Jump to content

Cornishman

Gold Members
  • Posts

    122
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

76 Excellent

About Cornishman

  • Birthday 15/01/1964

Profile Information

  • Mr.
  • Location
    Malvern
  • Interests
    Non-League footy
    Stamp Collecting
    Reading
    (ex) Cartoonist
    Poet/Songwriter
    Cartophile (maps)
  • My Team
    Bo'ness United

Recent Profile Visitors

2,210 profile views
  1. Here's a devious question... You have the opportunity and wherewithall to kick-out the OF to say, the EPL... the only proviso in doing so is you have to accept the OF Colts into L2. Wwyd?
  2. If WoS clubs; say from Ayr & Southward; could be drafted into the SoS, then the latter could become a very much more viable league at tier6 n'est-ce-pas? While I readily anticipate inertia against the idea for predictable reasons, there is some merit in allowing clubs in the area the alternative, ostensibly easier, route to promotion chances and in the creation of a much stronger third LL-feeder, create stronger argument for a larger LL trapdoor to tier6! Further, with the emigration of those clubs from WoS, that league will itself concertina into a sleeker competition, with greater opportunities for all remaining clubs to rise in the hierarchy. Thus established, the argument for a three-up/down arrangement between tier5 & tier6 would be paramount, particularly were the LL to increase to an 18-team competition (which it has already been proven easily possible!).
  3. OK, so Rod Petrie and Ian Maxwell had a TJ feverdream. D'Oh!
  4. Do I really need to say that Option Z was only ever a TJ feverdream? It was a strategically placed filibuster designed to significantly muddy the waters..
  5. All fine and well saying that, but (again) the SPFL's bottom line is two feeder leagues... and if not two, then one!
  6. The most sensible way to treat with the bottom-28 teams in the EoSFL would be to create them in two parallel 14-team Divisions... either as a North&West/South&East split ~or~ as two random(ish)ly divided Conferences. I'd allow a surplus of two teams to be promoted than relegated between the Divisions Two and Division One - to bring the latter to an 18-strong constitution, the better to deal with a 4-down/2x2-up promotion and relegation system thereafter. Sorted!
  7. Bearing in mind that so far, all we have is a probable notification of proposals yet to be made. I, personally cannot corroborate the following... "2022/3 is very much a holding position. There will be breathtaking changes for 2023/4". However, the person I'm quoting is a sometimes P&B poster and on the Forum where I mostly interact with him, he is recognised as a sensible, grounded member of long standing who very rarely shares incorrect information, if ever. I think that he had a simple clerical 'slip', though, in not explaining that the 2023/4 season should be a transitional period, where any proposed changes would become extant in 2024/5.
  8. It IS written in plain English. The obvious interpretation seems wholly legitimate. If your standpoint were correct the 'OR clause' is rendered supremely superfluous to requirement. It seems to exist in order to prevent the Premier Division from having to operate with an uneven number in membership.
  9. I am quite sure your confidence is misplaced... it means what it says!
  10. The note in the bottom left of the graphic states that those playoffs will be played if EOS either loses OR gains a team to/from the LFL.
  11. Eh. Here's a model which would satisfy both the 'need' for Premiership competitors to have four seasonal OF games, and the 'problem' of perceiving that there are too few teams in each division. How about we go for an SPFL constructed 16-16-16 in three tiers? The Premiership would include twelve teams plus the OF... but, crucially, the arsecheeks are allowed to play each of their fixtures vs. their various opponents twice ~ once with the identity of '1st.match-team' and followed chronologically in the identity of '2nd.match-team'. Each identity holds it's own separate league place, without opportunity to favour one or the other, simply because it's obvious that in playing any 'Team X', it's difficult to play a second match against them before the first match against them!!! Of course, a rule to ensure that both identities play their 'best First Team' for each and every match would be required. So... NO B-Team! The matter of the supposed required fixture: 'Left Cheek 1st.match-team' v. 'Left Cheek 2nd.match-team' would be obviated by the non-match being awarded as a 0-0 draw. With a 30-game fixture list a top-8/bottom-8 split for seven extra matches would fill-up to 37 games. Noting that no matter 30-game finishing positions, the lower-placed of both OF identities will always play out in the bottom-8 competition, with upward adjustment as necessary for other teams. Final League positions for the season would only count each Cheek's highest qualified identity, however, all other teams would retain all points earned [same as presently operates in the SLFL]. Same would operate in regard to Euro competition qualification. Regarding OF relegation: Normally, we'd expect 2-up/down, but each OF lower-finishing team can only be relegated if the higher-finishing identity occupies 3rd.-last place and rarely, 4th.-last place too [only if all OF identities occupy all bottom-4 places in the latter case]. Six extra teams would be needed in the League to fulfil the 16-16-16 model. Bizarre, I know, but if this model be adopted, have I covered all important points?
  12. I suggested just that, a while back... except I intimated that organising a 'ring-a-thon' (where a group of people organise a telephone bombing campaign), so the sponsor receives a different complainant's phonecall every five minutes or so, might be considered.
  13. That appears so! My bad! Think I assumed that HL & LL operated a more similar relegation policy. At least it created a little extra 'think space', lol!
  14. We do realise that if the HL champion promotes to League2, then Fort ain't relegated?
×
×
  • Create New...