Selkirk FC thread

[GordonS]

 

2 hours ago, stanley said:

Am I right in thinking 15th go down automatically as long as the tier 6 teams are licensed and the 'vacancy' scenario with teams applying only occurs if the team in 14th are set to be relegated (if promotion from/to SPFL gives LL and extra club)?

No, if Club 15 goes down and one club comes up, that will leave 15, so there will be a vacancy.

 

[GordonS]

2 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

I might of gotten this very wrong but...

I think you have got it wrong, but not very

In the top one, if someone comes down to the LL and no-one goes up, plus the Tier 6 club comes up, then Clubs 14 and 15 both get relegated (the Rule refers to the "second-bottom club"). That's two in and two out, so there's still a vacancy.

I can't actually see any situation that doesn't leave a vacancy.

[FairWeatherFan]

Just now, GordonS said:

I think you have got it wrong, but not very

In the top one, if someone comes down to the LL and no-one goes up, plus the Tier 6 club comes up, then Clubs 14 and 15 both get relegated (the Rule refers to the "second-bottom club"). That's two in and two out, so there's still a vacancy.

I can't actually see any situation that doesn't leave a vacancy.

The use of "Second Bottom" in reference to relegation is only used when balancing the league at 16 clubs. As spots would be available for both SPFL42 & Licenced Tier 6 champion with LL15th relegated, there would be no need to balance the size of the league as it would be sitting at 16 exactly.

[GordonS]

Just now, FairWeatherFan said:

The use of "Second Bottom" in reference to relegation is only used when balancing the league at 16 clubs. As spots would be available for both SPFL42 & Licenced Tier 6 champion with LL15th relegated, there would be no need to balance the size of the league as it would be sitting at 16 exactly.

It also says "the following will apply if there is an inequality between clubs entering and leaving the league through promotion and relegation." Which there would be if one was coming down from L2 and one up from Tier 6, but only one relegated. It says in the first sentence of Rule 4 that admission to the league is by application until 16 is reached, and then by promotion and relegation.

I agree it's open to some interpretation but I think there's a much stronger case that Rule B4(b) would apply than that it wouldn't. 

[FairWeatherFan]

12 minutes ago, GordonS said:

It also says "the following will apply if there is an inequality between clubs entering and leaving the league through promotion and relegation." Which there would be if one was coming down from L2 and one up from Tier 6, but only one relegated. It says in the first sentence of Rule 4 that admission to the league is by application until 16 is reached, and then by promotion and relegation.

I agree it's open to some interpretation but I think there's a much stronger case that Rule B4(b) would apply than that it wouldn't. 

For B4(b) to apply you would have to say that the Lowland League membership is at 17 members and a further relegation would be required to balance it out at 16.

With accepting Lowland League 1-15, SPFL42 and Tier 6 champion as 17 members.

Then my thinking is Lowland League 1-14, SPFL42 and Tier 6 Champion = 16 members and B4(b) isn't required as there's nothing to balance.

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

For B4(b) to apply you would have to say that the Lowland League membership is at 17 members and a further relegation would be required to balance it out at 16.

With accepting Lowland League 1-15, SPFL42 and Tier 6 champion as 17 members.

Then my thinking is Lowland League 1-14, SPFL42 and Tier 6 Champion = 16 members and B4(b) isn't required as there's nothing to balance.

Yeah, could be. Feck knows. We'll find out!

[Marshmallo]

Applications for the league places at this stage would make a mockery of the pyramid system. If there are two spots it either needs to be a licensed EOS and SOS winner, or two licensed EOS winners. If there aren't two licensed clubs between the three EOS winners and SOS winner then the existing LL club should stay in the league. 

[stanley]

8 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Applications for the league places at this stage would make a mockery of the pyramid system. If there are two spots it either needs to be a licensed EOS and SOS winner, or two licensed EOS winners. If there aren't two licensed clubs between the three EOS winners and SOS winner then the existing LL club should stay in the league. 

Would be even more of a mockery if that was the system and the licensing embargo is still in place by the end of the season.  That would actively be blocking clubs.   Let's see what happens but a huge amount is riding on this embargo.

[FairWeatherFan]

19 hours ago, GordonS said:

Yeah, could be. Feck knows. We'll find out!

Turns out you were right. After going round in circles in different threads with regards to what the HL/LL boundary actually was, I finally decided to just ask the Lowland League for clarification. Since they were kindly enough to oblige with the boundary question. I figured I'd ask about Rule B4(b) and if it still stands with regards to 14th and it does.

The response:

Edited September 5, 2018 by FairWeatherFan

[GordonS]

Turns out you were right. After going round in circles in different threads with regards to what the HL/LL boundary actually was, I finally decided to just ask the Lowland League for clarification. Since they were kindly enough to oblige with the boundary question. I figured I'd ask about Rule B4(b) and if it still stands with regards to 14th and it does.
The response:

That's funny, the more I thought about it the more I was coming to your way of seeing it. As the rule starts off the premise 'In order to maintain membership at 16 clubs...', you could argue that the whole rule is irrelevant if you promotion and relegation get you 16 clubs. But then, as the only place where promotion and relegation is described is further down in that rule, it can't really have been the intention for the whole rule to only apply where they had more or fewer than 16 members.

Let's just hope nobody ends up at the Court for Arbitration in Sport in Switzerland over this...

[newcastle broon]

I do wonder, had there no been such an influx of clubs into the EOSFL whether or not there would've been such a big fuss made regarding club 15 

#bullies 

Makes the season more exciting now  

[FairWeatherFan]

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

That's funny, the more I thought about it the more I was coming to your way of seeing it. As the rule starts off the premise 'In order to maintain membership at 16 clubs...', you could argue that the whole rule is irrelevant if you promotion and relegation get you 16 clubs. But then, as the only place where promotion and relegation is described is further down in that rule, it can't really have been the intention for the whole rule to only apply where they had more or fewer than 16 members.

Let's just hope nobody ends up at the Court for Arbitration in Sport in Switzerland over this...

I obviously thought they'd go with my thinking as well, especially as it was the only way to avoid the knock on effects of a 2-3 week application process between end of playoffs and the agm.

[Marten]

7 hours ago, GordonS said:

That's funny, the more I thought about it the more I was coming to your way of seeing it. As the rule starts off the premise 'In order to maintain membership at 16 clubs...', you could argue that the whole rule is irrelevant if you promotion and relegation get you 16 clubs. But then, as the only place where promotion and relegation is described is further down in that rule, it can't really have been the intention for the whole rule to only apply where they had more or fewer than 16 members.

Let's just hope nobody ends up at the Court for Arbitration in Sport in Switzerland over this...

To be honest, I'd be extremely surprised if club 14 wouldn't be let back in to fill the vacancy. Team 15 (in the case promotion/relegation isn't resulting in an extra LL team), could be in trouble as 15th is already "possible relegation" in a 16 team league, so clubs might think that they finished in a relegation place regardless, although I'd still think team 15 will at least have a decent hope of filling the vacancy. However, team 14 would be the victim of both Selkirk's demise and circumstances in the SPFL/LL/HL play-offs. I think there is a very fair argument to be made for them to be voted back in.

[FairWeatherFan]

2 hours ago, Marten said:

To be honest, I'd be extremely surprised if club 14 wouldn't be let back in to fill the vacancy. Team 15 (in the case promotion/relegation isn't resulting in an extra LL team), could be in trouble as 15th is already "possible relegation" in a 16 team league, so clubs might think that they finished in a relegation place regardless, although I'd still think team 15 will at least have a decent hope of filling the vacancy. However, team 14 would be the victim of both Selkirk's demise and circumstances in the SPFL/LL/HL play-offs. I think there is a very fair argument to be made for them to be voted back in.

I'm sure they're hoping to avoid the one scenario that would see 14th relegated and in need to re-apply. Both to avoid the vote and the competitive reason of wanting their Champion to win the HL/LL Play-off (LL 2-2 HL). I'd have 14th as favourites to win a vote if it ultimately came to it.

EDIT:

Assuming all the important positions in the 6th Tier are licenced by the end of the season, you're looking at:

For me:

A = LL14

B, C, D = Tier 6 Champion

E = Tier 6 Champion and whichever EoS Conference winner that finishes 2nd in the EoS Championship Round Robin

Edited September 6, 2018 by FairWeatherFan

[GordonS]

4 hours ago, Marten said:

To be honest, I'd be extremely surprised if club 14 wouldn't be let back in to fill the vacancy. Team 15 (in the case promotion/relegation isn't resulting in an extra LL team), could be in trouble as 15th is already "possible relegation" in a 16 team league, so clubs might think that they finished in a relegation place regardless, although I'd still think team 15 will at least have a decent hope of filling the vacancy. However, team 14 would be the victim of both Selkirk's demise and circumstances in the SPFL/LL/HL play-offs. I think there is a very fair argument to be made for them to be voted back in.

LL14 and LL15 both get relegated and apply for re-admission.

LL15 gets in.

Scenes.

[Marten]

3 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

I'm sure they're hoping to avoid the one scenario that would see 14th relegated and in need to re-apply. Both to avoid the vote and the competitive reason of wanting their Champion to win the HL/LL Play-off (LL 2-2 HL). I'd have 14th as favourites to win a vote if it ultimately came to it.

EDIT:

Assuming all the important positions in the 6th Tier are licenced by the end of the season, you're looking at:

For me:

A = LL14

B, C, D = Tier 6 Champion

E = Tier 6 Champion and whichever EoS Conference winner that finishes 2nd in the EoS Championship Round Robin

In B, C, D, I don't think it's as clear cut that the SoS champions will be picked (and I don't think it's sure they'll even apply). If the EoS v SoS play-off will be another drubbing like last season's 10-0 aggregate win for Kelty, there is a big chance they'd choose another EoS winner ahead of the SoS club.

[Baxter's Nutmeg]

This is worse than the clues in the game show 3-2-1 (a show from the 70’s/80’s), you need to be a Philadelphia lawyer!

[FairWeatherFan]

2 minutes ago, Marten said:

In B, C, D, I don't think it's as clear cut that the SoS champions will be picked (and I don't think it's sure they'll even apply). If the EoS v SoS play-off will be another drubbing like last season's 10-0 aggregate win for Kelty, there is a big chance they'd choose another EoS winner ahead of the SoS club.

Who says it's the SoS Champion that would be applying

 

[heedthebaa]

4 minutes ago, Baxter's Nutmeg said:

This is worse than the clues in the game show 3-2-1 (a show from the 70’s/80’s)

 the finger thing Ted done was harder than that deli alli pish

[GordonS]

To be honest I'm not as bothered by some about using applications to fill vacancies. There are very few clubs below the LL who are licensed and only one has been directly promoted into it in a few years.

The season Ross County and Caley Thistle were admitted to the SFL, County finished 3rd in the HL and the constituent parts of Caley Thistle finished 2nd and 15th. Should the champions, Huntly, have been admitted?

In Peterhead and Elgin's last season in the HL they finished fourth and ninth respectively. The league was won by Keith. Peterhead had won it the year before, but before that Huntly did five in a row.

Annan finished seventh (of twelve) in the EoS Premier in their last season replacing Gretna in the SFL. IF it had been on merit, Whitehill Welfare would have gone up.

The development on the pyramid and the increase in the the number of clubs with the capacity to step up changes things, but I don't see a problem with saying that, apart from relegation and promotion, additions to the LL are by application.