Reorganisation of East Region Leagues

[Vollyman]

 There is talk of reorganisation of East Region Leagues to cut travel costs. Fife and Tayside have at present 34 teams Lothians have 26 this is only a suggestion, a Fife and Tayside league of 30 clubs split into 2 leagues  Premier League and 1st division  and a Fife and Lothian league with 26 Lothian clubs plus 4 south Fife teams again 2 divisions.Relegation and promotion on a basis of 4 up and 4 down in the various leagues. The winners of  the 2 Premier leagues play off to determine the East Region Champions and entry to the William Hill Scottish Cup. Just a suggestion which would cut travel costs and have more local games which may attract better attendances

[drs]

Thought reconstruction was put out to consultation and feedback at last seasons AGM, with clubs taking a vote on how they want to proceed at the AGM at the end of this season.

[Vollyman]

This is only a suggestion regarding East Region at the end of the day the clubs will decide if any reorganisation is required 

[victor meldrew]

Can't really see much changing. Only a handful of fife clubs seem to be keen on changing it, everyone else seems happy with current set up. 

[Skipper]

Couldn't see Kelty or Hill of Besth wanting to leave the Superleague.

[HibeeJibee]

OP = no regional Superleagues whatsoever and only districts? Aside from the attractiveness or otherwise of it, you've still got 4 Fife clubs in the 'wrong' half having to cross the Forth. Plus playoff to decide overall champion? Really?

[cmontheloknow]

East Region to revote on Brexit as well apparently.

Seriously, if the Fife teams don't like playing at the level they're at, why not jog on to the Caley Fife League?

[victor meldrew]

25 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Couldn't see Kelty or Hill of Besth wanting to leave the Superleague.

Not sure how accurate it is but actually heard Hill of Beath would like changed back to Fife League. 

[whitburn exile]

if fife teams don't like it then jog on. We should be taking a step towards a proper pyramid system and this would be a step backwards

[Burnie_man]

6 hours ago, cmontheloknow said:

East Region to revote on Brexit as well apparently.

Seriously, if the Fife teams don't like playing at the level they're at, why not jog on to the Caley Fife League?

Lochgelly and Lochore were the clubs that proposed re-organisation at last years AGM, it was withdrawn as it wasn’t even competent, but the Region promised to consult clubs. I believe the consultation papers went out a few weeks ago with a deadline of around now.

Why we’re wasting time on this I have no idea. The reason why the change came about four seasons back was because clubs wanted more than one promotion spot from the District leagues, and they wanted more guaranteed home league games (larger leagues). The set-up we have now is the absolute best that satisfies both concerns, it’s simple, it’s straightforward, and it is attracting clubs from other leagues to join it. We have a strong set-up.

Lochgelly have four other Fife clubs in the South Division, so what exactly is their concerns? If Lochore’s concern is travelling, why did they not request a move to the South Division, that would have made six Fife clubs this season.

As has been pointed out above, if a handful of Fife clubs are driving this and citing travelling, maybe the Fife amateur leagues is the best place for them. We should be looking forward not backwards.*

*Re Vollyman's suggestion above, the last time the East Region had play-offs to decide the Champion was 1973.

 

[pie n beans]

How boring is this again

[Thathanka Iyothake]

I believe Lochgelly proposal ,Is super league remains same , they want 3 Leagues

north (Tayside) , central ( Fife and Perthshire) and south (Lothians) I think same as

2006/07 set up  Winners promoted to S.L.    3 TEAMS Relegated from S.L.   Do we really need a Premier League ?

I usually attend super league games , as I stated before average teams, average games  Are the rest of the Leagues

the same ?.  Is there too many meaningless games at end of the season ?  If this subject is debated by East member clubs

then the clubs outside the Super League will have the majority of votes  I do not think most of the present league S.L. teams are really

bothered about reconstruction.

T.I.

 

[bluebell1]

The set up we have at moment is best we have, to me the argument about travel costs doesn't add up.  Bottom line when your signing a player as a club if you can't afford travel costs you tell player no expenses will be paid he signs or he doesn't. 

If he doesn't you move on and sign someone who will play for hee haw.  

Or you take a bus to every away game subsidise it with supporters and committee who are willing to pay to travel and players can travel on bus for hee haw.

In last few years my club has played at all levels in the east and this has worked for us

 

[SandwedgeSammy]

So how would such a proposal look with clubs in their current leagues?

Superleague (16): (same teams as now)

North (13): Arbroath Vics, Blairgowrie, Brechin Vics, Coupar Angus, Downfield, Dundee North End, Dundee Violet, East Craigie, Forfar Albion, Forfar West End, Kirriemuir Thistle, Lochee Harp, Tayport

Central (15): Crossgates Primrose, Glenrothes, Kennoway Star Hearts, Kinnoull, Kirkcaldy YM, Lochgelly Albert, Lochore Welfare, Luncarty, Newburgh, Oakley United, Rosyth, Sauchie, Scone Thistle, St Andrews United, Thornton Hibs

South (16): Armadale Thistle, Arniston Rangers, Bathgate Thistle, Blackburn United, Craigroyston, Dalkeith Thistle, Dunbar United, Easthouses Lily, Edinburgh United, Haddington Athletic, Livingston United, Pumpherston, Stoneyburn, Tranent, West Calder United, Whitburn

3 league winners go up, with 3 relegated from Superleague.

(I suppose there could be an opening for a 4-team play-off between 4^th bottom of the Superleague and the 3 runners-up, if desired.)

Couple of points.

The North and Central leagues are split 15 and 13 respectively, but even numbers would probably be preferable so one of the Perthshire teams may need to head to the North. Also, the South is already at 16 teams, so any additions from relegated Superleague teams or a return for Harthill Royal would mean some teams might need to head to the Central Division.

The geographical divide of the current North/South regional leagues runs between Lochore and Lochgelly and I can understand if that seems unfair to those clubs, but the new proposal seems to shift that problem elsewhere. There are now two geographical divides, one running through Perthshire and one along the Forth. Teams along these divides could find themselves moving between leagues to keep numbers consistent and suddenly in a different league from their near neighbours. Clubs would need to be flexible about what league they were expected to play in.

The new proposal increases the number of teams relegated from the Superleague (with or without a playoff), so I would think that some Superleague teams might be against change for this reason. However, all the teams currently playing in the North or South Leagues will effectively be promoted from tier 3 to tier 2 so will see a benefit to being only one promotion away from the Superleague.

I suppose it all comes down to opportunity versus geography. The current setup has plenty of opportunity for teams to move up but at the cost of increased travel. If you want to decrease the travel then you also decrease the opportunity to go up. Clubs would need to decide what matters most to them. Unfortunately there is no solution that will keep everybody happy.

[Burnie_man]

The set-up Sammy highlighted above is basically the same one we moved away from with exactly the same problem that drove re-organisation in the first place.....only one promotion spot from the District Leagues.

15/16 clubs fighting over one promotion spot is deeply unpopular.

[Burnie_man]

2 hours ago, bluebell1 said:

The set up we have at moment is best we have, to me the argument about travel costs doesn't add up.  Bottom line when your signing a player as a club if you can't afford travel costs you tell player no expenses will be paid he signs or he doesn't. 

If he doesn't you move on and sign someone who will play for hee haw.  

Or you take a bus to every away game subsidise it with supporters and committee who are willing to pay to travel and players can travel on bus for hee haw.

In last few years my club has played at all levels in the east and this has worked for us

 

Nail on head, you cut your cloth to suit.

 

[imho]

35 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Nail on head, you cut your cloth to suit.

 

If teams are seriously struggling then it needs discussing. 

[bluebell1]

What do you want to discuss?, am lost to be honest maybe just a simple fifer me as the previous post says it's all about living within your means. You can't pay what you don't have. Hence travel costs shouldn't come into any argument for reorganisation. Any organisational change should be about improving the product and enhancing the junior game not costs surely 

[victor meldrew]

I think the fact that probably over 90% of teams are happy/content with the current situation then it should stay as it is. I do feel for the clubs that are stuck bang in the middle (always going to be someone though I suppose) and if these clubs were in super or premier league then it wouldn't be an issue. It's only an issue as they are in bottom leagues and face journeys to "far unfancied" places. Smaller clubs do cut their cloth accordingly I think, but think issue is they can't afford a bus to far away games, and can't subsidise it as mentioned due to not having the fan base or indeed committee to fill it. This means players must take cars, some clubs will offer expenses for this, some won't. Think some clubs find it hard to attract players due to this and this is maybe where they become unhappy with current set up. 

 

Sorry for for long winded post, but in summary, think it should stay the way it is but can totally understand where some clubs are coming from. 

[Burnie_man]

14 hours ago, bluebell1 said:

What do you want to discuss?, am lost to be honest maybe just a simple fifer me as the previous post says it's all about living within your means. You can't pay what you don't have. Hence travel costs shouldn't come into any argument for reorganisation. Any organisational change should be about improving the product and enhancing the junior game not costs surely 

Correct. The bit I fail to understand, as I mentioned previously, is that Lochgelly Albert are already in a league with four other Fife clubs, and they are gunning for promotion into the region wide Premierleague, so why are they wanting re-organisation citing travel costs?  Outwith the Fife clubs there’s hardly much travelling involved in going over the bridge to Pumpherston, Livingston, Blackburn West Calder and Stoneyburn either. Lochore Welfare, if they are struggling with travel costs, why did they not request to be moved over to the South Division at the end of last season, that would have been the sensible move.

 

I mention those two clubs as one proposed re-organisation and the other seconded it, although as I said, it was withdrawn before the AGM.

 

I’m not aware of any club running buses to South Division games, and not all away games in the Super and Premier require a bus either. However as pointed out, travel costs should not be a consideration when discussing re-organisation anyway, you cut your financial cloth to suit but if you are already at the stage where you’re not paying players and still can’t pay travel expenses then you’re in the wrong grade of football I’m afraid. We can’t have the tail wagging the dog.

 

Easthouses Lily and Craigroyston are the perfect illustration that what we have now is a good set-up which attracts new members clubs, they probably won’t be the last to move over from the East of Scotland League, and with Harthill coming back next season as well, we have a strong set-up which works.

 

The Lowland League is improving in standard every season and they have clubs that are no bigger than District League clubs and involves a lot of travelling, yet some want to see us regress back into the old ways. We need to look forward, not backward.