Lowland League comparison

[WaffenThinMint]

Maybe the Lowland League was rushed but I think it is a small step forward. Clubs must meet certain standards and this seems to be encouraging clubs to do just that. Good news because instead of throwing money at getting players to win, say, the south of Scotland league, clubs are now looking to get up to the standard required.

Also in the first season of the LL it wouldn't make sense for there to be promotion, so yes this year it is impotent in that respect.

Whatever the Lowland League is, "rushed" doesn't apply. It's taken a decade of dithering & the SFA refusing to implement the recommendations of Henry McLeish's own report (masculated as it was - I remember HibeeJibee tearing it to shreds in glorious fashion) until Scottish football's "crisis" over the last two years (ie. Rangers going tits up) made them decide the priority was finding a fiddle to put Rangers in a higher tier than bottom reorganisation.

As you say, this set up forces clubs to throw money off the field as well as on it, which is as it should be. No wonder it upsets some in the Football Manager Reality Mod leagues where people with more money than sense throw ludicrous sums of money to journeyman players.

[cheeky]

My Welsh friend is right, and delusion is the problem. Do Talbot, Linlithgow or any of the top Junior sides look like they're stagnating? Talbot and rose already have grounds to compare with any non league set up and good crowds. Talbot have three officially register supporter clubs who take buses to every away game, one of these clubs (The Loons) regularly takes two buses, that's 200 fans travelling without taking cars into account, stagnating? The fifth tier is all about having clubs with the ambition to step up, my God, into what? A piss poor 4th tier? Most of the clubs in the LL do not have anything to suggest they could thrive in the Seniors, why do they want this? One of the best run club in the LL apparently is Spartans who are desperate to go up, why? To compete with Hibs and Hearts, oh and Livingston, who have been in administration and can hardly get a four figure crowd in a month of Sunday's. Hibs & Hearts despite having good supports are not thriving, they are struggling, so all we need is another Senior club in Edinburgh, aye right! The whole restructure from top to bottom including the LL is the biggest myth since the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If you have any brains you have to be aware of this, even if you don't want to admit it, it is shite. The only part of the Senior game that is remotely interesting is the second tier, the old SFL1, and they were sold down the river! My friend Scottish Senior football is stagnating. Most, probably all, the 4th tier should be in a non league set up with the best of the current non league like Rosé and Spartans and regionalised with one national cup, the current Junior Cup. Tier one should have 16/18 teams part of two Senior divisions which would let talent grow. What we have ended up with is a shuffle with no real change. The fifth tier is lip service and populated give or take a few by small clubs with small income and small supports. This is not a fifth tier, it's a fudge! But you guys have bought the dream and actually believe you are contenders. The truth is that the whole pile of shite is bad news for us all, but to use the term stagnate about Rosé Talbot and the like really takes the biscuit, take the blinkers off and look at Scottish Senior Football. Big Junior clubs should be applauded for seeing through the smoke screen. Oh and they will probably make the Senior Cup a tad more interesting than it would be otherwise!

My Welsh friend is right, and delusion is the problem. Do Talbot, Linlithgow or any of the top Junior sides look like they're stagnating? Talbot and rose already have grounds to compare with any non league set up and good crowds. Talbot have three officially register supporter clubs who take buses to every away game, one of these clubs (The Loons) regularly takes two buses, that's 200 fans travelling without taking cars into account, stagnating? The fifth tier is all about having clubs with the ambition to step up, my God, into what? A piss poor 4th tier? Most of the clubs in the LL do not have anything to suggest they could thrive in the Seniors, why do they want this? One of the best run club in the LL apparently is Spartans who are desperate to go up, why? To compete with Hibs and Hearts, oh and Livingston, who have been in administration and can hardly get a four figure crowd in a month of Sunday's. Hibs & Hearts despite having good supports are not thriving, they are struggling, so all we need is another Senior club in Edinburgh, aye right! The whole restructure from top to bottom including the LL is the biggest myth since the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If you have any brains you have to be aware of this, even if you don't want to admit it, it is shite. The only part of the Senior game that is remotely interesting is the second tier, the old SFL1, and they were sold down the river! My friend Scottish Senior football is stagnating. Most, probably all, the 4th tier should be in a non league set up with the best of the current non league like Rosé and Spartans and regionalised with one national cup, the current Junior Cup. Tier one should have 16/18 teams part of two Senior divisions which would let talent grow. What we have ended up with is a shuffle with no real change. The fifth tier is lip service and populated give or take a few by small clubs with small income and small supports. This is not a fifth tier, it's a fudge! But you guys have bought the dream and actually believe you are contenders. The truth is that the whole pile of shite is bad news for us all, but to use the term stagnate about Rosé Talbot and the like really takes the biscuit, take the blinkers off and look at Scottish Senior Football. Big Junior clubs should be applauded for seeing through the smoke screen. Oh and they will probably make the Senior Cup a tad more interesting than it would be otherwise!

If it is such a pile of shite why do you spend so much time trawling the LL web page and commenting on it. and if your teams and league is so great why are we all dummies apart from the juniors. stay in your own midden and comment on it

[HibeeJibee]

If ever I'm struggling to sleep I read this thread

Agreed, it's rather run its course I think.

Regarding this "rushed" thing - even if it was rushed, not all the vacancies were filled. If it's to expand to 16-clubs there's 4 vacancies, potentially 4 Junior vacancies, for future seasons.

[TFW]

It is becoming somewhat tedious, with accusations and counter accusations - of which I'm part of the problem by indulging in such - but the original thread was about comparisons as to where folk thought the LL stood against English comparitors. It was, perhaps sadly inevitable, that the first indication that all was not well was when my good friend Isabel had to intervene and compare with the other Scottish non leagues. Since then it's become a slag fest, with everyone who has an opinion has stated it, vociferously on occasions!

Let's let sleeping dogs do what they do best? I'm happy for my club to carry on being Junior, and no doubt all 12 LL sides are quite happy now to be officially categorised at Level 5 in seniority. Banging heads on here ain't going to change anything, but interesting debate does become boring once the same arguments are raised time, after time, after time....

[Guest]

It is becoming somewhat tedious, with accusations and counter accusations - of which I'm part of the problem by indulging in such - but the original thread was about comparisons as to where folk thought the LL stood against English comparitors. It was, perhaps sadly inevitable, that the first indication that all was not well was when my good friend Isabel had to intervene and compare with the other Scottish non leagues. Since then it's become a slag fest, with everyone who has an opinion has stated it, vociferously on occasions!

Let's let sleeping dogs do what they do best? I'm happy for my club to carry on being Junior, and no doubt all 12 LL sides are quite happy now to be officially categorised at Level 5 in seniority. Banging heads on here ain't going to change anything, but interesting debate does become boring once the same arguments are raised time, after time, after time....

Tree hugger, my response to the original post did not compare the LL to other Scottish non leagues, other posters started that and started slagging Junior Football. I merely observed that it had no comparison due to the ad hoc nature of its conception, which is a million miles from immaculate! Misrepresentation is rife on this forum!

[Grim O'Grady]

nom nom nom... it's gone rabid!

Still stick by my original post!

cue another profound statement from the lurker!

Remember the band the Lurkers... dedicated to the main lurk himself!

Actually that's a fucking belting tune.

Grimbo

[Cicero]

Ah memories, cheers Grim."I don't need to tell ya you're a supper fella'

[vikingTON]

The only part of the Senior game that is remotely interesting is the second tier, the old SFL1, and they were sold down the river!

lol wut

SFL1 clubs have play-offs and access to a mugh larger share of the revenue than before, while no longer having commercial decisions vetoed by the glorified social clubs in SFL2 and 3. Reconstruction saved SFL1, its clubs, and full-time football outwith Scotland's top tier.

Given the epic fail you've made of that situation alone, it's likely that the rest of your tear-stained rant will be littered with catastrophic errors.

[Grim O'Grady]

Ah memories, cheers Grim."I don't need to tell ya you're a supper fella'

Hee hee every one a classic eh?

Grimbo

[Guest]

lol wut

SFL1 clubs have play-offs and access to a mugh larger share of the revenue than before, while no longer having commercial decisions vetoed by the glorified social clubs in SFL2 and 3. Reconstruction saved SFL1, its clubs, and full-time football outwith Scotland's top tier.

Given the epic fail you've made of that situation alone, it's likely that the rest of your tear-stained rant will be littered with catastrophic errors.

Wooft, and here he is, the only individual from The Port with a superiority complex! Well you should know supporting a team from that division, I bow to your perceived superiority. However I distinctly remember much grinding and gnashing of teeth coming from that ert, so I have my suspicions that you talk much pish and if they never actually got something right in this wholesale fudge. Not very complimentary about some of your fellow Seniors are you? Never mind, perhaps you'll get Talbot in the Scottish to give you a real game, and a major boost to your finances!

[Craig fae the Vale]

Wooft, and here he is, the only individual from The Port with a superiority complex! Well you should know supporting a team from that division, I bow to your perceived superiority. However I distinctly remember much grinding and gnashing of teeth coming from that ert, so I have my suspicions that you talk much pish and if they never actually got something right in this wholesale fudge. Not very complimentary about some of your fellow Seniors are you? Never mind, perhaps you'll get Talbot in the Scottish to give you a real game, and a major boost to your finances!

It was earlier you said it, but how do you calculate that 2 buses = 200 fans? Just wondering, because the biggest bus I can book is a 61 seater, I could have done with a 100 seater for going to Annan last season!

This thread has taken an absolute dive with all the mudslinging. There's different grades in Scottish football for god knows what reason, and outside of the odd tie in the Scottish (friendlies don't count) we don't play each other. There's absolutely no way of knowing who would come out on top over a whole season. For what it's worth, I think Talbot and Linlithgow would be title challengers in the Lowland League, but it's just a thought. You could be surprised, you never know. I would welcome more competition, it's a good thing. Who wouldn't want bigger crowds, different away days and even more competitive games?

It's a shame some folk have a single minded opinion and won't listen to reasonable points. The sun doesn't shine out anyone's arse in Scottish football, let's just hope things keep looking upwards.

[Cornishman]

Oooo! Sorry, but this ended up a wee bit long!

Individual games can be anything from brilliant to atrocious. The 'watchability' depends on more combining factors than you'd want to shake a stick at. It's possible; and indeed has happened; that two teams can play a specific fixture twice in a matter of days (e.g. when two teams from the same division are also drawn together in a cup fixture), and the one match is superb, the other, dire.

In other words, it's impossible to accurately predict watchability even between just two specific teams before the game is played, on evidence only from one previous match. The attempt to do just that is not empirical and frankly, is laugh-out-aloud funny.

Of course, with more data-points recorded; watching a goodly number of near-previous matches involving the two teams seperately; there is more empirical evidence to qualify an informed opinion... but that's not been presented in this thread, so far. Yet, still beware: For no matter how much of this empirical evidence you do gather, football being what it is and all - you could find that some single factor, say 'style of play' favoured by the two teams ~ something that maybe causes disruption to play versus all other teams, might just be complementary when those specific two play each other! Against all odds, the game's a cracker when anticipated it'd be dismal.

So, let's just chuck that now ~ proven to not be a salient point.

Now, to the chase:

The LL is the pinnacle for both the Senior and the Junior non-leagues... it is so because the SFA as ultimate arbiter of these decisions say so. Full stop.

Nowhere (I've seen) says that the strongest playing-strength non-league teams (South of the Tay) have to be compelled into the LL. Indeed, that principle is positively antediluvian in this day and age of vouchsafing responsibility, health & safety and financial probity. Rather now are chosen the clubs/teams who best toe-the-line as regards these more modern sensibilities.

Of course, it's understandable that the SJFA board and clubs are suspicious, and even dismissive of the LL. After all, it's a 'Johnny-come-lately' competition that has seemingly been rushed into existence, and has been plonked above them in the football hierarchy, without necessarily being composed of teams that are better on the field of play than they are.

However, really, it's not been that rushed ~ had the SPL & SFL quickly and efficiently come together to form the new SPFL, then there would have been many more weeks of grace available for all parties; interested or otherwise; to peruse the idea, canvas their support, look into logistics, etc., and maybe progress a bid to join. Of course, this process would have been far easier for the NL Seniors, compared to the Juniors, as whether or not the LL did come to be formed for the 2013-14 season or not, it wouldn't represent to them the 'mighty leap into unknown territories' that it would to any Junior clubs.

Frankly, this perceived rush wasn't really applicable to the EoS/SoS contingents as they were already well prepared for the event, but was certainly an important factor for the Juniors, who to my mind justifiably do need a much longer consideration period than that given them, and by that I mean more time than there was between when the idea was first seriously mooted and officially put to them, and when the final decision to set it up was made.

To myself there's no surprise whatsoever that no Juniors progresed bids further than simply indicating an 'interest to join'. What did surprise me was the number of these 'interested parties'; taking out the obvious Seniors' showings of interest; indicating that more than a handfull of Juniors got that far down the road with it. I'd expected maybe two or three at a stretch, but certainly not that many!

So, to my mind at least, the whole LL shebang has progressed as I think it should ~ i.e. sans initial Junior involvement. There's even an example of a non-EoS/SoS club being involved in the presence of EK, who I think will be avidly studied by those Juniors interested in perhaps throwing their hats into the LL ring for next season.

I suspect that the most interest given and preparation made from Junior ranks will be from those Junior clubs less likely to be leading-lights in their respective leagues - East/West Superleague middlers, down perhaps to East Premier & West Division 1 middlers. - as LL openings post 2014-15 are likely then going to be open to East/West Superleague champions and maybe runners-up if champions cannot for some reason be promoted.

Otherwise, yes, I do expect some leading-lights in the mix, naming no names, but watch for teams developing stadia, nudge, nudge! I'd be surprised if there were fewer than a good dozen Junior interests shown in joining for 2014-15, with at least four-six progressing to actual applications.

Of course, there were several Seniors that failed application for the current season, so I expect them back for 2014-15, and no doubt they'll all have been squirrelling-away on thir stadium improvements too. Again, a good indicator of clubs' interests for those with an eyefor detail. I imagine there could be up to ten expressions of interest from current Seniors ranks,with maybe a half-dozen progressing to application again.

I fear that maybe now the remaining Seniors will for a few seasons be at a slight like-for-like disadvantage compared with Junior applicants. Reason? Well, the obvious one is that the more successful Juniors that there are taken into the LL, the more tempting it will be for others to follow.

Secondarily, the first intake has solely been of Seniors (EK having become Senior upon election to the SoSL) and if four Juniors are elected for 2014-15, probability then dictates that three from every four subsequent relegation candidates will be Seniors. However, the real odds on that could be much worse ~ depending upon the comparative success in stadia developments between Junior leading-light & also-ran applicants for next season in particular. Should two Junior clubs be ranked equal in their applications in all but on the field, it'll be league-standing that'll favour the stronger clubs coming in at the expense of weaker ones - stands to reason, no complaints there.

But.

There'll be a lot of differing items on the application check-list and applicants won't all have progressed infrastructure improvements in exactly the same order. That necessitates there being a deal of 'horse trading' happening vis-a-vis the comparison of differing facilities and determination of how close to or past entry-level certification a particular club might be... and like it, or lump it, on-field success, being a criterion, will favour the higher-placed teams, over and beyond simple comparison of facilities.

There will be cases where 'bigger' teams get the nod over smaller ones, despite maybe not being quite so far advanced off the field! Ergo, there'll be a definite early trend for the LL to be strengthened on average in the first few seasons, with stronger than average Juniors likely succeeding gaining entry (particularly once a 'proper' promotion/relegation system has been instituted at its base) and that will likely pressurise the Seniors in it that are not as strong as the general Junior incomers. I'm guessing 4 from 5 or even 5 from 6 of the first batches of genuine relegatees will be Seniors. So - they know who they are and they really need to be concentrating on all-round improvement in order to stave-off this looming problem.

There may well be enforced demotions too. These will seldom occur, although there'll most certainly be squaky-bum room once the all-entry-level membership criterion becomes enforced (is that at end of 2015-16? I'm unsure). Thereafter, clubs failing entry-level requirements may be kicked-out, if there's another suitable replacement club available to be promoted to take its place.

That won't result in an extra promotion though... there'd be reprieves instead for team(s) who'd otherwise be relegated.

Hopefully, sooner rather than later, the 'proper' system of feeders to HL & LL will be agreed upon and ensonced. I'm hoping that Tayside teams (North of the Tay, at least) will be drawn into the North Juniors system under the HL itself. For two reasons - because (i) the SFA has designated the Tay as being the common border between Lowland & Highland regions -&- (ii) because there's a helluva lot more lowland teams than highland teams with the present split.

To me that just makes sense - if there are to be just two feeder 'Superleagues''

However, it might pay to retain the three Junior Districts as is, just absorb the SoS into the Wests, the EoS into the Easts, and horse-trade a little at their common boundary. It wouldn't alter my notion of sending North-bank Taysiders to the North District though, I do feel team numbers should be split more equitably between districts. That way any ambitious amateurs entering the system can be assured that their entry-level is standard in all three districts - something which I consider quite important.

[mickles 1981]

Oooo! Sorry, but this ended up a wee bit long!

Individual games can be anything from brilliant to atrocious. The 'watchability' depends on more combining factors than you'd want to shake a stick at. It's possible; and indeed has happened; that two teams can play a specific fixture twice in a matter of days (e.g. when two teams from the same division are also drawn together in a cup fixture), and the one match is superb, the other, dire.

In other words, it's impossible to accurately predict watchability even between just two specific teams before the game is played, on evidence only from one previous match. The attempt to do just that is not empirical and frankly, is laugh-out-aloud funny.

Of course, with more data-points recorded; watching a goodly number of near-previous matches involving the two teams seperately; there is more empirical evidence to qualify an informed opinion... but that's not been presented in this thread, so far. Yet, still beware: For no matter how much of this empirical evidence you do gather, football being what it is and all - you could find that some single factor, say 'style of play' favoured by the two teams ~ something that maybe causes disruption to play versus all other teams, might just be complementary when those specific two play each other! Against all odds, the game's a cracker when anticipated it'd be dismal.

So, let's just chuck that now ~ proven to not be a salient point.

Now, to the chase:

The LL is the pinnacle for both the Senior and the Junior non-leagues... it is so because the SFA as ultimate arbiter of these decisions say so. Full stop.

Nowhere (I've seen) says that the strongest playing-strength non-league teams (South of the Tay) have to be compelled into the LL. Indeed, that principle is positively antediluvian in this day and age of vouchsafing responsibility, health & safety and financial probity. Rather now are chosen the clubs/teams who best toe-the-line as regards these more modern sensibilities.

Of course, it's understandable that the SJFA board and clubs are suspicious, and even dismissive of the LL. After all, it's a 'Johnny-come-lately' competition that has seemingly been rushed into existence, and has been plonked above them in the football hierarchy, without necessarily being composed of teams that are better on the field of play than they are.

However, really, it's not been that rushed ~ had the SPL & SFL quickly and efficiently come together to form the new SPFL, then there would have been many more weeks of grace available for all parties; interested or otherwise; to peruse the idea, canvas their support, look into logistics, etc., and maybe progress a bid to join. Of course, this process would have been far easier for the NL Seniors, compared to the Juniors, as whether or not the LL did come to be formed for the 2013-14 season or not, it wouldn't represent to them the 'mighty leap into unknown territories' that it would to any Junior clubs.

Frankly, this perceived rush wasn't really applicable to the EoS/SoS contingents as they were already well prepared for the event, but was certainly an important factor for the Juniors, who to my mind justifiably do need a much longer consideration period than that given them, and by that I mean more time than there was between when the idea was first seriously mooted and officially put to them, and when the final decision to set it up was made.

To myself there's no surprise whatsoever that no Juiors progresed bids further than simply indicating an 'interest to join'. What did surprise me was the number of these 'interested parties'; taking out the obvious Seniors' showings of interest; indicating that more than a handfull of Juniors got that far down the road with it. I'd expected maybe two or three at a stretch, but certainly not that many!

So, to my mind at least, the whole LL shebang has progressed as I think it should ~ i.e. sans initial Junior involvement. There's even an example of a non-EoS/SoS club being involved in the presence of EK, who I think will be avidly studied by those Juniors interested in perhaps throwing their hats into the LL ring for next season.

I suspect that the most interest given and preparation made from Junior ranks will be from those Junior clubs less likely to be leading-lights in their respective leagues - East/West Superleague middlers, down perhaps to East Premier & West Division 1 middlers. - as LL openings post 2014-15 are likely then going to be open to East/West Superleague champions and maybe runners-up if champions cannot for some reason be promoted.

Otherwise, yes, I do expect some leading-lights in the mix, naming no names, but watch for teams developing stadia, nudge, nudge! I'd be surprised if there were fewer than a good dozen Junior interests shown in joining for 2014-15, with at least four-six progressing to actual applications.

Of course, there were several Seniors that failed application for the current season, so I expect them back for 2014-15, and no doubt they'll all have been squirrelling-away on thir stadium improvements too. Again, a good indicator of clubs' interests for those with an eyefor detail. I imagine there could be up to ten expressions of interest from current Seniors ranks,with maybe a half-dozen progressing to application again.

I fear that maybe now the remaining Seniors will for a few seasons be at a slight like-for-like disadvantage compared with Junior applicants. Reason? Well, the obvious one is that the more successful Juniors that there are taken into the LL, the more tempting it will be for others to follow.

Secondarily, the first intake has solely been of Seniors (EK having become Senior upon election to the SoSL) and if four Juniors are elected for 2014-15, probability dictates that three from every four relegation candidates will be Seniors. However, the real odds on that could be much worse ~ depending upon the comparative success in stadia developments between Junior leading-light & also-ran applicants for next season in particular. Should two Junior clubs be ranked equal in their applications in all but on the field, it'll be league-standing that'll favour the stronger clubs coming in at the expense of weaker ones - stands to reason, no complaints there.

But.

There'll be a lot of differing items on the application check-list and applicants won't all have progressed infrastructure improvements in exactly the same order. That necessitates there being a deal of 'horse trading' happening vis-a-vis the comparison of differing facilities and determination of how close to or past entry-level certification a particular club might be... and like it, or lump it, on-field success, being a criterion, will favour the higher-placed teams, over and beyond simple comparison of facilities.

There will be cases where 'bigger' teams get the nod over smaller ones, despite maybe not being quite so far advanced off the field! Ergo, there'll be a definite early trend for the LL to be strengthened on average in the first few seasons, with stronger than average Juniors likely succeeding gaining entry (particularly once a 'proper' promotin/relegation system has been instituted at its base) and that will likely pressurise the Seniors in it that are not as strong as the general Junior incomers. I'm guessing 4 from 5 or even 5 from six of the first batches of genuine relegatees will be Seniors. So - they know who they are and they really need to be concentrating on all-round improvement in order to stave-off this looming problem.

There may well be enforced demotions too. These will likely seldom occur, although there'll most certainly be squaky-bum room once the all-entry-level membership criterion becomes enforced (is that at end of 2015-16? I'm unsure). Thereafter, clubs failing entry-level requirements may be kicked-out, if there's another suitable replacement club available to be promoted to take its place. That won't result in an extra promotion though... there'd be reprieves instead for team(s) who'd otherwise be relegated.

Hopefully, sooner rather than later, the 'proper' system of feeders to HL & LL will be agreed upon and ensonced. I'm hoping that Tayside teams (North of the Tay, at least) will be drawn into the North Juniors system under the HL itself. For two reasons - because (i) the SFA designated the Tay as being the common border between Lowland & Highland regions -&- (ii) because there's a helluva lot more lowland teams than highland teams with the present split. To me that just makes sense - if there are to be just two feeder 'Superleagues''

However, it might pay to retain the three Junior Districts as is, just absorb the SoS into the Wests, the EoS into the Easts, and horse-trade a little at their common boundary. It wouldn't alter my notion of sending North-bank Taysiders to the North District though, I do feel team numbers should be split more equitably between districts. That way any ambitious amateurs entering the system can be assured that their entry-level is standard in all three districts - something which I consider quite important.

Yer point is ?

[Guest]

It was earlier you said it, but how do you calculate that 2 buses = 200 fans? Just wondering, because the biggest bus I can book is a 61 seater, I could have done with a 100 seater for going to Annan last season!

This thread has taken an absolute dive with all the mudslinging. There's different grades in Scottish football for god knows what reason, and outside of the odd tie in the Scottish (friendlies don't count) we don't play each other. There's absolutely no way of knowing who would come out on top over a whole season. For what it's worth, I think Talbot and Linlithgow would be title challengers in the Lowland League, but it's just a thought. You could be surprised, you never know. I would welcome more competition, it's a good thing. Who wouldn't want bigger crowds, different away days and even more competitive games?

It's a shame some folk have a single minded opinion and won't listen to reasonable points. The sun doesn't shine out anyone's arse in Scottish football, let's just hope things keep looking upwards.

My good man, I said three supporters clubs, one of which takes two buses more often than not, three buses per club plus one extra, I would say in fairness that would be 200 if everyone else's cars broke down. I do wish people would actually read things, oh and watch whole games before forming unmitigated biased opinions. But hey, truth is we might get a surprise, you do make some points and despite my fun on here I do wish it had been done better, along the lines the Lurker has oft suggested!

[HibeeJibee]

It was earlier you said it, but how do you calculate that 2 buses = 200 fans? Just wondering, because the biggest bus I can book is a 61 seater, I could have done with a 100 seater for going to Annan last season!

- IG's well-known (jokingly, if sometimes at his/her expense) for overestimating crowds.

Most famously at Lossiemouth? in the Scottish Cup a few years ago...

... where the number of Talbot fans IG claimed had travelled up by supporters bus was actually (considerably?) greater than the total published attendance.

[Craig fae the Vale]

My good man, I said three supporters clubs, one of which takes two buses more often than not, three buses per club plus one extra, I would say in fairness that would be 200 if everyone else's cars broke down. I do wish people would actually read things, oh and watch whole games before forming unmitigated biased opinions. But hey, truth is we might get a surprise, you do make some points and despite my fun on here I do wish it had been done better, along the lines the Lurker has oft suggested!

If you weren't a johnny come lately to this section of the forum, you'd know I like a little bit of dry sarcasm. And aye, ok, fair enough, I probably didn't read that bit properly, I was on my lunch break and had just burnt my tongue on my boiling hot soup

Just for the record, I did watch the whole Junior Cup Final. I thought it was a dreadful game - although I know that it wasn't representative of the grade, or even those two teams as a whole. I continued to watch it even though I thought it was a crap game because there was nothing else on, and I was interested in seeing it out to its conclusion! I've been a lifelong football man, and know you can't judge on one game! I actually used to play Junior football, y'know!

Let's just hope for some good football this weekend, regardless of allegiance!

[Guest]

- IG's well-known (jokingly, if sometimes at his/her expense) for overestimating crowds.

Most famously at Lossiemouth? in the Scottish Cup a few years ago...

... where the number of Talbot fans IG claimed had travelled up by supporters bus was actually (considerably?) greater than the total published attendance.

Back that up my friend!

[Guest]

Oooo! Sorry, but this ended up a wee bit long!

Individual games can be anything from brilliant to atrocious. The 'watchability' depends on more combining factors than you'd want to shake a stick at. It's possible; and indeed has happened; that two teams can play a specific fixture twice in a matter of days (e.g. when two teams from the same division are also drawn together in a cup fixture), and the one match is superb, the other, dire.

In other words, it's impossible to accurately predict watchability even between just two specific teams before the game is played, on evidence only from one previous match. The attempt to do just that is not empirical and frankly, is laugh-out-aloud funny.

Of course, with more data-points recorded; watching a goodly number of near-previous matches involving the two teams seperately; there is more empirical evidence to qualify an informed opinion... but that's not been presented in this thread, so far. Yet, still beware: For no matter how much of this empirical evidence you do gather, football being what it is and all - you could find that some single factor, say 'style of play' favoured by the two teams ~ something that maybe causes disruption to play versus all other teams, might just be complementary when those specific two play each other! Against all odds, the game's a cracker when anticipated it'd be dismal.

So, let's just chuck that now ~ proven to not be a salient point.

Now, to the chase:

The LL is the pinnacle for both the Senior and the Junior non-leagues... it is so because the SFA as ultimate arbiter of these decisions say so. Full stop.

Nowhere (I've seen) says that the strongest playing-strength non-league teams (South of the Tay) have to be compelled into the LL. Indeed, that principle is positively antediluvian in this day and age of vouchsafing responsibility, health & safety and financial probity. Rather now are chosen the clubs/teams who best toe-the-line as regards these more modern sensibilities.

Of course, it's understandable that the SJFA board and clubs are suspicious, and even dismissive of the LL. After all, it's a 'Johnny-come-lately' competition that has seemingly been rushed into existence, and has been plonked above them in the football hierarchy, without necessarily being composed of teams that are better on the field of play than they are.

However, really, it's not been that rushed ~ had the SPL & SFL quickly and efficiently come together to form the new SPFL, then there would have been many more weeks of grace available for all parties; interested or otherwise; to peruse the idea, canvas their support, look into logistics, etc., and maybe progress a bid to join. Of course, this process would have been far easier for the NL Seniors, compared to the Juniors, as whether or not the LL did come to be formed for the 2013-14 season or not, it wouldn't represent to them the 'mighty leap into unknown territories' that it would to any Junior clubs.

Frankly, this perceived rush wasn't really applicable to the EoS/SoS contingents as they were already well prepared for the event, but was certainly an important factor for the Juniors, who to my mind justifiably do need a much longer consideration period than that given them, and by that I mean more time than there was between when the idea was first seriously mooted and officially put to them, and when the final decision to set it up was made.

To myself there's no surprise whatsoever that no Juniors progresed bids further than simply indicating an 'interest to join'. What did surprise me was the number of these 'interested parties'; taking out the obvious Seniors' showings of interest; indicating that more than a handfull of Juniors got that far down the road with it. I'd expected maybe two or three at a stretch, but certainly not that many!

So, to my mind at least, the whole LL shebang has progressed as I think it should ~ i.e. sans initial Junior involvement. There's even an example of a non-EoS/SoS club being involved in the presence of EK, who I think will be avidly studied by those Juniors interested in perhaps throwing their hats into the LL ring for next season.

I suspect that the most interest given and preparation made from Junior ranks will be from those Junior clubs less likely to be leading-lights in their respective leagues - East/West Superleague middlers, down perhaps to East Premier & West Division 1 middlers. - as LL openings post 2014-15 are likely then going to be open to East/West Superleague champions and maybe runners-up if champions cannot for some reason be promoted.

Otherwise, yes, I do expect some leading-lights in the mix, naming no names, but watch for teams developing stadia, nudge, nudge! I'd be surprised if there were fewer than a good dozen Junior interests shown in joining for 2014-15, with at least four-six progressing to actual applications.

Of course, there were several Seniors that failed application for the current season, so I expect them back for 2014-15, and no doubt they'll all have been squirrelling-away on thir stadium improvements too. Again, a good indicator of clubs' interests for those with an eyefor detail. I imagine there could be up to ten expressions of interest from current Seniors ranks,with maybe a half-dozen progressing to application again.

I fear that maybe now the remaining Seniors will for a few seasons be at a slight like-for-like disadvantage compared with Junior applicants. Reason? Well, the obvious one is that the more successful Juniors that there are taken into the LL, the more tempting it will be for others to follow.

Secondarily, the first intake has solely been of Seniors (EK having become Senior upon election to the SoSL) and if four Juniors are elected for 2014-15, probability then dictates that three from every four subsequent relegation candidates will be Seniors. However, the real odds on that could be much worse ~ depending upon the comparative success in stadia developments between Junior leading-light & also-ran applicants for next season in particular. Should two Junior clubs be ranked equal in their applications in all but on the field, it'll be league-standing that'll favour the stronger clubs coming in at the expense of weaker ones - stands to reason, no complaints there.

But.

There'll be a lot of differing items on the application check-list and applicants won't all have progressed infrastructure improvements in exactly the same order. That necessitates there being a deal of 'horse trading' happening vis-a-vis the comparison of differing facilities and determination of how close to or past entry-level certification a particular club might be... and like it, or lump it, on-field success, being a criterion, will favour the higher-placed teams, over and beyond simple comparison of facilities.

There will be cases where 'bigger' teams get the nod over smaller ones, despite maybe not being quite so far advanced off the field! Ergo, there'll be a definite early trend for the LL to be strengthened on average in the first few seasons, with stronger than average Juniors likely succeeding gaining entry (particularly once a 'proper' promotion/relegation system has been instituted at its base) and that will likely pressurise the Seniors in it that are not as strong as the general Junior incomers. I'm guessing 4 from 5 or even 5 from 6 of the first batches of genuine relegatees will be Seniors. So - they know who they are and they really need to be concentrating on all-round improvement in order to stave-off this looming problem.

There may well be enforced demotions too. These will seldom occur, although there'll most certainly be squaky-bum room once the all-entry-level membership criterion becomes enforced (is that at end of 2015-16? I'm unsure). Thereafter, clubs failing entry-level requirements may be kicked-out, if there's another suitable replacement club available to be promoted to take its place.

That won't result in an extra promotion though... there'd be reprieves instead for team(s) who'd otherwise be relegated.

Hopefully, sooner rather than later, the 'proper' system of feeders to HL & LL will be agreed upon and ensonced. I'm hoping that Tayside teams (North of the Tay, at least) will be drawn into the North Juniors system under the HL itself. For two reasons - because (i) the SFA has designated the Tay as being the common border between Lowland & Highland regions -&- (ii) because there's a helluva lot more lowland teams than highland teams with the present split.

To me that just makes sense - if there are to be just two feeder 'Superleagues''

However, it might pay to retain the three Junior Districts as is, just absorb the SoS into the Wests, the EoS into the Easts, and horse-trade a little at their common boundary. It wouldn't alter my notion of sending North-bank Taysiders to the North District though, I do feel team numbers should be split more equitably between districts. That way any ambitious amateurs entering the system can be assured that their entry-level is standard in all three districts - something which I consider quite important.

Oooo! Sorry, but this ended up a wee bit long!

Individual games can be anything from brilliant to atrocious. The 'watchability' depends on more combining factors than you'd want to shake a stick at. It's possible; and indeed has happened; that two teams can play a specific fixture twice in a matter of days (e.g. when two teams from the same division are also drawn together in a cup fixture), and the one match is superb, the other, dire.

In other words, it's impossible to accurately predict watchability even between just two specific teams before the game is played, on evidence only from one previous match. The attempt to do just that is not empirical and frankly, is laugh-out-aloud funny.

Of course, with more data-points recorded; watching a goodly number of near-previous matches involving the two teams seperately; there is more empirical evidence to qualify an informed opinion... but that's not been presented in this thread, so far. Yet, still beware: For no matter how much of this empirical evidence you do gather, football being what it is and all - you could find that some single factor, say 'style of play' favoured by the two teams ~ something that maybe causes disruption to play versus all other teams, might just be complementary when those specific two play each other! Against all odds, the game's a cracker when anticipated it'd be dismal.

So, let's just chuck that now ~ proven to not be a salient point.

Now, to the chase:

The LL is the pinnacle for both the Senior and the Junior non-leagues... it is so because the SFA as ultimate arbiter of these decisions say so. Full stop.

Nowhere (I've seen) says that the strongest playing-strength non-league teams (South of the Tay) have to be compelled into the LL. Indeed, that principle is positively antediluvian in this day and age of vouchsafing responsibility, health & safety and financial probity. Rather now are chosen the clubs/teams who best toe-the-line as regards these more modern sensibilities.

Of course, it's understandable that the SJFA board and clubs are suspicious, and even dismissive of the LL. After all, it's a 'Johnny-come-lately' competition that has seemingly been rushed into existence, and has been plonked above them in the football hierarchy, without necessarily being composed of teams that are better on the field of play than they are.

However, really, it's not been that rushed ~ had the SPL & SFL quickly and efficiently come together to form the new SPFL, then there would have been many more weeks of grace available for all parties; interested or otherwise; to peruse the idea, canvas their support, look into logistics, etc., and maybe progress a bid to join. Of course, this process would have been far easier for the NL Seniors, compared to the Juniors, as whether or not the LL did come to be formed for the 2013-14 season or not, it wouldn't represent to them the 'mighty leap into unknown territories' that it would to any Junior clubs.

Frankly, this perceived rush wasn't really applicable to the EoS/SoS contingents as they were already well prepared for the event, but was certainly an important factor for the Juniors, who to my mind justifiably do need a much longer consideration period than that given them, and by that I mean more time than there was between when the idea was first seriously mooted and officially put to them, and when the final decision to set it up was made.

To myself there's no surprise whatsoever that no Juniors progresed bids further than simply indicating an 'interest to join'. What did surprise me was the number of these 'interested parties'; taking out the obvious Seniors' showings of interest; indicating that more than a handfull of Juniors got that far down the road with it. I'd expected maybe two or three at a stretch, but certainly not that many!

So, to my mind at least, the whole LL shebang has progressed as I think it should ~ i.e. sans initial Junior involvement. There's even an example of a non-EoS/SoS club being involved in the presence of EK, who I think will be avidly studied by those Juniors interested in perhaps throwing their hats into the LL ring for next season.

I suspect that the most interest given and preparation made from Junior ranks will be from those Junior clubs less likely to be leading-lights in their respective leagues - East/West Superleague middlers, down perhaps to East Premier & West Division 1 middlers. - as LL openings post 2014-15 are likely then going to be open to East/West Superleague champions and maybe runners-up if champions cannot for some reason be promoted.

Otherwise, yes, I do expect some leading-lights in the mix, naming no names, but watch for teams developing stadia, nudge, nudge! I'd be surprised if there were fewer than a good dozen Junior interests shown in joining for 2014-15, with at least four-six progressing to actual applications.

Of course, there were several Seniors that failed application for the current season, so I expect them back for 2014-15, and no doubt they'll all have been squirrelling-away on thir stadium improvements too. Again, a good indicator of clubs' interests for those with an eyefor detail. I imagine there could be up to ten expressions of interest from current Seniors ranks,with maybe a half-dozen progressing to application again.

I fear that maybe now the remaining Seniors will for a few seasons be at a slight like-for-like disadvantage compared with Junior applicants. Reason? Well, the obvious one is that the more successful Juniors that there are taken into the LL, the more tempting it will be for others to follow.

Secondarily, the first intake has solely been of Seniors (EK having become Senior upon election to the SoSL) and if four Juniors are elected for 2014-15, probability then dictates that three from every four subsequent relegation candidates will be Seniors. However, the real odds on that could be much worse ~ depending upon the comparative success in stadia developments between Junior leading-light & also-ran applicants for next season in particular. Should two Junior clubs be ranked equal in their applications in all but on the field, it'll be league-standing that'll favour the stronger clubs coming in at the expense of weaker ones - stands to reason, no complaints there.

But.

There'll be a lot of differing items on the application check-list and applicants won't all have progressed infrastructure improvements in exactly the same order. That necessitates there being a deal of 'horse trading' happening vis-a-vis the comparison of differing facilities and determination of how close to or past entry-level certification a particular club might be... and like it, or lump it, on-field success, being a criterion, will favour the higher-placed teams, over and beyond simple comparison of facilities.

There will be cases where 'bigger' teams get the nod over smaller ones, despite maybe not being quite so far advanced off the field! Ergo, there'll be a definite early trend for the LL to be strengthened on average in the first few seasons, with stronger than average Juniors likely succeeding gaining entry (particularly once a 'proper' promotion/relegation system has been instituted at its base) and that will likely pressurise the Seniors in it that are not as strong as the general Junior incomers. I'm guessing 4 from 5 or even 5 from 6 of the first batches of genuine relegatees will be Seniors. So - they know who they are and they really need to be concentrating on all-round improvement in order to stave-off this looming problem.

There may well be enforced demotions too. These will seldom occur, although there'll most certainly be squaky-bum room once the all-entry-level membership criterion becomes enforced (is that at end of 2015-16? I'm unsure). Thereafter, clubs failing entry-level requirements may be kicked-out, if there's another suitable replacement club available to be promoted to take its place.

That won't result in an extra promotion though... there'd be reprieves instead for team(s) who'd otherwise be relegated.

Hopefully, sooner rather than later, the 'proper' system of feeders to HL & LL will be agreed upon and ensonced. I'm hoping that Tayside teams (North of the Tay, at least) will be drawn into the North Juniors system under the HL itself. For two reasons - because (i) the SFA has designated the Tay as being the common border between Lowland & Highland regions -&- (ii) because there's a helluva lot more lowland teams than highland teams with the present split.

To me that just makes sense - if there are to be just two feeder 'Superleagues''

However, it might pay to retain the three Junior Districts as is, just absorb the SoS into the Wests, the EoS into the Easts, and horse-trade a little at their common boundary. It wouldn't alter my notion of sending North-bank Taysiders to the North District though, I do feel team numbers should be split more equitably between districts. That way any ambitious amateurs entering the system can be assured that their entry-level is standard in all three districts - something which I consider quite important.

Oooo! Sorry, but this ended up a wee bit long!

Individual games can be anything from brilliant to atrocious. The 'watchability' depends on more combining factors than you'd want to shake a stick at. It's possible; and indeed has happened; that two teams can play a specific fixture twice in a matter of days (e.g. when two teams from the same division are also drawn together in a cup fixture), and the one match is superb, the other, dire.

In other words, it's impossible to accurately predict watchability even between just two specific teams before the game is played, on evidence only from one previous match. The attempt to do just that is not empirical and frankly, is laugh-out-aloud funny.

Of course, with more data-points recorded; watching a goodly number of near-previous matches involving the two teams seperately; there is more empirical evidence to qualify an informed opinion... but that's not been presented in this thread, so far. Yet, still beware: For no matter how much of this empirical evidence you do gather, football being what it is and all - you could find that some single factor, say 'style of play' favoured by the two teams ~ something that maybe causes disruption to play versus all other teams, might just be complementary when those specific two play each other! Against all odds, the game's a cracker when anticipated it'd be dismal.

So, let's just chuck that now ~ proven to not be a salient point.

Now, to the chase:

The LL is the pinnacle for both the Senior and the Junior non-leagues... it is so because the SFA as ultimate arbiter of these decisions say so. Full stop.

Nowhere (I've seen) says that the strongest playing-strength non-league teams (South of the Tay) have to be compelled into the LL. Indeed, that principle is positively antediluvian in this day and age of vouchsafing responsibility, health & safety and financial probity. Rather now are chosen the clubs/teams who best toe-the-line as regards these more modern sensibilities.

Of course, it's understandable that the SJFA board and clubs are suspicious, and even dismissive of the LL. After all, it's a 'Johnny-come-lately' competition that has seemingly been rushed into existence, and has been plonked above them in the football hierarchy, without necessarily being composed of teams that are better on the field of play than they are.

However, really, it's not been that rushed ~ had the SPL & SFL quickly and efficiently come together to form the new SPFL, then there would have been many more weeks of grace available for all parties; interested or otherwise; to peruse the idea, canvas their support, look into logistics, etc., and maybe progress a bid to join. Of course, this process would have been far easier for the NL Seniors, compared to the Juniors, as whether or not the LL did come to be formed for the 2013-14 season or not, it wouldn't represent to them the 'mighty leap into unknown territories' that it would to any Junior clubs.

Frankly, this perceived rush wasn't really applicable to the EoS/SoS contingents as they were already well prepared for the event, but was certainly an important factor for the Juniors, who to my mind justifiably do need a much longer consideration period than that given them, and by that I mean more time than there was between when the idea was first seriously mooted and officially put to them, and when the final decision to set it up was made.

To myself there's no surprise whatsoever that no Juniors progresed bids further than simply indicating an 'interest to join'. What did surprise me was the number of these 'interested parties'; taking out the obvious Seniors' showings of interest; indicating that more than a handfull of Juniors got that far down the road with it. I'd expected maybe two or three at a stretch, but certainly not that many!

So, to my mind at least, the whole LL shebang has progressed as I think it should ~ i.e. sans initial Junior involvement. There's even an example of a non-EoS/SoS club being involved in the presence of EK, who I think will be avidly studied by those Juniors interested in perhaps throwing their hats into the LL ring for next season.

I suspect that the most interest given and preparation made from Junior ranks will be from those Junior clubs less likely to be leading-lights in their respective leagues - East/West Superleague middlers, down perhaps to East Premier & West Division 1 middlers. - as LL openings post 2014-15 are likely then going to be open to East/West Superleague champions and maybe runners-up if champions cannot for some reason be promoted.

Otherwise, yes, I do expect some leading-lights in the mix, naming no names, but watch for teams developing stadia, nudge, nudge! I'd be surprised if there were fewer than a good dozen Junior interests shown in joining for 2014-15, with at least four-six progressing to actual applications.

Of course, there were several Seniors that failed application for the current season, so I expect them back for 2014-15, and no doubt they'll all have been squirrelling-away on thir stadium improvements too. Again, a good indicator of clubs' interests for those with an eyefor detail. I imagine there could be up to ten expressions of interest from current Seniors ranks,with maybe a half-dozen progressing to application again.

I fear that maybe now the remaining Seniors will for a few seasons be at a slight like-for-like disadvantage compared with Junior applicants. Reason? Well, the obvious one is that the more successful Juniors that there are taken into the LL, the more tempting it will be for others to follow.

Secondarily, the first intake has solely been of Seniors (EK having become Senior upon election to the SoSL) and if four Juniors are elected for 2014-15, probability then dictates that three from every four subsequent relegation candidates will be Seniors. However, the real odds on that could be much worse ~ depending upon the comparative success in stadia developments between Junior leading-light & also-ran applicants for next season in particular. Should two Junior clubs be ranked equal in their applications in all but on the field, it'll be league-standing that'll favour the stronger clubs coming in at the expense of weaker ones - stands to reason, no complaints there.

But.

There'll be a lot of differing items on the application check-list and applicants won't all have progressed infrastructure improvements in exactly the same order. That necessitates there being a deal of 'horse trading' happening vis-a-vis the comparison of differing facilities and determination of how close to or past entry-level certification a particular club might be... and like it, or lump it, on-field success, being a criterion, will favour the higher-placed teams, over and beyond simple comparison of facilities.

There will be cases where 'bigger' teams get the nod over smaller ones, despite maybe not being quite so far advanced off the field! Ergo, there'll be a definite early trend for the LL to be strengthened on average in the first few seasons, with stronger than average Juniors likely succeeding gaining entry (particularly once a 'proper' promotion/relegation system has been instituted at its base) and that will likely pressurise the Seniors in it that are not as strong as the general Junior incomers. I'm guessing 4 from 5 or even 5 from 6 of the first batches of genuine relegatees will be Seniors. So - they know who they are and they really need to be concentrating on all-round improvement in order to stave-off this looming problem.

There may well be enforced demotions too. These will seldom occur, although there'll most certainly be squaky-bum room once the all-entry-level membership criterion becomes enforced (is that at end of 2015-16? I'm unsure). Thereafter, clubs failing entry-level requirements may be kicked-out, if there's another suitable replacement club available to be promoted to take its place.

That won't result in an extra promotion though... there'd be reprieves instead for team(s) who'd otherwise be relegated.

Hopefully, sooner rather than later, the 'proper' system of feeders to HL & LL will be agreed upon and ensonced. I'm hoping that Tayside teams (North of the Tay, at least) will be drawn into the North Juniors system under the HL itself. For two reasons - because (i) the SFA has designated the Tay as being the common border between Lowland & Highland regions -&- (ii) because there's a helluva lot more lowland teams than highland teams with the present split.

To me that just makes sense - if there are to be just two feeder 'Superleagues''

However, it might pay to retain the three Junior Districts as is, just absorb the SoS into the Wests, the EoS into the Easts, and horse-trade a little at their common boundary. It wouldn't alter my notion of sending North-bank Taysiders to the North District though, I do feel team numbers should be split more equitably between districts. That way any ambitious amateurs entering the system can be assured that their entry-level is standard in all three districts - something which I consider quite important.

Good post ma man!

[Grim O'Grady]

Sakes, this is a football forum, not the war & peace forum, oh hang on, what's the difference again?

Still stick by my OP.

2ndly I watched more of the jnr cup final than I read of the Cornishmon's post. My phone battery as a shorter span than my attention, well maybe it's about equal, what was we talking about?

Grimbo

[Aubrey Maturin]

Back that up my friend!

To be fair Isa you do get a bit carried away about crowds. Remember you waxing lyrical about the massive Talbot support only for the crowd figure in the Senior Scottish against Threave to number round the 700 mark which was lower than the other junior clubs got.