superbigal Posted April 2, 2016 Share Posted April 2, 2016 Seems mostly the North teams that continue to fall foul of the reinstatement rule. FC Stoneywood have been deducted four points after the Scottish Junior FA dismissed the clubs appeal at Hampden Park last night. The North Region Junior FA had deducted the points following FC Stoneywood fielding an ineligible player during their goal-less draw with Hall Russell in the McBookie.com Superleague fixture at Clark Commercial Park in February. Hall Russell had claimed the points after it emerged that goalkeeper Michal Glowowski had not been reinstated to Junior football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chis Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 The point at issue was that he had never obtained International Clearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 A club needs to propose that the reinstatement rule has to go, although that might not have been the issue in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Its an amazingly stupid rule that passes without question every AGM. How can 160 committees not question it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clash city rocker Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Its an amazingly stupid rule that passes without question every AGM. How can 160 committees not question it? Because they won't vote against the SJFA who wish to retain it. Having to pay for a player to move from senior to junior is money for nothing for them and at same time keeps the juniors unique from rest of Scottish fitba. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euzi Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 clash city rocker nailed it. Money for nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricky cantwell Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 As for as I'm aware a proposal will need to be lodged and to allow it to discussed at a.g.m income lost would probably need to raised by putting up annual fees or disciplinary. Charges increased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 As for as I'm aware a proposal will need to be lodged and to allow it to discussed at a.g.m income lost would probably need to raised by putting up annual fees or disciplinary. Charges increased Good to hear. The loss of re-instatement fees amounts to around £15k annually. The SJFA's bank balance is well into six figures. They do not need to replace this revenue, they can absorb the loss easily enough, leave the money with the clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 If there is any hint that the £15k gap needs to be filled then any proposal to get rid will be voted down. I suspect the majority - not all - of reinstatement requests involve clubs nearer the top end of the grade. If that's the case then the clubs further down who rarely reinstate a player will not want to be saddled with an increase in fees to resolve a problem they don't have all that frequently. Or is my assumption bollocks? If the assumption isn't bollocks then I'd propose scrapping reinstatement fees but putting the bulk of any increased subscription charges on the clubs in the top tiers with a scaled increase as you go down the leagues. If there were an option, I'd also fill the gap by applying an automatic charge of £10 on a club every time one of their players or mgt team members was booked for dissent. In fact I'd propose that either way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Thing is though, the financial gap doesn't need to be filled, at least not in the short term. The SJFA aren't anywhere close to being skint, quite the opposite. I agree though that they might play on the fact the gap needs plugged with the associated negative spin in the hope that delegates would vote it down and we carry on as we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Regardless of money and if it needs replaced(it doesn't) surely the basic question is if it's right to have the rule in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricky cantwell Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 The problem is the books might show a good amount in the credit column.but that they have over the 2 years or so lost probably the biggest sponsorship in their history with Emirates en ding their support of our association coupled with selling the premises at St Vincent Crescent for a lower price than anticipated and ongoing costs of running office at Hampden Park plus 2 years ago all clubs received 1000 pounds which I'm doubtful could be affordable again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Regardless of money and if it needs replaced(it doesn't) surely the basic question is if it's right to have the rule in place. Well you'd think that ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 The problem is the books might show a good amount in the credit column.but that they have over the 2 years or so lost probably the biggest sponsorship in their history with Emirates en ding their support of our association coupled with selling the premises at St Vincent Crescent for a lower price than anticipated and ongoing costs of running office at Hampden Park plus 2 years ago all clubs received 1000 pounds which I'm doubtful could be affordable again As at 31st March 2015, the SJFA had £529,606 in net assets. Re-instatements income was £14,573 over the previous 12 months. I'm sure they wont notice a 2.7% drop in income too much, particularly when it's the right thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 If there is any hint that the £15k gap needs to be filled then any proposal to get rid will be voted down. I suspect the majority - not all - of reinstatement requests involve clubs nearer the top end of the grade. If that's the case then the clubs further down who rarely reinstate a player will not want to be saddled with an increase in fees to resolve a problem they don't have all that frequently. Or is my assumption bollocks? If the assumption isn't bollocks then I'd propose scrapping reinstatement fees but putting the bulk of any increased subscription charges on the clubs in the top tiers with a scaled increase as you go down the leagues. If there were an option, I'd also fill the gap by applying an automatic charge of £10 on a club every time one of their players or mgt team members was booked for dissent. In fact I'd propose that either way! kelty would be oot the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 As at 31st March 2015, the SJFA had £529,606 in net assets. Re-instatements income was £14,573 over the previous 12 months. I'm sure they wont notice a 2.7% drop in income too much, particularly when it's the right thing to do. Does net assets include valued property rather than cash at hand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Does net assets include valued property rather than cash at hand? It's cash, property has been sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted April 5, 2016 Author Share Posted April 5, 2016 More important what's the sjfa turnover ? Clubs own fault for letting on beaks sit on all that dosh. I vote for half a mill straight to meadow to spunk 👠Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loughal Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Bit confused about reinstatement. Heard that senior clubs can walk in and sign a junior without giving them compensation. They do not have to pay the SFA any fee. Then if the player goes back junior they can demand a fee from the junior club. Is this in any way true. If the SJFA have a six figure bank book, how on earth do they demand this £40 from struggling juniors many who are giving the ex-seniors a chance to play with little or no wage. Time clubs got organised and threw out this disgraceful reinstatement law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted April 6, 2016 Share Posted April 6, 2016 Heard that senior clubs can walk in and sign a junior without giving them compensation. They do not have to pay the SFA any fee. Then if the player goes back junior they can demand a fee from the junior club. Is this in any way true. Doubtful Unless the player is u23 then fees will only be applicable if you are need the player to break from his current contract so they can move to your club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.