New clubs in the East of Scotland

[Kemlin Dan]

1 hour ago, cmontheloknow said:

https://www.eosfl.com/downloads/eosfl/EoSFL-Entry-Criteria-2018.docx

The first point is one which might get them... " Enclosed self-contained ground such that admission can be controlled and charged for. The ‘football ground’ must give an overall appearance and impression of being a football ground. It is a matter for the Office Bearers/Board to determine whether a ground meets this requirement"

Failing that, point seven: " Separate dedicated changing facilities for two teams with seating and clothes hanging facilities for up to twenty two within the ground enclosure and immediately adjacent to the pitch"

9. Separate toilets for two teams within the changing area

11. Direct & protected access from changing rooms to pitch for players & officials which can be of a temporary nature.(Its a fair distance to pitch)

12. Separate changing, showering and toilet facilities for up to four match officials as item 6 above (Not shared with anyone else).

 

Not sure how these could be addressed as Syngenta don't own Little Kerse they lease it, so where would the cost lie,I suspect that Little Kerse would want to go down that road as its a huge attraction to bring a senior club to its facilities in my opinion. 

 

[Burnie_man]

The EoS have lifted the basic bits relating to grounds from the SFA Licencing criteria, and they encourage all member clubs to work towards Licencing.

However, they seem flexible towards having all of this in place before applying  eg. Inverkeithing, Tweedmouth etc. They will give their own form of "derogation"

Edited March 8, 2019 by Burnie_man

[gaz5]

The EoS have lifted the basic bits relating to grounds from the SFA Licencing criteria, and they encourage all member clubs to work towards Licencing.
However, they seem flexible towards having all of this in place before applying  eg. Inverkeithing, Tweedmouth etc. They will give their own form of "derogation"

Peebles maybe the best comparison. Been there twice this season.

Couple of minutes walk from the changing rooms in the sports centre to the park for players and officials, park is an open park with no controlled access.

There's no difference at all between Little Kerse and Peebles, other than the 4G versus grass.

TBH, I don't see any issues with Syngenta at Little Kerse (or Peebles) until they start moving through the levels. Certainly not suitable for a license and thus Teir 5, and potentially in the long term Teir 6 may become a licensed league as well, but for next season in the EoS at Teir 7 - I think they will be fine.

[Auld Heid]

2 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

The EoS have lifted the basic bits relating to grounds from the SFA Licencing criteria, and they encourage all member clubs to work towards Licencing.

However, they seem flexible towards having all of this in place before applying  eg. Inverkeithing, Tweedmouth etc. They will give their own form of "derogation"

This annoys me. 

Once you allow clubs in what penalty is applied to a team then not working towards a licence?  There are clubs within the EoS who are unlikely ever to work towards a licence.  17 Clubs have spent £2000 to work towards that requirement - embraced the rules and concept.  Yet others have not shown the same willingness.

I see no point in having rules if you only pick and choose which ones you enforce or turn a blind eye to.   

 

[Ginaro]

You'd think Syngenta wouldn't be advertising a pathway to the senior game for next season, if they haven't already had their facilities checked by the EOS board.

1 minute ago, Auld Heid said:

17 Clubs have spent £2000 to work towards that requirement - embraced the rules and concept.

And they will be rewarded for it with a Scottish Cup entry/money, annual payment from the SFA, and ability to progress to the LL.

[Burnie_man]

13 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

This annoys me. 

Once you allow clubs in what penalty is applied to a team then not working towards a licence?  There are clubs within the EoS who are unlikely ever to work towards a licence.  17 Clubs have spent £2000 to work towards that requirement - embraced the rules and concept.  Yet others have not shown the same willingness.

I see no point in having rules if you only pick and choose which ones you enforce or turn a blind eye to.   

 

Not again.  The EoS encourage their members to work towards a Licence, they do not have it as a requirement of membership and rightly so.  17 members are currently going through the process which shows that this approach works.

As far as joining criteria is concerned, I guess they take the pragmatic approach of getting clubs on-board, and if they have a bit of work to do then allow them time to get it sorted.  Tweedmouth are a perfect example, and I guess Inverkeithing will be as well.

Not sure what your continual beef is with this pragmatic approach.

Edited March 8, 2019 by Burnie_man

[Burnie_man]

31 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

Peebles maybe the best comparison. Been there twice this season.

Couple of minutes walk from the changing rooms in the sports centre to the park for players and officials, park is an open park with no controlled access.

There's no difference at all between Little Kerse and Peebles, other than the 4G versus grass.

TBH, I don't see any issues with Syngenta at Little Kerse (or Peebles) until they start moving through the levels. Certainly not suitable for a license and thus Teir 5, and potentially in the long term Teir 6 may become a licensed league as well, but for next season in the EoS at Teir 7 - I think they will be fine.

I have a memory of reading something relating to Peebles getting a fence which can be removed after games, or opened, as the area is shared with a cricket pitch?  I agree, at tier 7 and below it shouldn't present too many problems although they should be "encouraged" to have a solution involving getting facilities inside the ground, like Tweedmouth.

[GNU_Linux]

I have a memory of reading something relating to Peebles getting a fence which can be removed after games, or opened, as the area is shared with a cricket pitch?  I agree, at tier 7 and below it shouldn't present too many problems although they should be "encouraged" to have a solution involving getting facilities inside the ground, like Tweedmouth.

 

Aye part of Peebles becomes part of the cricket pitch. The cricket team play in the summer in the East of Scotland Cricket association division 4. Season runs last week in April to mid-August playing at weekends.

 

[Robert James]

21 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

I have a memory of reading something relating to Peebles getting a fence which can be removed after games, or opened, as the area is shared with a cricket pitch?  I agree, at tier 7 and below it shouldn't present too many problems although they should be "encouraged" to have a solution involving getting facilities inside the ground, like Tweedmouth.

Coldstream have fenced off part of a public park, with a gate and access which is open for the public when games are not being played.  

[Auld Heid]

Not again.  The EoS encourage their members to work towards a Licence, they do not have it as a requirement of membership and rightly so.  17 members are currently going through the process which shows that this approach works.
As far as joining criteria is concerned, I guess they take the pragmatic approach of getting clubs on-board, and if they have a bit of work to do then allow them time to get it sorted.  Tweedmouth are a perfect example, and I guess Inverkeithing will be as well.
Not sure what your continual beef is with this pragmatic approach.

That's too simplistic - if you don't set standards then your open to standards dropping.

It's not just entry to Scottish but the ability to be promoted.

Rules should be there to be followed.

[Cyclizine]

7 minutes ago, Robert James said:

Coldstream have fenced off part of a public park, with a gate and access which is open for the public when games are not being played.  

In the HFL, Harmsworth Park in Wick is a public park - outwith match days, you can just wander in. Even on match days, you can drive in and park on the bank.

[Kemlin Dan]

In some part it then comes down to quantity rather than quality if we let teams enter that play on public parks, not saying the teams themselves are bad quality as all teams need to find their level but the facilities need to be at some basic standard or it ends up free for all,why have criteria and then leave it at an open house and call it derogation, Syngenta have had months  to get the park sorted for basic criteria so why then give them derogation if they haven't made the moves past 8 months,what will change the next 8 months.

 

I am all for new teams and progress but at least have a basic standard that's coming into it and why,  don't get me wrong Little Kerse is one fantastic facility for training and youth but moving it to Senior football for me shouldn't be an option until the basics are all ticked.

[Burnie_man]

10 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

That's too simplistic - if you don't set standards then your open to standards dropping.

It's not just entry to Scottish but the ability to be promoted.

Rules should be there to be followed.

It's anything but simplistic, by this time next year over half the current EoS membership will be Licenced, yet you conclude that the current policy - which is clearly working - will lead to standards dropping?

There are no rules to be followed as Licencing is not a requirement at tier 6.

[Burnie_man]

2 minutes ago, Kemlin Dan said:

In some part it then comes down to quantity rather than quality if we let teams enter that play on public parks, not saying the teams themselves are bad quality as all teams need to find their level but the facilities need to be at some basic standard or it ends up free for all,why have criteria and then leave it at an open house and call it derogation, Syngenta have had months  to get the park sorted for basic criteria so why then give them derogation if they haven't made the moves past 8 months,what will change the next 8 months.

I am all for new teams and progress but at least have a basic standard that's coming into it and why,  don't get me wrong Little Kerse is one fantastic facility for training and youth but moving it to Senior football for me shouldn't be an option until the basics are all ticked.

I see what you're saying but aren't Camelon and others looking for derogation from the SFA to allow them to be Licenced now, and given time to comply?  In which case, why shouldn't the EoS employ the same type of approach?

[bluebell1]

1 minute ago, Burnie_man said:

It's anything but simplistic, by this time next year over half the current EoS membership will be Licenced, yet you conclude that the current policy - which is clearly working - will lead to standards dropping?

There are no rules to be followed as Licencing is not a requirement at tier 6.

A hope your right in terms of the clubs getting licensed time will tell a suppose but the complete lack of communication from SFA at the moment for me means there’s things happening we aren’t privy to.   

I know senior league  clubs don’t want clubs getting a licence for fear of us reducing there income and also the potential voting rights effect.  I am aware this has been taken up with Mr Maxwell also. 

The floodlight fiasco was a deliberate attempt to stop clubs getting licensed as we all know.  Unfortunately they haven’t counted on some clubs rising to that challenge and getting them in place pretty quickly.  I wonder what next they will ask for. A may be cynical but history doesn’t show a fully transparent sfa.

It is also my belief that no derogation will be given for lights but again hopefully I am wrong.

However in the blue sky world of the pyramid as seen by some am happy to be proved wrong and for all the clubs to have there licence before the end of the month.

Here’s hoping

[Burnie_man]

3 hours ago, bluebell1 said:

A hope your right in terms of the clubs getting licensed time will tell a suppose but the complete lack of communication from SFA at the moment for me means there’s things happening we aren’t privy to.   

I know senior league  clubs don’t want clubs getting a licence for fear of us reducing there income and also the potential voting rights effect.  I am aware this has been taken up with Mr Maxwell also. 

The floodlight fiasco was a deliberate attempt to stop clubs getting licensed as we all know.  Unfortunately they haven’t counted on some clubs rising to that challenge and getting them in place pretty quickly.  I wonder what next they will ask for. A may be cynical but history doesn’t show a fully transparent sfa.

It is also my belief that no derogation will be given for lights but again hopefully I am wrong.

However in the blue sky world of the pyramid as seen by some am happy to be proved wrong and for all the clubs to have there licence before the end of the month.

Here’s hoping

Can't disagree with much of that.

On the one hand Maxwell wants to pick up and drop 140 Junior clubs into the Pyramid (without much consideration for those already there), but on the other try and slow down the pace of change as far as SFA membership is concerned. Those two policies don't sit well together.

The SPFL are already out numbered by non-league clubs in the SFA, add in another 40/50 over the next few years and those clubs could suddenly find they can't dictate what happens in the game.

Maxwell hasn't covered himself in glory since he took office and of course, he is an SPFL man.  If derogation isn't granted then he's going to find himself fire fighting yet another controversy.    I do believe he had no idea about the 31st March deadline either.

As for what's next on SFA Licencing, my best guess is seating.

 

Edited March 8, 2019 by Burnie_man

[FairWeatherFan]

When it comes to the next sfa board meeting, I'm sure it'll be one of the first things asked about on Monday by the EoS reps to Maxwell if there has been no news.

[Kemlin Dan]

2 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

I see what you're saying but aren't Camelon and others looking for derogation from the SFA to allow them to be Licenced now, and given time to comply?  In which case, why shouldn't the EoS employ the same type of approach?

Depends on your application date 2018 or 2019, not sure if the floodlights situation will stand as we both know its been passed over to the SFA as the Licensing Board shat it to make the ruling on pre-floodlight applications

But am sure Burnie you will appreciate the hard work even Blackburn put into getting the work done prior to their application, why is Syngenta not moving forward on the work needed and waiting on derogation, as I can tell you Camelon are in the process of working towards floodlights, I just don't see anything changing at Little Kerse past 8 months to move it forward.

[Burnie_man]

1 minute ago, Kemlin Dan said:

Depends on your application date 2018 or 2019, not sure if the floodlights situation will stand as we both know its been passed over to the SFA as the Licensing Board shat it to make the ruling on pre-floodlight applications

But am sure Burnie you will appreciate the hard work even Blackburn put into getting the work done prior to their application, why is Syngenta not moving forward on the work needed and waiting on derogation, as I can tell you Camelon are in the process of working towards floodlights, I just don't see anything changing at Little Kerse past 8 months to move it forward.

I guess I come from the point of view that it’s better to get a club on-board and then give them time to get the ground upto scratch than shut the door on them and they might never come back. 

From the pictures I have seen of Little Kerse it’s a good facility and as has been pointed out the changing facilities are in no worse a position than Peebles who are long standing members, that’s not to say that this situation doesn't need rectified.  We played at Tweedmouth earlier in the season where the teams stayed on the pitch at half time rather that traipse all the way back around to the Shielfield Park changing rooms, but now they have buildings in place behind the goal. 

If there is a plan in place to address shortcomings and in a reasonable amount of time then I think “derogation” should be granted IMO.

As for the SFA Licence situation, I think everyone has similar opinions.

[FairWeatherFan]

1 hour ago, Kemlin Dan said:

Depends on your application date 2018 or 2019, not sure if the floodlights situation will stand as we both know its been passed over to the SFA as the Licensing Board shat it to make the ruling on pre-floodlight applications

But am sure Burnie you will appreciate the hard work even Blackburn put into getting the work done prior to their application, why is Syngenta not moving forward on the work needed and waiting on derogation, as I can tell you Camelon are in the process of working towards floodlights, I just don't see anything changing at Little Kerse past 8 months to move it forward.

Maybe they're taking the pragmatic approach of waiting until they've been accepted. They'll get that news start of April going by what happened last year.

That'd give them between April and the close season to get the basic changes in place.

Edited March 8, 2019 by FairWeatherFan