New clubs in the East of Scotland

[Pyramidic]

37 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

Have letham been rejected 

Coverage in more than one thread suggests so. There are the ERJFA S10, Edinburgh City Reserves and they are not Club 12 apparently.

[Dev]

13 hours ago, Pyramidic said:

Can somebody explain why the facilities at the current home of Rosyth FC are acceptable  for EOSFL football but Letham AFC is not. With reference to Google Maps their setups are very similar.

Somewhere on P&B there's coverage of what Rosyth have been dealing with over their ground relocation issues. All sorts of let downs. Don't think the two clubs you mentioned are comparable for that reason.

If you go to the EoS web site the criteria for new clubs can be obtained there. There is scope to vary the criteria for new clubs e.g. if they have plans to up-grade to the EoS standards.

Apparently Leith Athletic also have issues over their ground, and this has also been discussed on P&B. 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Dev
.

[Che Dail]

14 hours ago, Pyramidic said:

Can somebody explain why the facilities at the current home of Rosyth FC are acceptable  for EOSFL football but Letham AFC is not. With reference to Google Maps their setups are very similar.

They're not - Rosyth were admitted last year on the basis that they were in the process of being given a new home after the council sold their former home to a supermarket.  At the time of application they indicated that the developer and council were looking to hand over the facility to Rosyth and have the facility upgraded to meet EOSFL criteria.

At the same time, Luncarty, Kirkcaldy & Dysart, Thornton Hibs, Newburgh,  Lochgelly, Kennoway and Lochore all had work to do to meet EOSFL criteria and gave assurances that they would complete all necessary work.

Presumably all have been able to complete their upgrades other than Rosyth because matters out-with their control are holding them back.  

[Pyramidic]

2 hours ago, Che Dail said:

They're not - Rosyth were admitted last year on the basis that they were in the process of being given a new home after the council sold their former home to a supermarket.  At the time of application they indicated that the developer and council were looking to hand over the facility to Rosyth and have the facility upgraded to meet EOSFL criteria.

At the same time, Luncarty, Kirkcaldy & Dysart, Thornton Hibs, Newburgh,  Lochgelly, Kennoway and Lochore all had work to do to meet EOSFL criteria and gave assurances that they would complete all necessary work.

Presumably all have been able to complete their upgrades other than Rosyth because matters out-with their control are holding them back.  

Thanks for the feedback. Dev as well. It is clear that the EOSFL executive are policing their ground criteria quite robustly. The issue that arises in my mind is whether in the future the EOSFL should be endeavouring to form a Development Division for clubs like Letham AFC that tick some boxes but not all of them. It will be interesting to see if the WOSFL Development Division materialises and the standard of the grounds that are adopted. This could then act as an example of good practice that the the EOSFL may or may not seek to emulate to form their own seedbed / nursery. Forming a direct link at the moment with the Amateur Leagues in the East is probably a bridge too far.

[FairWeatherFan]

11 minutes ago, Pyramidic said:

Thanks for the feedback. Dev as well. It is clear that the EOSFL executive are policing their ground criteria quite robustly. The issue that arises in my mind is whether in the future the EOSFL should be endeavouring to form a Development Division for clubs like Letham AFC that tick some boxes but not all of them. It will be interesting to see if the WOSFL Development Division materialises and the standard of the grounds that are adopted. This could then act as an example of good practice that the the EOSFL may or may not seek to emulate to form their own seedbed / nursery. Forming a direct link at the moment with the Amateur Leagues in the East is probably a bridge too far.

The whole Development League idea is a bit daft. For starters you're needing the numbers to make it work in the first place and to be there to maintain it. What happens with clubs that can meet all the criteria from the very beginning? Do they get lumped in with the Development League or jump above them into the proper divisions?

You either treat new applicants as actual members or look to create links with Amateur Leagues. Since by creating a Development League all that's happening is the creation of a new quasi-Amateur league.

[Che Dail]

4 minutes ago, Pyramidic said:

Thanks for the feedback. Dev as well. It is clear that the EOSFL executive are policing their ground criteria quite robustly. The issue that arises in my mind is whether in the future the EOSFL should be endeavouring to form a Development Division for clubs like Letham AFC that tick some boxes but not all of them. It will be interesting to see if the WOSFL Development Division materialises and the standard of the grounds that are adopted. This could then act as an example of good practice that the the EOSFL may or may not seek to emulate to form their own seedbed / nursery. Forming a direct link at the moment with the Amateur Leagues in the East is probably a bridge too far.

Yes, and for good reason.  At the moment, the new clubs' membership is subject to review after their first season, however since this hasn't happened yet (20/21 = Null + Void)  I doubt any shortcomings would be penalized now, in the circumstances. 

For future applicants perhaps the 'Conference X', or 2nd (or 3rd or Regional?) Division could be open to any potential new clubs like Letham that can't quite meet the full ground criteria requirements, but with no promotion allowed until they satisfy the  mandatory standards - I don't know - I guess that's what the Ams leagues are for tbh, like what FWF just said.

On similar topic, for existing members I think the Premier League should be restricted to clubs meeting the same minimum requirements - otherwise clubs investing in their facilities are at a financial disadvantage. 

Not sure how popular a suggestion this would be, but it would encourage everyone to aspire to the same high standards - a bit like Club Licensing.

[Stag Nation]

5 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

The whole Development League idea is a bit daft. For starters you're needing the numbers to make it work in the first place and to be there to maintain it. What happens with clubs that can meet all the criteria from the very beginning? Do they get lumped in with the Development League or jump above them into the proper divisions?

You either treat new applicants as actual members or look to create links with Amateur Leagues. Since by creating a Development League all that's happening is the creation of a new quasi-Amateur league.

I agree it's a daft idea.

Why not just make any club not meeting the criteria a "probationary" member, and put them in the bottom tier?

Bar them from promotion (and voting) until they meet the standards, and throw them out of the league if they haven't done that within say five years.

[Dev]

25 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

The whole Development League idea is a bit daft. For starters you're needing the numbers to make it work in the first place and to be there to maintain it. What happens with clubs that can meet all the criteria from the very beginning? Do they get lumped in with the Development League or jump above them into the proper divisions?

You either treat new applicants as actual members or look to create links with Amateur Leagues. Since by creating a Development League all that's happening is the creation of a new quasi-Amateur league.

I understand that in England Clubs that meet the criteria are eligible to join the league as full members and go straight into the League while the clubs which don't meet the criteria don't become members but can go into a Development League. However, if such clubs have no prospect of up-grading their grounds they don't get let in at all.

However, I think it would be better to try to work with the local Amateur leagues, even informally, so no more than one club is taken from each league each season. It might be possible for the EoS to get to the situation where relegation should be brought in and, under that situation, it would be good if there was a pathway for such clubs to go down to the top division of the appropriate amateur league.

[Dev]

25 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

Yes, and for good reason.  At the moment, the new clubs' membership is subject to review after their first season, however since this hasn't happened yet (20/21 = Null + Void)  I doubt any shortcomings would be penalized now, in the circumstances. 

For future applicants perhaps the 'Conference X', or 2nd (or 3rd or Regional?) Division could be open to any potential new clubs like Letham that can't quite meet the full ground criteria requirements, but with no promotion allowed until they satisfy the  mandatory standards - I don't know - I guess that's what the Ams leagues are for tbh, like what FWF just said.

On similar topic, for existing members I think the Premier League should be restricted to clubs meeting the same minimum requirements - otherwise clubs investing in their facilities are at a financial disadvantage. 

Not sure how popular a suggestion this would be, but it would encourage everyone to aspire to the same high standards - a bit like Club Licensing.

The WoS may (not sure) be thinking of all floodlit grounds at Premier level or even licenced clubs only.

Maybe the SFA will go as far as bringing in minimum standards for each Tier of the Pyramid. If they don't then perhaps leagues such as the EoS and the WoS will do it? 

Edited April 13, 2021 by Dev
.

[Che Dail]

6 hours ago, Dev said:

Somewhere on P&B there's coverage of what Rosyth have been dealing with over their ground relocation issues. All sorts of let downs. 

Rosyth article just posted on the 'Grounds for Optimism' thread - sounds positive: 

https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/19215795.dunfermline-athletic-team-rosyth-fc-shared-facility-proposals/ 

 

[Burnieman]

2 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

Rosyth article just posted on the 'Grounds for Optimism' thread - sounds positive: 

https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/19215795.dunfermline-athletic-team-rosyth-fc-shared-facility-proposals/

It does, although they really need things to move along at a decent pace.

[Che Dail]

3 minutes ago, andrew21 said:

I didn't know about Civil Service club being closed, how long ago did that happen?

No idea, best to ask @GNU_Linux

[Stag Nation]

23 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

Rosyth article just posted on the 'Grounds for Optimism' thread - sounds positive: 

https://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/19215795.dunfermline-athletic-team-rosyth-fc-shared-facility-proposals/ 

 

What do you suppose "European investment" means?

Haven't they noticed Brexit? Or do they hope to be feeder club for Real Madrid?

[FairWeatherFan]

13 minutes ago, Stag Nation said:

What do you suppose "European investment" means?

Haven't they noticed Brexit? Or do they hope to be feeder club for Real Madrid?

Dunfermline had some German investors recently.

[Che Dail]

3 hours ago, Stag Nation said:

What do you suppose "European investment" means?

Haven't they noticed Brexit? Or do they hope to be feeder club for Real Madrid?

"Dunfermline Athletic FC want to create both training facilities but also, in the long term, a football academy backed by European investment"

Funding stream possibly from UEFA?

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/football-development/news/0264-10fe1ac0497c-ffe49c301d3e-1000--explainer-football-s-social-value/

 

[parsforlife]

49 minutes ago, Che Dail said:

"Dunfermline Athletic FC want to create both training facilities but also, in the long term, a football academy backed by European investment"

Funding stream possibly from UEFA?

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/football-development/news/0264-10fe1ac0497c-ffe49c301d3e-1000--explainer-football-s-social-value/

 

It’s nearly certainly in reference to what our future owners want to bring in.  A lot of the talk on their investment was on how our off-field set up needed improved , with not having our own training ground something they mentioned.

[Che Dail]

15 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

It’s nearly certainly in reference to what our future owners want to bring in.  A lot of the talk on their investment was on how our off-field set up needed improved , with not having our own training ground something they mentioned.

Sounds v promising, cheers 

[Andy groundhopper]

Definitely promising to see clubs help each other- a real bonus is that the Scottish FA allow 3g pitches to be used, unlike the idiots down south. Think that a 2 year maximum grace period is enough for new entrants to get grounds fit for purpose, you're in serious football now, don't enter if you're not ready or able to cope. Ground sharing ok but not long term.

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, Andy groundhopper said:

Definitely promising to see clubs help each other- a real bonus is that the Scottish FA allow 3g pitches to be used, unlike the idiots down south. Think that a 2 year maximum grace period is enough for new entrants to get grounds fit for purpose, you're in serious football now, don't enter if you're not ready or able to cope. Ground sharing ok but not long term.

Why is it good enough for Roma, Lazio and the Italian international rugby team, but not Yoker and Clydebank? Or Club Brugge and Cercle Brugge, but not Falkirk and East Stirling?

How about women's teams sharing with men's sides? Glasgow City are the biggest club based at Petershill now and Celtic probably draw a bigger crowd to K Park than East Kilbride do.

IMO ground sharing is fine, especially in non-league, so long as the ground is in the communities of both clubs.

[LongTimeLurker]

7 hours ago, GordonS said:

...so long as the ground is in the communities of both clubs.

Only OK if the other club involved approves of the arrangement and isn't having it foisted on them.