RabidAl Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Looks like they might need another year! It would be useful if the SFA were more transparent about when the next Licencing Committee Review for each club is. Their s/s just states 2015 for everyone, although maybe it could be inferred that it's simply one year on from the last review for each club, unless an individual club re-applies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Pretender Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Given that clubs last year had their applications rejected because they were "not sufficiently robust to assure achievement of a club licence by May 2015" then surely the LL committee can't allow any team in their league next season without a licence? If it was deemed an important enough reason to reject applications, I'm guessing that it's a cut & dried issue that no team can compete in the LL next season without one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calmac25 Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 the licencing committee seems to have been around March and October the last few years judging by announcments about new members/licences this year they said there would be an extra one in may as a deadline for lowland league team's. I don't see how the league could give any further waivers to teams beyond may Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 Baring extraordinary circumstances the requirement for a license should be absolute, no licence no lowland league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleanor Rigby Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I'd like to see Burntisland in the league. They may be quite a bit away from competing on the park but surely they could attract players given their catchment area and lack of competing eos/LL teams around them. Decent potential fan base too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 The SFA as the national association have the power to waive some of the conditions if its in the best interests of the sport or add any extra ones they deem necessary when dealing with licensing applications. Any flexility with BSC Glasgow will be at that level rather than the LL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 The SFA as the national association have the power to waive some of the conditions if its in the best interests of the sport or add any extra ones they deem necessary when dealing with licensing applications. Any flexility with BSC Glasgow will be at that level rather than the LL. Well yes, but the league i suppose has some flexibility itself, the spfl does for example, though that flexability is restrained by needing to keep in line with the sfa, the organisations will need to work together. I think, should Bsc or any other side fail to meet the standard criteria for a licence but a decision is a made between the authorities to allow them to remain a LL side then they are more likely to be granted a waiver by the league rather than have a license granted regardless. As I say, unless extraordinary circumstances are in place then I wouldn't allow a side to remain tier 5 without a licence, neither should a licence being granted with waivers attached without extraordinary circumstance behind that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I believe that there should be no waivers. Everyone knew the requirement for a license before they applied to join the league. If any club cannot get their license before the cut-off date then let them drop to the South or East of Scotland leagues (if they will have them). Lack of a license shows that they are not ready to be in the fifth tier of Scottish football despite their current position in the league. The whole point of the pyramid is progression both on and off the park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 I believe that there should be no waivers. Everyone knew the requirement for a license before they applied to join the league. If any club cannot get their license before the cut-off date then let them drop to the South or East of Scotland leagues (if they will have them). Lack of a license shows that they are not ready to be in the fifth tier of Scottish football despite their current position in the league. The whole point of the pyramid is progression both on and off the park. Waivers have there place, but should only be used in extreme circumstances. They are needed to take into account unexpected things, say a club has everything in place, but the night before the ground visit there toilets get burned down, it would not be unreasonable at that point to provide a waiver for a couple of months to fix that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidAl Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 So are we looking at licencing actually weakening tier 5 and the LL - if 4 clubs drop out and with no club from the EoS and SoS to replace them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Time will tell. If Fort William can get entry level, I wouldn't discount any of the existing clubs getting in just yet. Even BSC Glasgow are not supposed to have much to do in terms of bringing Lochburn Park up to the required standards, because Ronnie Macdonald pumped a lot of money into Maryhill Juniors before he moved onto Clyde and then Hamilton Accies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 So are we looking at licencing actually weakening tier 5 and the LL - if 4 clubs drop out and with no club from the EoS and SoS to replace them? Not weakening the league but maintaining standards. Too much money in the game has been squandered on player wages without the clubs investing in facilities (not that I am saying the currently unlicensed clubs have done that). We cannot go back on the benchmark that has been set. The relegated SPFL clubs will have no cause for complaint if we stick to what has been previously agreed. Otherwise there would be an argument for relegation to the junior super leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBKD Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Stirling Uni and BSC are unlicenced at the moment, In the case of the Uni. using Forthbank obviously will meet all the ground criteria, so if that makes the licence a formality, anyone know as to why they are not already licenced? Rumour has it that BSC may be given more time to sort out their situation, to me that maybe partly down to their application to join the LL was with a different groundshare. I don't understand the ins and outs of licencing, but deadlines must be the same for everyone, when exactly is this? Any teams without licence, will they be demoted back to EoS/SoS leagues? Stirling uni need to have a longer lease to get their licence 10yrs + I'm told Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted March 16, 2015 Author Share Posted March 16, 2015 It's 2yrs and explicitly says so in club licensing documentation (8.2, p91 here): http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2015/2015%20Club%20Licensing%20Manual%20-%20Parts%201%20&%202.pdf Plenty licensed clubs won't have anything like 10yr leases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 The SFA can add extra conditions to any application as they see fit. With Stirling Uni the key on that would maybe be that they have no plans to bring their own ground on campus up to standard and it's probably only a matter of time before they have a Team Bath style implosion due to changes in the university's upper management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hardest ned in glasgow Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 what about hulford amateurs. they been 1 of the most successful amateur teams in previous years. might want to take it up a level Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo87 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Their wage bill would be the highest in LL league if they came into it, that's for sure. But I think they are quite happy being the big fish in the small pond. Fortunately for the LL league, unfortunate for the Ams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidAl Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Not weakening the league but maintaining standards. Too much money in the game has been squandered on player wages without the clubs investing in facilities (not that I am saying the currently unlicensed clubs have done that). We cannot go back on the benchmark that has been set. The relegated SPFL clubs will have no cause for complaint if we stick to what has been previously agreed. Otherwise there would be an argument for relegation to the junior super leagues. I agree with the principle of maintaining standards and using licencing as a benchmark for clubs to invest in infrastructure, but isn't sporting merit being lost in this? Right now - if the LL stick to their guns and don't allow any waivers - it looks like a long haul before there are enough licenced clubs around to allow for real promotion to the LL. It doesn't sit easily with me when clubs can finish top of their league/division, such as SoS or EoS, and not be rewarded with automatic promotion. It would be more inclusive and more sporting to enable clubs to be promoted, welcome them in, and then help them to build the infrastructure that they need to be up to standard for that level. I noticed that the SFA reimburse the SPFL for the pyramid parachute payments* - wouldn't their money be better spent/couldn't they find money to help clubs in EoS and SoS achieve Entry Level licencing? It would speak volumes for the SFA if they were to do more to create a real depth of quality infrastructure at grassroots, community level clubs. ------- EDIT *{SPFL Articles of Association; Parachute Payments and Pyramid Play-Off Parachute Payments, p.38} 157.3. No Pyramid Play-Off Parachute Payments shall be paid or payable by the Company unless and until a sum equal to the amount of the relevant Pyramid Play-Off Parachute Payments otherwise payable shall first have been paid by the Scottish FA to the Company for the express purpose of reimbursing the Company in the amount of the relevant Pyramid Play-Off Parachute Payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I agree with the principle of maintaining standards and using licencing as a benchmark for clubs to invest in infrastructure, but isn't sporting merit being lost in this? Right now - if the LL stick to their guns and don't allow any waivers - it looks like a long haul before there are enough licenced clubs around to allow for real promotion to the LL. It doesn't sit easily with me when clubs can finish top of their league/division, such as SoS or EoS, and not be rewarded with automatic promotion. I believe sporting merit is getting it correct on and off the park. The background staff may not run around on the park but they are still working hard to the make their clubs successful. We have to draw the line in the sand somewhere otherwise we will end up with clubs playing in ramshackle stadiums while paying their players top wages (sound familiar). I would say it is a problem with the feeder leagues if teams win it year in year out and not ready to accept promotion. A situation could arise when a licensed Lowland League gets relegated and cannot get back in as Ramshackle United keep winning the league with no view to upgrading their facilities. It would be more inclusive and more sporting to enable clubs to be promoted, welcome them in, and then help them to build the infrastructure that they need to be up to standard for that level. I think we are never going to agree here. I believe it is better to get the infrastructure first then build the team. A team built on dodgy foundations can easily fall apart. Whereas a club with a sound infrastructure can always rebuild a dodgy team the next season. I noticed that the SFA reimburse the SPFL for the pyramid parachute payments - wouldn't their money be better spent/couldn't they find money to help clubs in EoS and SoS achieve Entry Level licencing? It would speak volumes for the SFA if they were to do more to create a real depth of quality infrastructure at grassroots, community level clubs. I didn't know that the SFA paid for the parachute payments (which I don't agree with in principle). I agree the SFA should be distributing the money more to grass roots football. Hence getting the infrastructure in place first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidAl Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I don't think that promoting one club from each of the South and East each season would really dilute the standards of the LL off the pitch too much at all. It would also give some legitimacy to the LL and the Pyramid as genuine sporting competitions because on the field success would be recognised and rewarded. I understand that licencing is desirable to ensure that clubs are run properly and have the correct infrastructure, but the current rush to do it - or else! - is needlessly handcuffing clubs. Yes, 'they' want a certain standard of league for SPFL clubs to land in if/when they're relegated, so the licencing seemingly needs to be in place for the start of the first season when such a club may be competing in the LL - 2015/16. To me, it's a senseless rush. Give clubs another year if they need it. Particularly if no SPFL club is relegated to the LL. But, as you say, we probably won't agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.