't impact on the pot, as that is based on licence level, rather than membership type. Seems this is more to do with voting (for now anyway). Whole thing is getting a bit Turkeys and Christmas. It's almost as if the SFA dint actually want to promote the game at all levels like they say the do, they want to protect the game for those already in the club.....

So all new members, after the 6 who just got in, will now be "associate members" rather than full members, for some period of time, meaning no voting rights?

Do you have any detail Tynie?