Dev

Whilst I don't disagree with these views there's always the point that clubs don't set out to join the WoS etc just for a single season or two or three - even if that is how it turns out. Many hope that medium/long term support will come via current players (of all ages) and their families, including future families. This is particularly relevant with Youth type Clubs. Some seem to a bit ill-informed about the realities of playing at this level but that's down to the individual club, isn't it, and not a general failing?

Well, like it or not, they were pro-active when it mattered and that's why they are targets for criticism now. D.mn shame that Bankies didn't have the guts to make the same step when the opportunity was there!

Will the LL and HL clubs lose their voting rights due to the proposed new Conference league appearing at Tier 5 and them being demoted to Tier 6? If so that would affect the SFA's balance of power.

Is there any chance that the (?)twitter/facebook messages mentioned can be copied and posted here?

I haven't read through this thread so apologies in advance if this aspect hasn already been done to death! An Online report showing on MSN from the Telegraph indicates this opinion: "In Gary Lineker’s case the ambiguity over this is because he is a freelance. The lesson here is obvious. Those in high-profile presenting roles should be on the staff, so the rules governing their behaviour on social media and such like can be clear and firm." As far as I am concerned I would describe Lineker as a former great English footballer who will know lots about the game and, presumably, he is very popular as a TV presenter (I don't know for sure because I gave up on "top" level football years ago and never, now, watch Match of the Day). Of course, one thing which is surely correct is that he would have been extremely well paid during his playing days so, presumably again, he became a millionaire. He seems to have benefitted from his popularity to become a freelance TV presenter rather than a paid BBC employee (assuming, again, that there was that option). Allegedly being freelance may have significant (lawful) benefits when dealing with the Taxman. Do we have yet another freeloader millionaire in the UK Tax system? Just a thought! I know that I don't like tax freeloading maybe others think he's worth it?

I stopped watching the EPL on TV years ago. The clubs seem to be more interested in Money than anything-else and not many are even owned by people with local links. The players are paid huge salaries and so are the commentators. The whole thing has gone global and cut itself off from its' roots so if all EPL coverage goes down I, for one, won't miss it at all. I prefer to support semi-pro football.

If the new division/league goes ahead it may well take in LL clubs which voted in the B teams into the LL. With these clubs gone there is every chance that the LL's automatic relegation to and promotion from the WoS etc will be changed for the better. If the new league/division doesn't go ahead there must be a fair chance that the balance of power in the LL will be changed in any case in favour of removing the B teams. This change in the balance of power should also be expected to affect the relegation/promotion situation with the WoS etc for the better. In either case the LL relegation/promotion situation with the WoS is surely headed for change for the better in the foreseeable future. If the new division/league doesn't get the go ahead then the B teams will have no-where to go except their own Reserves league - which is what they should have done in the first place!

If you turn out to be correct then there must be a fair chance that, after this proposal, the LL clubs will never allow B teams into their league ever again - let alone next season. Now there's a thought!

If the LL lost 3 or 4 clubs to the proposed new league it would open the door to automatic promotion to the new league, wouldn't it, or is that being too optimistic?? The 3 or 4 clubs would be those most likely to want promotion and it would bring in replacement clubs to the LL from the WoS/EoS/SoS so opening the door to at least one WoS club and changing the balance of power in the LL so expanded automatic promotion and relegation to the feeder leagues could be brought in too. The new league may be a backward step which could, unintentionally unblock the inadequate automatic promotion/relegation situation within the pyramid. How many clubs would be automatically promoted to and relegated from the SPFL2 each season? Anyone know?

Based upon my post on 25th January on the thread Pyramid lock out - how to push for change? FWIW an edited version to allow for B teams: Tier 1: SPFL Prem: 12 clubs Tier 2: SPFL Championship: 16 clubs . Tier 3: National Conference Division One: 16 clubs. A national division is needed at this level so that there is a supply of clubs which could progress to meeting the requirements of the higher level. Adding up the numbers there's currently 12/10/10/10 SPFL clubs so 42. There's 44 clubs in the above suggestion so 4 clubs move up to the Tier 2 level and 10 clubs move up from the current Tier 4 level and 2 clubs from the current Tier 5 level move up to Tier 3. No-one losing out in the transition season! You end up with a flatter pyramid altogether. Tier 3 relegates the bottom 2 clubs and promotes the champions of the LL and HL. However, if there was a B Teams Division at LL/HL level then the champions of that could also be promoted to Tier 3 but this would mean 3 teams relegated from Tier 3 each season. This was B teams would operate at Tier 4 in their own sector i.e. separate from other clubs. They would also be relegated from Tier 3 back into their own B team division at Tier 4.

You could have any number of teams in a division and it could still be "competitive" for the promotion and relegation positions. With just ten teams you can have a better chance of a team scraping into the play-offs and even winning promotion. However, that team could just as easily be little better off points-wise than a team close to or in a relegation position. Why should a weak team be given a chance for promotion? In addition I believe that there is merit in having larger numbers of teams per division, not only as this avoids the boredom of 4 matches against the same opposition but, also, as it gives mid table teams a better chance to build a team/squad for future seasons. This would also help to bring through younger players as they would be given more time to develop at the teams' level.

Presumably an additional division, placed at Tier 5 with the LL and HL and all feeder leagues relegated a Tier would mean fewer match officials available for these lower Tiers? Is that a good idea? The SFA is already reluctant to deal with disciplinary matters at lower levels so why make the situation even worse?

There's likely to be an awkward number of clubs in the league no matter if some new clubs enter in time for next season. Also, over time, some clubs may be lost after moving up to the HFL. Maybe the league should copy what the EoS did and go to a Conference style Phase One to the season with two weighted conferences, so they are approx the same standard, at 10 and 9 clubs each playing on a home and away basis or 10 clubs each with Montrose Roselea's return. Then Phase Two being the top five from both conferences playing each other home and away for the Championship. Only the Phase Two matches would count towards the title. The following season same again with weighted Phase One divisions etc before Phase Two. The ten lower clubs would play each other home and away too in Phase two. That would give them sufficient matches for the league season(?). This system would make less open to problems with not having the "right" number of clubs each season.

Wondering where Lesmahagow Amateurs would play their home games if they moved up to the WoS? Anyone heard? Could Lesmahagow support two clubs in the league? How many new clubs can the WoS take in this summer? There's no maximum number according to what's been posted elsewhere.

The SFA has, allegedly, indicated that it is against regionalisation in the WoS. That rules out, for now, any voluntary merges between the two leagues. Without regionalisation the weaker clubs in the current SoS will be thrown under a bus if the remaining stronger clubs move over to the WoS. The Dumfries/Galloway area has already seen its' amateur league fold. Some would seem to be content that Saturday clubs from the area would have to fold or join a division which cannot even exist - as things stand. Start-up Saturday clubs would have to apply straight to a senior football league which would, even if regionalised, cover into the Ayrshire and maybe Clyde valley areas.

Sadly the Junior association became an independent fiefdom (more or less untouchable) and this led to the "let them govern themselves approach" from the SFA which is at the heart of the problems. Thankfully though the Youth set-up etc is beginning to work and the National team is improving but there's more to the game that the national teams! It's high time that the SFA closed down the Junior, Amateur and Welfare associations. Then it should put in place an organised structure for the Saturday amateurs in the west. Elsewhere the Amateurs seem to be sorted already. Bring all amateur teams under the same umbrella SFA run section - i.e. which would be clearly part of the SFA and not perceived to be separate from it. Then the SFA would be responsible for sorting out any mess, if needs be, in future. At present it's just "it's not our responsibility" seems to be the mantra. Following on from the above would be the creation of an amateur structure in the west which has already been put forward on this thread.

The SPFL won't have automatic promotion/relegation with the HFL & LL. The LL won't have adequate automatic relegation/promotion with the Tier 6 leagues. The Juniors wouldn't be positive about the Pyramid and allegedly said that any Junior clubs which left to join the LL would have to be placed in the Juniors lowest division if subsequently relegated from the LL. The amateurs in the west won't voluntarily rationalise and, even when two league agree to merge, some clubs jump ship. Meanwhile the numbers of amateur players and clubs crashes. The SFA has presided over all of this for many years and done nothing except sit on its' hands, more or less claiming that they're powerless to do anything meaningful. What purpose does the SFA serve if it fails to deal with these issues i.e. takes control and sorts them out? There's more to football than the top division and the national teams - isn't there?

I understand that Langlee Amateurs and Melrose have ground-shares with Gala Fairydean and Melrose Rugby respectively so both have very good facilities. If they were interested they could move up to the EoS easily enough although the EoS fixtures secretary might not be so keen to have to work with those ground-shares? Maybe if the bottom Division of the EoS was regionalised it would encourage clubs to invest in the move-up? It's been reported on the WoS threads that, apparently, the SFA disapproves of regionalisation in the WoS. Goodness knows why the SFA should take such an approach when the idea these days is to cut back on travel/fuel use!

Sounds like a sensible way forward i.e. to check things out before making plans. Good luck. Would you be willing to say which club? Kirkliston & South Queensferry showed medium/long term interest in moving up to the EoS a while ago. It's good to see that, now that the door is open, amateurs clubs are checking out possibilities.

The Central is the stongest amateur league and will be a little stronger with the Amateur league clubs coming in next season. What is making top division clubs leave? It cannot be for a better standard of football - so what is it?

Spotted a set of flood-lights for sale: x32 Thorn Champion 23 LA 2000 W Metal Halide fittings with switch gear contact @WyndhamWilIams : [email protected] 07377 201 118

FWIW only: Tier 1: SPFL Prem: 12 clubs Tier 2: SPFL Championship: 16 clubs (Padded out if necessary with some semi-pro clubs). Maybe a Bronze Licence as a minimum to be accepted into Tier 2? Outside the SPFL: Tier 3: National Conference Division One: 16 clubs. Minimum standard: Existing SFA club Licence Entry Level but a min 100 seats under cover required. A national division is needed at this level so that there is a supply of clubs which could progress to meeting the requirements of the higher level. Adding up the numbers there's currently 12/10/10/10 SPFL clubs so 42. There's 44 clubs in the above suggestion so an extra 4 clubs move up to the Tier 2 level and 10 clubs move up from the current Tier 4 level and 2 clubs move up from the current Tier 5 level to Tier 3. You end up with a flatter pyramid altogether. Tier 3 relegates the bottom 2 clubs and promotes the champions of the LL and HL. The HL and LL both have three feeder divisions so up to three relegation places from both leagues depending on whether or not the (now Tier 4) feeder leagues have licenced clubs which agree to be promoted. Agree to be promoted because there's no point in forcing clubs to be promoted from feeder leagues such as the (now Tier 5) SoS/NCal for example. In order to prevent blockages one club per (now Tier 5) feeder league would be promoted and that could be from as low as 5th position if needs be - so if 1st doesn't want to go up then 2nd has the option, then the 3rd etc down as far as 5th. This would prevent bed-blocking. There's also a case for allowing a second club to be promoted from a (now Tier 5) league e.g. where say the SoS doesn't have a top 5 club wanting promotion then the runners-up in the WoS and EoS could play-off for that promotion place. The same could go for the NCal with the runners-up from the Mids and North leagues playing-off for promotion.

I'd start again with the whole structure. FWIW: Whatever happens the SPFL should only be open to full-time clubs. Even if it shrinks to two divisions. The remainder should go into the semi-pro ranks as licenced clubs. Below that there should be senior clubs which meet certain minimum criteria e.g. facilities. Below that should be saturday clubs in Recreational football leagues/divisions. Winter Sunday and the Summer leagues would carry on regardless. There would be no Junior/Amateur/Welfare groupings.

Close examination of how the SFA is funded would be a starting point. It needs to be seen to be financially independent of individual club influencers/controllers. This may mean bringing in a Chief Exec from outside Scotland on a significant fixed contract basis with the authority to move mountains/call bluffs. Once shown to be in control of its' own finances there is no reason why the SFA cannot instigate an independent outside report on the structure of the mens game. By outside meaning outside Scotland so it can be seen to be free of inside influencers. This won't happen unless there is enough pressure/bad publicity from the media/social media.

Yes. The USA has exploited that angle and this may (hopefully) enable the Leopard tanks to be brought into operation - if this is desired by Ukraine/those nations which want to see them used by Ukraine.