Jump to content


Gold Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cornishman

  1. If we are to have to exist with 'subsidiary' [word carefully chosen] teams within the significant Pyramid structure, then there must be tight regulations and significant compromises made in return. I've thought of a fair few, but no doubt, the following list can be added-to, so feel free to do so &/or critique in comments... The top-of-the-list compromise to be demanded must be to revert to a 50/50 matchday financial redistribution of attendance income, with a significant levy (10%) imposed for distribution among lower divisional clubs. The second compromise should be to insist upon SPFL reconstruction below the Premiership, to increase divisional sizes to eighteen/twenty, probably reducing to just Championship/League One [in the SPFL] in that process. Promotion/relegation to & from the Premiership must be guaranteed at two clubs per season, ideally with some form of third-club peril/playoff-opportunity... which should positively influence some Premiership thoughts with respect to 'refreshment' of the divisional format. As far as 'subsidiary team' participation is concerned... Firstly, every such team shall require to be comprised of (say) 100% U-23s & 80% Scottish-qualified players, without let. All Premiership clubs will be required to field a 'subsidiary team', guaranteed for five seasons counting from the first season of Premiership accession. Any other club may operate a 'subsidiary team', to compete no higher than two divisions beneath itself in the Pyramid, subject to being guaranteed for three seasons counting from/including the first season of playing. Such bond-backed guarantees are in all cases for the purpose of reducing any 'withdrawal chaos' in lower divisions and all 'subsidiary teams' are subject to a one-season notice of withdrawal. No 'subsidiary team' player having been fielded, starting (say) 5-times in a First-team, or 10-times subbed, or 15-times benched, or combination thereof may participate back in any 'subsidiary team' match in the same/following season, except versus another 'subsidiary team'-XI. No 'subsidiary team' would be allowed higher than League One &/or be eligible to compete in significant Cup competition. Like in the German system, a limit of (say) 4 'subsidiary teams' may be allowed in League One per season. If more than this were to initially qualify to do so, then a 'winnowing' sub-competition between them would be played to reduce numbers accordingly. Such ruling repeated in any/all lower divisions, subject to no division comprising >20% in number of 'subsidiary teams', unless agreed beforehand by the governing body. In divisions containing 'subsidiary teams' in which other rules are not pre-arranged, 'subsidiary teams' would to all intents and purposes be treated for promotion and relegation purposes exactly the same as any other team, subject to overarching rules governing maximum numbers of 'subsidiary teams' allowed per division, wherein a promoted 'subsidiary team' takes the place of an incumbent 'subsidiary team' in the higher division, as opposed to a 'normal' team. For 'normal' teams, points & GF/GA/GD against 'subsidiary teams' will be counted as normal for positional placements.
  2. June is the month in which the greatest number of weddings are held. June is the rainiest month of the Summer. Therefore, the most popular wedding gifts must be umbrellas!
  3. Strongly suspect Stranraer finishing 10th. in 21/22 season. Think they'll be up against the winners between Fraserburgh and Bonnyrigg, too!
  4. Arguably, excluding the houghmagandy concerning the Arsecheeks' Colts, we have at long last the foundation assembled for a full Scottish football pyramid and I, for one, will be fascinated to see how its evolution unfolds... particularly in the next decade or so. I think the first item on the agenda to which scrutiny should be paid is the transition from EoSFL/WoSFL conferenced divisions to the planned-for more linear models and then, the promotion/relegation arrangements selected between them (and indeed, throughout the whole Pyramid system. My belief is that (i). every football division is healthiest when its churn/turnover in competitors is fixed between 20% & 25% ±1% each and every season (which includes the sum of both promotions & relegations); (ii). there should be an absolute minimum of two promotion places on offer in every such division, whether by direct means or via play-offs. -&- (iii). play-off places given should not exceed past the top 30% of competitors. These 'rules' applied together can determine (so-called) 'perfect' divisional numbers & playing systems throughout any league ~ which conceivably could include some 24-team models similar to the Welsh Premier (to reduce number of necessary fixtures to 34) for divisions with three feeders. LL/HL - I'm looking at you! I'm really unsure whether a completely linear league system should be the aim in the EoSFL & WoSFL ~ i.e. single divisions at every level, tiers 6 through 9/10. To my mind, having two parallel divisions from at least tier 8 would arguably be the way to go. Once tiers 5 and down have settled into a more open, formal arrangement, I reckon it'll soon become abundantly clear that maybe twenty to thirty clubs beneath the 4th. tier either already are, or will soon become of a standard with very many of the SPFL's semi-pro outfits and I can see this allowing reconstructive expansion within the SPFL, presuming some competency develops within that organisation's marketing department, allowing for the fact that with more teams aboard, covering greater areas of the country, there'd be very much more for potential sponsors to find attractive. I think the fully professional echelons will still remain as the top-two tiers, Premier at 12/14 teams, Championship possibly expanding to 18/20 teams and thus allowing the topmost semi-pro sides to mix-it with the big-boys. And over time, as in the English Pyramid, there'll be quite a few top semi-pro clubs who'll begin adopting full professional status. The English National League Premier is usually near-fully pro. Leagues 1 & 2, assuming both continue (I think L2 will disappear tbqh), would probably be best suited to being respectively 18 and 24-strong, the latter larger in order to provide for a possible four relegation places to LL/HL and competing in a model in which two conferences of twelve each split into a top-6 & bottom-6... carrying-over H2H results the top-6's recombine to play all remaining Conf-1 vs. Conf-2 matches, home and away, giving a 34-game season. HL & maybe LL, playing the same League 2 model of fixtures, with three feeders apiece, would need dispensations to reduce their relegation zones to 3-down, with two play-outs versus the six tier 6 play-off competitors - essentially, similar to the Dutch play-off/play-out system. Tiers 6 & downward would ideally be 16-team divisions, rising to 18 if having two feeders, which latter would also require dispensation for a play-off/play-out model. OKAY. Rip me to shreds! 😁
  5. http://www.writingenglish.com/cverbs/get.htm
  6. Both got and gotten existed as far back as Middle English. English speakers in North America preserved gotten as the past participle of got. Outside of North America, the shortened version became standard. I preserve ME in my lexicon re participles of 'get'. I consequently neither finish a phrase with 'of'... as in 'It is a sort of splendid torch which I have got a hold of', which s/b 'It is a sort of splendid torch of which I have gotten a hold'. Guess it's how/where one learns the language.
  7. Nope... the imbecilic 'got' is the lazy abomination here. The lexicological equivalent of 'could of/would of'!
  8. Oh dear. 'Gotten' is exactly correct in the sentence.
  9. My reckoning is a bigger win for Kelty than that against Brora.
  10. There must be a system in place to allow either a constitution of x teams/x+1 teams at all times in both Tier5 Leagues, particularly in the LL. This, to avoid situations arising where the (at this time) 2nd.-last teams cannot be sure of relegation/survival at Tier5 in the current season, depending on the SPFL playoffs. Rather, in a season when a team drops into the LL from the SPFL, without replacement, the x+1 team allowance is invoked and that creates an extra relegation position in the following season.
  11. Recall: No team is to be disadvantaged by the inclusion of the two Colts teams...
  12. Ummmmm. Forgive me if I missed summat, but surely the 21-22 LL would actually end up with 19 teams in it with 2x Colts, if Kelty fail to beat Brechin next week?
  13. I like this idea in every detail, excepting that I'd prefer to see at least two, if not three 'double promotions' to your 2022/23 First Division. The eleven newbies should at very least be considered to be Tier-7½.
  14. I'm very much against Colt/B-teams competing in 1st-team leagues. What if they were to play, but, non-competitively? i.e. no results for/vs. Colt/B-teams get included in the league table. I could just about live with that.
  15. While an interesting idea, I think this is going about things the wrong way. An alternative that guarantees no relegation from SPFL2 for several years would be very much easier to sell... A slow drip-feed expansion by two fresh teams per season over twelve seasons into the SPFL is what I'd suggest. It isn't diffiult to devise fair fixture programs for 12, 14 & 16-team divisions to give between 34 to 38 matches per season. I'd increment each division by a pair of teams sequentially in Championship - League 1 - League 2 order, repeating every three seasons and ending when all three divisions contain 18 teams. League prize funding would require just an extra ±5% each season for parity over the dozen expansion seasons. That should be eminently feasible, if not, much bettered. This plan ignores any possible interest the Premiership might have in expansion itself. It also ignores any Colts involvement, but I'd see such teams being limited to fifth tier and below.
  16. Team Bath disbanded ten-ish years ago, but Loughborough Uni. compete at Step 5
  17. Northern Counties East League wouldn't have them. They'd have to try for Northern League!
  18. When will we know who goes where in EoSFL?
  19. A rule book doesn't trump the law, regardless of any 'catch all' clause. Hearts will almost certainly be arguing there's a disconnect between the rule book and the law in their particular situation (as opposed to arguing the rule book wasn't properly followed). In what regards we can only guess. Nick de Marco QC recently wrote a piece in the Sports Law Bulletin about the implications of the failed South Shields appeal. His final concluding paragraph indicates areas where such disconnects may occur: "The case is not, however, a carte blanche to governing bodies in these uncertain times. The FA, and other regulators in sport, remain bound by ordinary public law and contractual principles. Irrational decisions will continue to be challenged; and procedural fairness must be achieved notwithstanding the unprecedented times in which we live. The ability to amend or vary rules due to COVID-19 must be exercised in accordance with the rules or articles of association of each relevant league. Where decisions are made collectively by votes of member clubs (as is the case in levels above those considered in this case) unfair prejudice and/or competition law principles may also come into play." The full article is at: https://www.sportslawbulletin.org/football-time-covid-19-lessons-be-learned-recent-decision-south-shields-fc-v-fa/ thanks to Paulh66 at Non League Matters for this.
  • Create New...