Cyclizine

The French overseas territories top leagues are notionally at level 6 in France - they usually have a local qualifying competition and then a couple of clubs enter the 7th (when the professional clubs enter) round of the Coupe de France. Metropolitan French clubs in the divisions régionales can also volunteer to travel abroad (funded) which I imagine would be quite attractive, given there's places like Tahiti, Réunion, New Caledonia involved...

The Coupe de France also draws lower league teams at home (if there's two levels between clubs) , no replays, just extra time and penalties. It annoys the big teams no end having to trek to a half derelict Stade Municipal to play on a rutted, grassless pitch against some clogging amateurs. It's great.

Exactly. There're many clubs at SPFL, senior non-league and junior levels who don't own their grounds: often they're tenants of the local council. As long as they've a long-term lease, there's no issue with this. Ground sharing makes sense (within geographical limits...) Football grounds are expensive to build and maintain. Using a ground every Saturday and midweek and sharing costs is a no-brainer to me, particularly when an artificial surface (and the Devil's Illuminations) are involved.

He doesn't know.

Aye, okay. Let's leave it there since you obviously have no clue.

Is it possible for you to understand that different countries' legal systems might be not be the same? Being 'charged' with a crime is not how it works. There is a suspended preliminary investigation at the moment. The Swedish prosecutor has every right to resume the investigation. It doesn't mean that it will progress to a criminal trial.

You're still not helping yourself here. The Swedish investigation is dormant as they could not get the access they required to Assange. Now he's in custody, the Swedish prosecutor can decide to resume the investigation.

Again, you're just showing your ignorance of Swedish law by assuming it works the same as in Scotland.

You could argue it's a better system than who can afford the best lawyers. Most countries with civil systems do this: France, Germany etc.

Where would you like these clubs to go? I agree that in an ideal world, the HFL would relegate somewhere, but there's not the mass of interested clubs up here. If we'd had separate North/South tier 5 leagues created back in the day, then HFL, EoSFL and SoSFL could've stayed at tier 6 and we wouldn't have this issue. Many clubs in similar situations have managed. I'm sure @Burnie_man has referred to funding sources before.

So, what's your point about the HFL? Only one team can go up from the playoff anyway. At the moment I think this is reasonable, given the relative numbers of licenced clubs in each area. Once there's a significant difference in licences in Lowland v Highland areas, then it starts to become inequitable. We all knew floodlights were going to come in at some point. They're mandatory in the SPFL above. I'd hazard a guess that seats will be next. Why weren't plans being made? Why does it matter if clubs own their own park? As long as there is a secure lease, what's the problem? Facilities are expensive to build and maintain, it makes sense that maximum use is gained from them.

What's odd about it? We've always known that floodlights were likely to come into the mix. You've got 18 months, possibly more if you get derogation.

Well, soon it's going to be 'easier' for a SoSFL club to be promoted to the LFL than a EoSFL club. The SoSFL will have one division whereas the EoSFL will have at least two.

Why is this the HFL's responsibility? Remember, tier 5 is based on licencing. Until recently, the HFL had more licenced clubs than the Lowland area. The numbers are still comparable. Nothing stopping WW groundsharing...

Which rules would these be? As far as I see, the rule stating the bottom LFL club would be relegated was in place at the start of the season.