Sidney Lumet

Jeez oh, no amount of you howling at the moon will change the fact that at the start of this season every team knew where they were and every team knew where they would consequently be next season through their finishing positions. Your one man campaign to see that all ripped up and rehashed because you feel that the rump of West Lothian teams who failed time and time and time again to see that the writing was on the wall for the junior game - despite them being implored to make the move to the EoSFL before they eventually had no option - should be hoisted to a position higher than others you deem unworthy is as tedious as it is fruitless. Beds were made and, to their credit at least on this, the ex-juniors are willing to lie in them. Only you appear unwilling to refrain from beating a dead horse.

What is the rumour being alluded to? Would I be correct in guessing that Harthill Royal are being touted for a move back to the east after their ill advised move to the WoSFL? If so, wasn’t there a deadline for EoSFL applicants that has long since passed with, apparently, no new applications - Harthill or otherwise - being lodged ahead of that deadline?

I think you can definitely read that graphic as a set-up next season of; 16 - Premier League 18 - First Division 18 - Second Division 8 - Third Division …..with the third placed team in the current Conference X being promoted to achieve this should there be a net gain of one from the Lowland League. An eight team Third Division will be pretty poor but I guess it continues to give the West Lothian teams what they had apparently hankered after before they were dragged kicking and screaming into the real world - a wee league of their own!

The graphic I had seen was this one and certainly suggests a 16 team First Division next season, which is a little contradictory to the statements quoted earlier that tend to suggest that with a net gain of one club there will be an 18 team First Division.

I think that Blackburn have the best away record in the division outside the top four, but have the worst home record out of all 18 sides. Pretty unusual stats.

Just read on Twitter that the EoSFL Board have declined to sanction an early postponement of the Penicuik game, will that be the case for all the clubs who are declaring postponements tonight or is it just the Penicuik v Blackburn game that is being singled out

The issue is surely deep rooted and has its beginnings in the failure of the club to see the Junior game was all but gone years ago. Several opportunities to move to the EoSFL and a higher tier than the club now occupy were snubbed for no logical reason - a previous manager saw the sense in it and was all but pleading for it to happen, despite his own initial scepticism. Small town thinking only has one short term result and it’s what Fauldhouse are suffering from now. It’s how they address the mid to long term that is key now, and history says there is little vision within their club to see them do so effectively. Of course, the same can be said of the rest of the West Lothian Junior diehards - all behind the new boys of Bo’ness Athletic and Syngenta and barely better than the Edinburgh College boys, if at all. No one to blame but themselves though.

Perhaps just letting it go is prudent for you now? The decision has been made and your repeated carping is beyond embarrassing for both you and your club.

To quote your own words back at you, I’ve been following developments on here over that past year or so but I’ve only recently had time to read through your stuff and form a different opinion to you. If I have to believe you then you’ll just need to believe me. I trust that is okay and I’ll not need to ask your permission as to when and what I post and with who I do or don’t agree with. Your caustic approach verging on trolling does your argument no favours.

But it IS entirely unreasonable to ask players to commit to that schedule just because of its similarity to schedules they may have endured previously in a pre-pandemic world. There are life experiences and necessities that have been missed for many months and that will take precedence over play-play-play (as you seem to suggest that training can simply be shelved, itself an entirely unrealistic proposition) as demanded by your route map to end the season. In previous seasons where demanding schedules were the norm near the end of the campaign these demands weren’t placed in a climate where a form of house arrest had proceeded them so it was indeed then something that had to be factored into life as a football player or committee member. Simply to imply that if a return to football after lockdown impinges on your family life and prevents what to some is their desired ‘finish’ to a season then the solution is for individuals to choose not to return is also unreasonable. This indiscriminate course will impact the potential strength of teams on their enforced return and thus potentially impact performances and therefore results meaning the season is again adversely affected. It also has the potential to put additional stresses and strains on those behind the scenes - where many committees are short handed during the best of times - should some committee volunteers not return due to an entirely understandable desire, nay need, to put a return to normal family life first. For me, it is entirely unrealistic, and therefore unreasonable, to shoehorn games in to reach a 50% watermark to avoid a null and void decision already agreed upon twice.

It seems that there is just no real reasoning with some on here that expect part time players (most of whom at this level play for little more than expenses only so are very far removed from being the employees cited in an earlier example) and volunteers (who do all manner of jobs big and small behind the scenes for nothing more of a reward than getting to see a team representing their community play) to simply suck it up and play, train, play, train and play again once lockdown regulations are eased sufficiently because that’s just what they signed up for - begone the pesky necessities of life that surround a return to work for many, a re-engagement with family near and far and a return to normality with their nearest and dearest. “I can’t do this with my wife or partner or mum or dad or son or daughter as I’m playing a game, I can’t do that with my wife or partner or mum or dad or son or daughter as I’m training”. This or that being something they haven’t been able to do for many months because of rules that have proscribed them from doing so. Put those every day, normal things they have longed for on hold, indeed continue to put their close families lives on hold, because someone who won’t sacrifice any such return to normality demands that they squeeze umpteen games of football in instead for that someone’s enjoyment and for that someone’s idea as to how the football pyramid should look and look ASAP. Wow, tell you what - let’s just quickly redefine the word selfish too.

What Truthteller describes is exactly what was intended to happen had the season been played to a conclusion.

And you’ve read this definitively where? A link or an attributable quote would be great. I would refer you to the post by Black & Red Socks for an absolutely compelling reason as to why 2 and possibly 3 games a week for part time players and volunteer committees should be a complete no no. I find it really quite hard to understand why their sacrifice is being demanded by many who will most likely never be expected to make any such sacrifice themselves.

I would think many clubs just want their governing body to stand by the decision to null and void that was made at the beginning of the season should 50% of games not be reached and that was then reaffirmed to them in February. I guess it really is as simple as that. Looking for ulterior motives is fruitless when such motives will be found in nearly every clubs position on the matter.

Madness when you look at it from the point of view of club volunteers I’m afraid.

It is crazy. As mentioned earlier in this thread, priorities for many a committee member will see committing to help facilitate matches that will have no fans and little meaning for many a club fall way behind the need to re-establish normal, every day family life. To expect otherwise from volunteers is grossly unfair. Particularly as any resumption before 17th May, in the highly unlikely event the SFA and the Scottish Government can agree such a resumption, is likely to require the lateral flow testing of all playing participants and officials in attendance.....more work for put upon volunteers and more financial outlay for struggling clubs. Crazy to even think this is something to consider when the possibility of most restrictions being lifted and fans being able to attend isn’t so very far away. Other leagues have made the correct decision to abandon this season and allow clubs to begin preparing and planning for next season, I’m astonished that the EoSFL have not done the same and instead have kicked the can further down the road to leave only ongoing uncertainty for clubs and their dreadfully put upon volunteers.

Social distancing being strictly observed when announcing signings in the East Juniors?!

If I remember correctly, on here this Larry Duncan character got himself in all sorts of argumentative fankles over Juniors in the Pyramid as LocheeBoy and had his ar*e ultimately handed to him by burnieman, who is probably still owed a proper apology for being on the end of all his inaccurate rantings and ravings and “done deal” claims. It seems that he has failed to learn any lessons and his podcast appearance was nothing short of embarrassing for him, his club and the rump of Junior sides left across a diminishing area of the country. There can be little doubt that the Tayside clubs have found themselves in the most difficult place of all the rump Juniors, but positive engagement with others in the Pyramid to try and find a good and proper place within it was required of people like Larry and they have failed horribly.

This. 100% this.

Also agreed. As I’d mentioned a few pages back when it was just a rumour, I’d expected it to be raised at the EGM if there had been any truth in it. For their application to be dismissed ahead of time by the board does rather fly in the face of the need for inclusivity, particularly if Livingston, as has been suggested by Sniffer, included a letter alongside their application outlining mitigating circumstances. Surely the clubs should have had a chance to hear those mitigating circumstances? I hope Livingston appeal.

I’m not for a moment suggesting this was the EoSFL’s intention by rejecting any application made by Livingston United, they have applied their rules and deadline absolutely fairly. However, if joining the EoSFL is part of a plan to regenerate and grow the Station Park club then that rejection has indeed stymied (put back if you prefer) their ambition for a year, no matter how you slice and dice it.

I think that, as has been said, a ‘they don’t want us’ narrative will indeed now evolve. A wee bit digging tells me that there might have been a changing of the guard at the club of late (not sure how true that actually is though) and it is that which has precipitated their application. It will be galling for them, if true, if their ambition is stymied for a year.

When I’d heard about the possibility that a West Lothian Junior outfit had fired in a late application I’d kinda thought it might have been Fauldhouse United, although I guess the shambles that has unfolded at Park View this last wee while should have told me otherwise! Livingston United aren’t amongst the biggest fish left in the draining pool of West Lothian football but have always struck me as a decently run club who struggle due to Livingston FC being just down the road. It seems to be that they are trying to sensibly map out a future, something they probably don’t see in the remnants of the ERSJFA. It’s a shame they’re not being supported to do so. I’d have thought the EoSFL would have gladly welcomed them to their ranks and viewed it as continuation of the growth of their footprint in east central Scotland. I can understand the viewpoint that the SFA might be becoming belligerent over previous late entries but, as was shown in those cases, they don’t seem to be in any position to prevent it.

I’ve heard that a West Lothian Junior side, not aware which one, have made approaches to the EoSFL re making a late application. Not too sure how accurate this is and not sure either what the EoSFL position might be on an application beyond their stated deadline. Interesting that the SoSFL deadline isn’t yet passed though so that might allow some wriggle room if what I’ve heard is in any way true? The EoSFL EGM is on Friday so if there is indeed any truth in this it’s likely to be raised then I’d imagine.

And I understand all of that, what I’m suggesting is that you appear to have a passionate position on a valid suggestion that will get no consideration outwith these pages unless a club can petition the board after tomorrow’s vote to have a further vote on the Prem/1st/2nd construct v the Prem/Conf A/Conf B construct. You are in a position where you can at least suggest to your club that they take a leading position to try and push for such a vote - if they agree. I haven’t suggested you can actually make this happen, merely that you are in a reasonably unique position to try. As I and others have said, it’s likely that most clubs will be happy to vote yes to the board recommendation on PPG and no relegation and I feel this is the right course of action. After this, no further action will be taken unless a valid proposition is taken to the board by a member club/clubs.