New clubs in the East of Scotland

[HTG]

2 hours ago, newcastle broon said:

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?

 

My view is that all LL members should have lights.  But ... as a club that has laid out multiple thousands of pounds building an infrastructure within its community, I understand the challenge and cost difference compared to something like Edusport who appear to have landed arbitrarily in Annan or even Glasgow Uni at Airdrie. In fact, I imagine all of the universities are at a financial advantage when it comes to securing an environment fit to be licenced. So I have sympathy for Whitehill and I'd like to see more of the licence criteria focus on community impact and engagement. It shouldn't feel like it is easier for a start-up club to get a licence.  BSC playing nowhere near Glasgow is another example. 

[GordonS]

Of the 15 LL teams, 2 are unis who get help from the institution and 4 are groundsharing at league clubs. Of the other 9, 3 have artificial surfaces and the floodlights are needed so they can generate more revenue from the pitch. Gretna play on a previous league ground. Of the remaining 5 - Strollers, Vale of Leithen, Gala, Dalbeattie and Whitehill Welfare - only two have lights. The average attendance so far this season of the clubs without lights is, combined, a little over 300. I've no idea what floodlights cost but it  would seem a big burden for three very small clubs. It's entirely possible all it would achieve is to drive them down a tier - as has happened many times in England. 

Possibly related, of those without lights only Welfare are in the Development League, and they play those matches at Peffermill 3G. 

[parsforlife]

My view is that all LL members should have lights.  But ... as a club that has laid out multiple thousands of pounds building an infrastructure within its community, I understand the challenge and cost difference compared to something like Edusport who appear to have landed arbitrarily in Annan or even Glasgow Uni at Airdrie. In fact, I imagine all of the universities are at a financial advantage when it comes to securing an environment fit to be licenced. So I have sympathy for Whitehill and I'd like to see more of the licence criteria focus on community impact and engagement. It shouldn't feel like it is easier for a start-up club to get a licence.  BSC playing nowhere near Glasgow is another example. 

Renting stadiums doesn't come cheaply or easily, and presents ongoing problems compared to one off costs presented too owning outright/long term leasing. Yes it takes a greater effort, but the reward is far greater too.

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.

I think that's more likely to be what happens, slowly the poorer clubs will be relegated and even if a team goes up without floodlights they may well install them over the coming years. If we end up in a scenario where everyone at tier 5 has floodlights for 2-3 seasons then they will quite easily become a requirement. Doing it when there is a couple of clubs who don't and are either completely unable to(css) or are making efforts but struggling(ww) then it looks pretty poor on the league.

[Burnie_man]

Floodlights are a basic requirement all over Europe down to very low levels, given our climate we need the ability to play midweek matches between Sept-Apr.  The Highland League recognised this long ago, and the Lowland League should (are?) following suit, and as I said eventually tier 6 should also follow.

Yes they are expensive, yes it's not easy, but you need to have this basic requirement on the table to aim for, and then look at solutions.

[Marten]

30 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Floodlights are a basic requirement all over Europe down to very low levels, given our climate we need the ability to play midweek matches between Sept-Apr.  The Highland League recognised this long ago, and the Lowland League should (are?) following suit, and as I said eventually tier 6 should also follow.

Yes they are expensive, yes it's not easy, but you need to have this basic requirement on the table to aim for, and then look at solutions.

In England it's a requirement until quite low down (I think as far down as tier 9), but there are plenty of countries where it's no requirement lower down. In The Netherlands it's not a requirement at all in tier 5 (the highest regionalised tier) and below. And even in tiers 3 and 4 clubs have the possibility to play midweek games on a training pitch nearby as long as it has lighting. Which is quite crazy as some clubs in tier 3 regularly get 4 figure crowds and bring large numbers of away fans!

[Burnie_man]

4 minutes ago, Marten said:

In England it's a requirement until quite low down (I think as far down as tier 9), but there are plenty of countries where it's no requirement lower down. In The Netherlands it's not a requirement at all in tier 5 (the highest regionalised tier) and below. And even in tiers 3 and 4 clubs have the possibility to play midweek games on a training pitch nearby as long as it has lighting. Which is quite crazy as some clubs in tier 3 regularly get 4 figure crowds and bring large numbers of away fans!

The Dutch are mad though

[AsimButtHitsASix]

7 minutes ago, Marten said:

In England it's a requirement until quite low down (I think as far down as tier 9), but there are plenty of countries where it's no requirement lower down. In The Netherlands it's not a requirement at all in tier 5 (the highest regionalised tier) and below. And even in tiers 3 and 4 clubs have the possibility to play midweek games on a training pitch nearby as long as it has lighting. Which is quite crazy as some clubs in tier 3 regularly get 4 figure crowds and bring large numbers of away fans!

Seems pretty reasonable to me. If Whitehill Welfare don't want to spend huge amounts on floodlighting for the sake of, max, four games a year to crowds in the double figures giving clubs the option to move games to other grounds makes sense rather than forcing it upon them. There's plenty floodlit grounds nearby they can play one off games at or indoors at Oriam.

[Marten]

18 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

The Dutch are mad though

Having grown up there - I can confirm that!

14 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

Seems pretty reasonable to me. If Whitehill Welfare don't want to spend huge amounts on floodlighting for the sake of, max, four games a year to crowds in the double figures giving clubs the option to move games to other grounds makes sense rather than forcing it upon them. There's plenty floodlit grounds nearby they can play one off games at or indoors at Oriam.

Agreed, I think there should be a provision for playing evening games, whether that's in their own ground or on a lighted training pitch. For a few midweek games with crowds that don't exceed double figures I don't see a big issue when they play that on a nearby training pitch. It's not like the crazy situation in The Netherlands where there are clubs which average 4 figure crowds on that level!

IMO, we also need to be realistic about how big Scotland is. If you compare it to England, they are 10 times the size in terms of population. The 15th club in the Lowland League is the 71st club overall in Scotland (treating the HL as being on par with the LL). That should roughly equate with the 710th club in England, which would take you all the way down to tier 10! The Netherlands has roughly 3 times the population, so the 15th club in the LL should roughly equate to their 213th club, who are in the 6th tier. Neither the English tier 10, nor the Dutch tier 6 have compulsory lighting. 

Edited October 17, 2018 by Marten

[Burnie_man]

11 minutes ago, Marten said:

Having grown up there - I can confirm that!

Agreed, I think there should be a provision for playing evening games, whether that's in their own ground or on a lighted training pitch. For a few midweek games with crowds that don't exceed double figures I don't see a big issue when they play that on a nearby training pitch. It's not like the crazy situation in The Netherlands where there are clubs which average 4 figure crowds on that level!

IMO, we also need to be realistic about how big Scotland is. If you compare it to England, they are 10 times the size in terms of population. The 15th club in the Lowland League is the 71st club overall in Scotland (treating the HL as being on par with the LL). That should roughly equate with the 710th club in England, which would take you all the way down to tier 10! The Netherlands has roughly 3 times the population, so the 15th club in the LL should roughly equate to their 213th club, who are in the 6th tier. Neither the English tier 10, nor the Dutch tier 6 have compulsory lighting. 

Fair points, although I think tier 5 in Scotland should have lights, being the level below the SPFL.

[newcastle broon]

17 hours ago, GordonS said:

Of the 15 LL teams, 2 are unis who get help from the institution and 4 are groundsharing at league clubs. Of the other 9, 3 have artificial surfaces and the floodlights are needed so they can generate more revenue from the pitch. Gretna play on a previous league ground. Of the remaining 5 - Strollers, Vale of Leithen, Gala, Dalbeattie and Whitehill Welfare - only two have lights. The average attendance so far this season of the clubs without lights is, combined, a little over 300. I've no idea what floodlights cost but it  would seem a big burden for three very small clubs. It's entirely possible all it would achieve is to drive them down a tier - as has happened many times in England. 

Possibly related, of those without lights only Welfare are in the Development League, and they play those matches at Peffermill 3G. 

Worth noting ww were knocked back for a 3g pitch as well. 

I said months ago maybe even last season teams like ww weren't wanted around the LL and by your post it sounds no far off the mark.

Peffermill 3g I thought they played at lasswade high  ?

[newcastle broon]

56 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

Seems pretty reasonable to me. If Whitehill Welfare don't want to spend huge amounts on floodlighting for the sake of, max, four games a year to crowds in the double figures giving clubs the option to move games to other grounds makes sense rather than forcing it upon them. There's plenty floodlit grounds nearby they can play one off games at or indoors at Oriam.

 

43 minutes ago, Marten said:

Having grown up there - I can confirm that!

Agreed, I think there should be a provision for playing evening games, whether that's in their own ground or on a lighted training pitch. For a few midweek games with crowds that don't exceed double figures I don't see a big issue when they play that on a nearby training pitch. It's not like the crazy situation in The Netherlands where there are clubs which average 4 figure crowds on that level!

IMO, we also need to be realistic about how big Scotland is. If you compare it to England, they are 10 times the size in terms of population. The 15th club in the Lowland League is the 71st club overall in Scotland (treating the HL as being on par with the LL). That should roughly equate with the 710th club in England, which would take you all the way down to tier 10! The Netherlands has roughly 3 times the population, so the 15th club in the LL should roughly equate to their 213th club, who are in the 6th tier. Neither the English tier 10, nor the Dutch tier 6 have compulsory lighting. 

I'm fairly certain Pennypit Park rings a bell regarding floodlighting issues. WW had to nominate a ground within so many miles of Rosewell,Pennypit or Peffermill being closest at the time but I  could be way of the mark here and I'm not even sure what it was for? 

 

Edited October 17, 2018 by newcastle broon

[Rab B Nesbit]

27 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Fair points, although I think tier 5 in Scotland should have lights, being the level below the SPFL.

Maybe but I think some common sense should be applied for the time being. There is absolutely no point in the likes of WW shelling out £75,000 on floodlights to be used 3/4 times a year. 

In 3/4 years time those within the LL will be much more likely to be able to cope with this. 

[Rab B Nesbit]

24 minutes ago, newcastle broon said:

Worth noting ww were knocked back for a 3g pitch as well. 

I said months ago maybe even last season teams like ww weren't wanted around the LL and by your post it sounds no far off the mark.

Peffermill 3g I thought they played at lasswade high  ?

Surely no ... the great Midlothian player pathway branches out into Edinburgh South ?  

[FairWeatherFan]

55 minutes ago, newcastle broon said:

 

I'm fairly certain Pennypit Park rings a bell regarding floodlighting issues. WW had to nominate a ground within so many miles of Rosewell,Pennypit or Peffermill being closest at the time but I  could be way of the mark here and I'm not even sure what it was for? 

 

Every club in the Lowland League is meant to have access to a ground with floodlights. It's the league's assurance of getting games played.

I also think it's a good enough common sense approach for now. Only once the entire league has floodlights and most promotion candidates from tier 6 are likely to have them (or means to purchase them) does it need changed.

Floodlights at this level is a bit like the 10,000 seater rule for the SPL back in the day. Nice to have when needed, but not actually required 90+% of the time. 

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, newcastle broon said:

Worth noting ww were knocked back for a 3g pitch as well. 

I said months ago maybe even last season teams like ww weren't wanted around the LL and by your post it sounds no far off the mark.

Peffermill 3g I thought they played at lasswade high  ?

Dunno, but their next home game, on 2 November, is at Peffermill 3G.

I don't know the ins and outs of the politics of the LL but I'd hope WW are a valued member. To me they're more of a "real" club representing a community than the unis, Edufrance or BSC Alloa. You also have the finest collection of trees I've seen in or around a football ground!

[Burnie_man]

2 hours ago, Rab B Nesbit said:

Maybe but I think some common sense should be applied for the time being. There is absolutely no point in the likes of WW shelling out £75,000 on floodlights to be used 3/4 times a year. 

In 3/4 years time those within the LL will be much more likely to be able to cope with this. 

In the context of "alleged" future changes to Licencing, floodlighting was the obvious thing they may consider tightening up on at tier 5.  I agree though, you can't just spring something like this onto clubs, they need fair notice ie 3-5 years, but it should happen IMO.

[HibeeJibee]

At the moment the 3 unlit clubs have to find an alternate ground if they must play a game that 'needs' lights. This has only actually happened once and Whitehill v EK ultimately went ahead at Rosewell anyway, tbf.
 

5 hours ago, GordonS said:

they're more of a "real" club representing a community than the unis, Edufrance or BSC Alloa.

Wee bugbear of mine but a university is a real club and does represent a community: it so happens to be a gathered community based on a sector of society of students staff & alumni versus a geographic town/suburb.

Edited October 17, 2018 by HibeeJibee

[GordonS]

11 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Wee bugbear of mine but a university is a real club and does represent a community: it so happens to be a gathered community based on a sector of society of students staff & alumni versus a geographic town/suburb.

It should, but in practice it isn't. Virtually nobody goes. Edinburgh Uni have the best support, a fantastic clubhouse and a nice stand, but still only draw a few dozen. The students, staff and alumni clearly don't see the teams as part of their community.

[HibeeJibee]

Little different to somewhere like Hawick having a population of 15,000 but only getting 40 at games, or many other examples. Stirling has <14,000 students & staff.

It appears the unis have by no means the worst crowds in LL/EOSL.

Edited October 17, 2018 by HibeeJibee

[Marten]

55 minutes ago, GordonS said:

It should, but in practice it isn't. Virtually nobody goes. Edinburgh Uni have the best support, a fantastic clubhouse and a nice stand, but still only draw a few dozen. The students, staff and alumni clearly don't see the teams as part of their community.

I think it's generally a problem with universities that have sports teams. When I lived down in Derby I went to a cricket game between Loughborough University and Derbyshire (I also like cricket and support Derbyshire in England due to the time I spent there). I kinda expected a decent crowd as Loughborough is the number 1 sports university in the UK AND generally the main place where English cricket talents go to combine study & sports as there are high quality facilities for them. Yet there was only a crowd of about 100 with at least 3/4 being away fans.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Marten