Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mick90

Does Pyramid p/o mean end of SJFA ?

Recommended Posts

The criteria should be the best teams that meet the required standards, which is exactly the case barring Linlithgow who for aren't in on there own accord.

Doesn't matter if you have the best first team in the world, can't meet the off-field standards you remain where you are until you get your house in order.

Look how well that policy worked out for Dunfermline with their stadium!

Relax the rules slightly for a team in their first year in the seniors IF they even manage to get promoted. If after a year they haven't got the ground up to standard, fair enough, automatic relegation.

I've been to several grounds and can't notice anything substantially different between the top junior grounds and cliftonhill, station park, balmoor etc. So in the grand scheme of things, surely these rules could be relaxed for a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha knew this was coming :)

Yes obviously there will be variances now n then. Just like Greenock Morton would beat Spartans 9 times out of 10.

Still though, Edinburgh are the best team in this seasons LL and won 2-1 against 10 men talbot. Would the bottom team in the LL beat Talbot most of the time? Because really that should be the criteria.

There is no proof that Talbot would beat Edinburgh most of the time. Your original point was that it was obvious that the top juniors are better than the Lowland League teams. I pointed out that this is not the case.

Talbot would and have won easily against our bottom club but so have the top Lowland League teams won easily against the bottom Lowland League clubs.

The whole point of the Lowland league is to give a place for a relegated SPFL team to go and possibly supply a club to replace them. Talbot do not want to play in the SPFL or even in a league that covers the lesser geographical area of the Lowland League. So even if the only criteria for playing in the league was how good the team is, they still wouldn't want to join. The argument is pointless.

Edited by Cicero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see what the LL, EoS and SoS will look like in 10 years.

I do think that most of the Junior sides will get onboard, but I worry we'll lose a lot of Clubs in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There won't be an influx though. Clubs are being actively discouraged by the way they are led at the top and on top of that they are naturally conservative anyway.

To be clear, the juniors are trying to set up their own joined up league covering the same territory as the lowland league, with indeterminate criteria around joining. But they will be different criteria from their LL counterpart. And the governance will be by the SJFA. Given that the stated position of the junior governing body is "not opposed to a pyramid in principle", how does that stance line up against trying to establish their own competitor league?

It's not a dichotomy. They're acting rationally based on their own self interest.

By establishing a competitor lowland league they hope to gain entry to the pyramid play-offs at the same level as the senior Lowland League.

In other words, they aim to secure the future/existence of the Juniors by keeping their own 'non-league' structure relevant. It's clear that, if they do not, their structure will become obsolete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WoS League anybody?

Clubs wouldn't have to be licensed and reserve teams could be included so not necessarily mission impossible. Banks o'Dee playing in the senior grade's Aberdeenshire League also suggests that clubs wouldn't necessarily even have to leave the SJFA if devil's lanterns could be used to play games midweek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no proof that Talbot would beat Edinburgh most of the time. Your original point was that it was obvious that the top juniors are better than the Lowland League teams. I pointed out that this is not the case.

Talbot would and have won easily against our bottom club but so have the top Lowland League teams won easily against the bottom Lowland League clubs.

The whole point of the Lowland league is to give a place for a relegated SPFL team to go and possibly supply a club to replace them. Talbot do not want to play in the SPFL or even in a league that covers the lesser geographical area of the Lowland League. So even if the only criteria for playing in the league was how good the team is, they still wouldn't want to join. The argument is pointless.

Yes I was wrong when I said they would beat ALL LL teams, I think the top teams are fairly even. I do think, in my opinion, talbot are the better of the top non league teams, having seen all or most of the teams in question.

I agree the barrier isn't only the club's ability or standard, I was merely suggesting an alternative which was fair and would represent a more attractive proposition to all those opposed to the current structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look how well that policy worked out for Dunfermline with their stadium!

Relax the rules slightly for a team in their first year in the seniors IF they even manage to get promoted. If after a year they haven't got the ground up to standard, fair enough, automatic relegation.

I've been to several grounds and can't notice anything substantially different between the top junior grounds and cliftonhill, station park, balmoor etc. So in the grand scheme of things, surely these rules could be relaxed for a year.

Our excellent stadium? Yes I have a problem with playing out of a well developed ground.

The spfl has the power to grant waivers, but regardless the requirements are lenient as f**k, can't meet them and you shouldn't be in the league, if there isn't much difference in the grounds(disputable) then clubs will easily meet the standards.

Issue with automatic relegation if not meeting standards is that season could be over months before the end if it becomes clear standards won't be met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our excellent stadium? Yes I have a problem with playing out of a well developed ground.

The spfl has the power to grant waivers, but regardless the requirements are lenient as f**k, can't meet them and you shouldn't be in the league, if there isn't much difference in the grounds(disputable) then clubs will easily meet the standards.

Issue with automatic relegation if not meeting standards is that season could be over months before the end if it becomes clear standards won't be met.

That could be an issue but one which I don't think would arise.

East End Park is a nice ground, no denying that. Is the size and scale of it necessary for a club with a support the size of Dunfermline's? I don't think so.

Yourselves, Falkirk, Inverness , Dundee etc have all had to build these stands which lie empty most of the time, unfairly so IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We needed to improve our grounds yes , and whilst the capacities may be slightly high they are generally smaller than what they replaced, also many a higher than the minimum that was needed. Before the spl there was talk of pars moving to a 20000 capacity ground at pitreavie, a project questioned due to LACK of capacity.

We probably should have built a 8/9000 capacity ground, but it's not like we are that far from the ideal, the only disappoint being the lack of standing areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We needed to improve our grounds yes , and whilst the capacities may be slightly high they are generally smaller than what they replaced, also many a higher than the minimum that was needed. Before the spl there was talk of pars moving to a 20000 capacity ground at pitreavie, a project questioned due to LACK of capacity.

We probably should have built a 8/9000 capacity ground, but it's not like we are that far from the ideal, the only disappoint being the lack of standing areas.

The capacities I can almost understand because of the chance to sell out the ground if in the SPL for the old firm visits. But the making clubs convert to all seaters etc was unnecessary. As Rangers and to a lesser extent hearts and Hibs have proved, terracing is fine and more than sufficient for even the biggest of away supports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The capacities I can almost understand because of the chance to sell out the ground if in the SPL for the old firm visits. But the making clubs convert to all seaters etc was unnecessary. As Rangers and to a lesser extent hearts and Hibs have proved, terracing is fine and more than sufficient for even the biggest of away supports.

Which is the position of the spfl, all seaters was simply a reaction to the Taylor report, and adopting it as a rule is probably why we can now allow standing in the top flight, had we not then it may well have been put into law and returning to standing being permitted would have been more difficult.

Disagree with particular aspects of licensing if you want, but I remain sceptical that the required standards are anything other than very lenient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is the position of the spfl, all seaters was simply a reaction to the Taylor report, and adopting it as a rule is probably why we can now allow standing in the top flight, had we not then it may well have been put into law and returning to standing being permitted would have been more difficult.

Disagree with particular aspects of licensing if you want, but I remain sceptical that the required standards are anything other than very lenient.

I agree, I don't think there would be too much required for clubs like Auchinleck and Hurlford to get licensed status. But asking clubs to do it when they may never qualify and could be in the juniors forever is a little harsh and I wouldn't see the harm in giving 1 years grace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realise that club licensing is about a lot more than just ground criteria?

But ground criteria, basic cleanliness and sanitary conditions in some cases, has to be a requirement for any league. Not just the "seniors"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The current set up won't work without having the Juniors or more licensed EoS and SoS clubs.

In the long term there will be plenty licensed EOS & SOS clubs - most EOSL clubs are openly known to want to get licensed and/or are engaging in ground improvements. However, what's true to say is that the pyramid is diminished v what it could be... geographically, numerically, and in terms of "strength in depth" - without the Juniors.

The juniors will survive, they always have and always will...

the juniors are like one big family and will stick together no matter the consequences. Can't see them ever willingly joining any set up that means abolishion of a grade that has lasted over a century.

Why (broadly-speaking) can't the Junior 'grade' just be the pyramid levels between the pro game and the Amateurs?

why not have the LL as a side by side part of the pyramid aswell as EoS and SOS leagues. So east and west region juniors top division winners play off to be the "South region junior winners" (assuming the country is split north and south at Dundee). Then the winners of the "south region juniors" enter a 4 team play off vs LL, SOS and EOS, semi final, final. Winners are then south champions and face northern champions which would be the winners of the HL (I think judging by the difference in standards between HL/LL and north juniors/east&west juniors that a straight promotion and relegation from HL to north juniors is appropriate). Then the winners of this would play bottom of SPFL league 2.

All covered earlier in the thread... Issues like licensing, what SPFL clubs will compromise on, and even simple scheduling makes that unfeasible.

Also worth adding that EOSL & SOSL have joined the pyramid, beneath LL. Subject to being licensed (which currently none are - but in time many will be) their champions playoff to replace bottom club in LL. So they would not be placed alongside LL in any system tweak.

Edited by HibeeJibee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't think a 3 leagues at level 5 would work.

However I have to agree with the point about standard of north v south.

A possibility could be dropping the geographical split abit more southern, thus allowing a few more clubs to classify as north to add a bit more depth.

Another idea could be to lower the number of teams in each league in the north, and number of promotion places. Although this is not ideal and doesn't improve the overall standard it would mean that any clubs starting at the bottom of the northern half of the pyramid would have more tiers to climb, rather going from HL division 2 to the highland league.

I actually think three is the perfect number. When you include the bottom team of spfl 2 you have a four team playoff. Names in a hat and two semis and a final. Winner takes all- could even be over a week at a neutral venue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but surely the idea world is automatic promotion + relegation? 3 regions makes that difficult to attain, especially if you want 2nd placed sides to have a chance of being promoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but surely the idea world is automatic promotion + relegation? 3 regions makes that difficult to attain, especially if you want 2nd placed sides to have a chance of being promoted.

Depends on the size of the leagues! If you have at least 16 in your lowest national tier/conference, you can have 3 down with the winner of each of the regions coming up. The 3 second places play-off against 4th bottom from the conference for the last place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...