New clubs in the East of Scotland

[lithgierose]

When gradients of pitches was first questioned as being acceptable or not.the question was brought up about bonnyrigg. it was answered at the time,that bonnyriggs pitch met criteria.but that's not to say the governing bodies won't move the goal posts again.(no pun intended) [emoji23]

Ps,wait till next week.

[Ginaro]

11 hours ago, lithgierose said:

21 hours ago, Ginaro said:

There's already an artificial barrier in place for a LL club with an entry licence moving to the SPFL - floodlights. If you can install them, you should be able to ensure the other bronze requirements are met:

• safety certificate
• bigger pitch and better playing surface
• stricter field gradient
• proper goalposts
• bigger match officials room
• covered seating technical area
• cover for home and away support - minimum 500
• disability access officer
• better disabled WC, and covered wheelchair area with no sightline obstructions

If for example Coldstream installed floodlights and then went on a winning run that saw them win the pyramid play-off, that would be fine according to the SPFL rules.

Do you know the acceptable field gradient ?

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/2881/scottish-fa-club-licensing-manual-2018.pdf page 27 - for entry it's "best practice", for bronze it's:

FIELD GRADIENT

Maximum allowable :

1:40 over the length

1:40 over the width

This gives a deviation on a pitch

measuring 105 x 68m of

Length – 2.62m

Breadth – 1.70m

20 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Floodlights are necessary given the number of midweek fixtures that teams will be expected to play. None of those other things, with the exception of a safety certificate and disability access seem like they should be essential to play in League 2. They're desirable, of course, but I don't think they should be essential for that level.

If you are moving up to a national league, the rest of bronze->entry differences below should all be achievable:

• The field shall be rated "satisfactory"
• Gradient details as above instead of "best practice"
• The pitch needs to be 4m wider than the entry minimum of 56m
• The goalposts must be socketed
• Match officials room needs space for an extra person and a table big enough for five
• The extra cover for 400 people will cover the average attendance in League Two.

[GordonS]

2 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/2881/scottish-fa-club-licensing-manual-2018.pdf page 27 - for entry it's "best practice", for bronze it's:

FIELD GRADIENT

Maximum allowable :

1:40 over the length

1:40 over the width

This gives a deviation on a pitch

measuring 105 x 68m of

Length – 2.62m

Breadth – 1.70m

 

Thanks. Bonnyrigg must be well over 1.7m side-to-side, they'd have serious work to do to meet that. I think the corner is near enough the height of the crossbar. 

[Ginaro]

19 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Thanks. Bonnyrigg must be well over 1.7m side-to-side, they'd have serious work to do to meet that. I think the corner is near enough the height of the crossbar. 

That's the bronze criteria. Though if Burntisland can get an entry licence with their slope then Bonnyrigg shouldn't have any problems!

[HTG]

Entry is fine for SPFL so Bonnyrigg won't have any issues once their lights are up and running. 

[falkirktv]

3 hours ago, lithgierose said:

3 hours ago, lithgierose said:

When gradients of pitches was first questioned as being acceptable or not.the question was brought up about bonnyrigg. it was answered at the time,that bonnyriggs pitch met criteria.but that's not to say the governing bodies won't move the goal posts again.(no pun intended)

Ps,wait till next week.

Why what’s happening next week?

 

[Robert James]

On 09/10/2018 at 12:17, honestly united said:

Girvan were the same if i remember, although historically an SFA member, they still had to go through the licensing process which took some time, to keep their access to the Scottish Cup

Glasgow Uni might struggle if the criteria change.

If the rules are changed, clubs with "historic membership rights", should be given 3-5 years to meet the new standard.

[stanley]

2 hours ago, Robert James said:

Glasgow Uni might struggle if the criteria change.

If the rules are changed, clubs with "historic membership rights", should be given 3-5 years to meet the new standard.

They certainly shouldn't be given five years.

Edited October 15, 2018 by stanley

[honestly united]

3 hours ago, Robert James said:

Glasgow Uni might struggle if the criteria change.

If the rules are changed, clubs with "historic membership rights", should be given 3-5 years to meet the new standard.

I dont think they would be able to make any changes for the lowest level - ie take the license off of someone as they have moved the goalposts significantly. As the majority of the licence is back office and prodecures and with Glasgow Uni groundsharing with Airdrie, I cant see what changes they could make for Glasgow Uni to lose theirs?

[Burnie_man]

On ‎08‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 20:07, LongTimeLurker said:

Can they get away with that last bit when it's constantly being reviewed? Don't think so. Also, think that guy is being a bit pessimistic where new clubs are concerned.  They don't need to be all that much more stringent to put it beyond reach of most of the NRSJFA and smaller district clubs in the east and west without causing the likely tier 6 promotion challengers any insurmountable challenges. If they go overboard on this to the extent Bo'ness and Bonnyrigg have an issue it will also cause major problems for a lot of Lowland and Highland league clubs. Best to wait and see.

Not sure where he is getting the info from, what exactly are they going to be more stringent on?  The only thing I can think of that we know will happen eventually is floodlights for tier 5 (LL) entry, it already happens in the HL anyway. Any changes which threaten the Licences of current SFA members is not going to go down well and as you say, the entry level is already a challenge for many Junior clubs anyway.

[Raydale Grannie]

How many clubs currently in the EoS are already licensed and therefore able to be promoted to the Lowland league. I heard that the 'bottom' team ie 15th in the LL must be relegated, but only one team can win promotion, the second vacancy would be filled by 1, relegated team from league two if Highland league team wins promotion or 2, by application, which in theory could be an EoS club finishing outside the top 5 in their conference this season. 

[HibeeJibee]

Burntisland, Coldstream, Hawick, Linlithgow, LTHV and Preston are currently licensed.

15th in LL is relegated if either EOSL or SOSL winner is licensed. There will be 1 vacancy filled by application (with no order of precedence).

Your HL scenario would see 14th down too.

[GordonS]

I'd have to wonder whether it's reasonable to expect clubs with average crowds in double digits to install floodlights, so it's probably too soon to introduce that requirement in the LL.

[superbigal]

I'd have to wonder whether it's reasonable to expect clubs with average crowds in double digits to install floodlights, so it's probably too soon to introduce that requirement in the LL.

What's crowds got to do with playing in the dark ?

I think floodlights are a perfectly reasonable expectation for tier 5.

If the highland league teams can manage such excellent facilities then there is no reason the lowland can't match.

Those facilities are hardly new either as most grounds were excellent even when I played up their nearly 30 years ago.

We often hear about the population imbalance of the pyramid proposals created by Scotttish geography.

But there can be no argument the central belt is miles behind your average highland hamlet in terms of facilities.

Your club should be rightly proud of its own investments in infrastructure.

 

[GordonS]

4 hours ago, superbigal said:

What's crowds got to do with playing in the dark ?

I think floodlights are a perfectly reasonable expectation for tier 5.

If the highland league teams can manage such excellent facilities then there is no reason the lowland can't match.

Those facilities are hardly new either as most grounds were excellent even when I played up their nearly 30 years ago.

We often hear about the population imbalance of the pyramid proposals created by Scotttish geography.

But there can be no argument the central belt is miles behind your average highland hamlet in terms of facilities.

Your club should be rightly proud of its own investments in infrastructure.

 

Most HL clubs are much, much better supported than the bottom half of teams in the LL. Not just in numbers coming through the gates, but in sponsorship, support from local businesses, hospitality etc. Even on a Wednesday night Turriff's bizarre behind-the-goal upper-tier hospitality stand thing is full. Formartine was buzzing on Saturday with ladies' day. They also all installed their floodlights a good while ago. Can a club with gates under 100, and with no real hospitality income, like Civil Service Strollers, really afford to install new floodlights? If so then great, but it seems a big requirement to impose.

Linlithgow Rose are in a different position, their average attendance this season is higher than anyone in the LL's, and that's having only played relatively small teams at home so far. So affordability is a different thing for them.

[Burnie_man]

21 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Most HL clubs are much, much better supported than the bottom half of teams in the LL. Not just in numbers coming through the gates, but in sponsorship, support from local businesses, hospitality etc. Even on a Wednesday night Turriff's bizarre behind-the-goal upper-tier hospitality stand thing is full. Formartine was buzzing on Saturday with ladies' day. They also all installed their floodlights a good while ago. Can a club with gates under 100, and with no real hospitality income, like Civil Service Strollers, really afford to install new floodlights? If so then great, but it seems a big requirement to impose.

Linlithgow Rose are in a different position, their average attendance this season is higher than anyone in the LL's, and that's having only played relatively small teams at home so far. So affordability is a different thing for them.

I think only a couple of clubs in the LL are without floodlights anyway and personally I think it should be a requirement for the 5th tier of Scottish football.  Affordability is an issue that would need addressed, perhaps by having a specific fund to help clubs and maybe a partnership deal with a supplier for preferential rates. 

Over time it should then become a requirement at tier 6 and it will probably happen, we need to drive up standards and floodlights - although a major outlay - should be a basic requirement at higher levels.  Tier 7 and below is maybe too far for the time being.

[Marshmallo]

28 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Most HL clubs are much, much better supported than the bottom half of teams in the LL. Not just in numbers coming through the gates, but in sponsorship, support from local businesses, hospitality etc. Even on a Wednesday night Turriff's bizarre behind-the-goal upper-tier hospitality stand thing is full. Formartine was buzzing on Saturday with ladies' day. They also all installed their floodlights a good while ago. Can a club with gates under 100, and with no real hospitality income, like Civil Service Strollers, really afford to install new floodlights? If so then great, but it seems a big requirement to impose.

Linlithgow Rose are in a different position, their average attendance this season is higher than anyone in the LL's, and that's having only played relatively small teams at home so far. So affordability is a different thing for them.

I'd question whether those clubs are equipped to play at tier 5 in that case.

[HibeeJibee]

FWIW all LL clubs have lights except Civil Service, Vale and bottom-place Whitehill.

Of the clubs which would currently form next season's EOS Premier Division most have/are installing lights (lacking = Bonnyrigg?, Dundonald, Jeanfield, Camelon).

[newcastle broon]

Aye let's all wave a magic wand and find thousands of pounds!

It's not easy to get grants. Ask anyone associated wi ww that one as been knocked back loads times.

Seems to me (some on here)  that they would be punished for owning their own ground!

Would love floodlight fitba at Ferguson park but let's be realistic here if and when money was found is it really worth bankruptcy for the sake of 3 or 4 games a season?

That goes for all the clubs not just the LL 3 but within the EOSFL as well?

 

[GordonS]

2 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

I think only a couple of clubs in the LL are without floodlights anyway and personally I think it should be a requirement for the 5th tier of Scottish football.  Affordability is an issue that would need addressed, perhaps by having a specific fund to help clubs and maybe a partnership deal with a supplier for preferential rates. 

Over time it should then become a requirement at tier 6 and it will probably happen, we need to drive up standards and floodlights - although a major outlay - should be a basic requirement at higher levels.  Tier 7 and below is maybe too far for the time being.

Tier 6? There are clubs in the SoS who have fewer paying fans than players and officials.

Excessive requirements have been a real problem in the English pyramid, we should learn from them.

2 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

FWIW all LL clubs have lights except Civil Service, Vale and bottom-place Whitehill.
 

Exactly, and I don't think there's any need for them to be required to have floodlights. They're very good to have for those that can afford them but those clubs have been managing just fine without them. There are more important things to spend money on first, like facilities for disabled fans. Maybe if they get relegated out of the LL and wealthier clubs come in then there will be an argument for compulsory floodlights, but right now I feel it's too soon. We don't want another Selkirk, and we want to give the remaining Juniors as few excuses as possible for not joining the pyramid.