Junior football, what is the future?

[GNU_Linux]

To be fair to the eosfl, they are and have been the tier 6 feeder in the east for a considerable period, why should they give that up because the sjfa now wish to play ball with the pyramid? 
You say this was ballsed up from the start, however from memory, when the LL concept was drawn up the sjfa were canvassed and clubs were free to apply, they chose not to be involved and clubs were provided in accurate and misleading information by the sjfa at the time regarding costs etc. 
The sfa cannot come in now and take charge, as many wish could happen, as that is what the pwg is in place for. So each sfa member association has a voice and a say, as I said above, the pwg is where any new set up will be decided, by unanimous agreement, not a majority vote. 
Until that happens the status quo will remain. 

There was the sooperdooper junior league[emoji769] at tier 5 idea that was around in like 2014. That was amusing.

[Arthurlie1981]

Was it not suggested there was some wee incentive for the upper echelons of the governing body to produce 'a' pyramid, if not 'THE' Pyramid?

There was some sort of UEFA directive I believe that associations had to have some sort of pyramid. Regan (as usual) did the bare minimum in terms of this.

[Pyramidic]

If the ERJFA retain their 36 clubs and somehow join the SFA Pyramid at Tier 6 for 2019/20 (as promoted by their officials), they would have 39 clubs with the addition of.

Breadalbane FC (Aberfeldy)
Linlithgow juniors (Amateur club)
Bo'ness juniors (Amateur club)

Would the ERJFA be enlightened enough to progess with 39 clubs as this would destroy the concept of 2 divisions of 18 clubs?

So would we have a flat pyramid of 3 district divisions of 13 clubs with playoffs at the end of the season for progression to the LL Pyramid Playoffs (subject to Licensing  restrictions)?

OR

Retention of the existing structure with Fauldhouse etc retaining their expensive trips to Tayside?
 

Were these issues discussed at the latest ERJFA meeting?

There are a number of issues that need to be ironed out including:

- the loss of status if there is no Super League and just 2 or 3 weak district leagues

- the avoidance of "cricket score" results for teams like Lochee if the league structure is revised on a district basis

- the possibility that teams like Fauldhouse will  be faced with excessive costs and little income playing matches against Tayside clubs if the Super League is retained.

The ERJFA  need to make a positive position statement so that clubs can make informed decisions on their future.

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

As a few above alluded to, the apparent lack of knowledge and effort by the SFA is predictable, but still disappointing. There appears to be no research in to the historic anomalies or even learning from implementation of the LL. A group from here could have made a better job of it. 

What learning from the LL were the sfa to undertake? Now, by no means am I their champion, but at the LL inception all parties were invited to discuss it were they not? Everyone was provided the same information and everyone else barring the sjfa bought into the pyramid concept, at that time. The sjfa were the only ones not to do so and fed back information to their members that was inaccurate and incorrect..... How could the sfa have done things any differently? 

At the risk of repeating myself, the sjfa chose their path at the time (my view is that the path was self preservation) and mislead the clubs so they would follow suit. 

The sfa put together the LL proposal and junior clubs were invited to and free to apply..... The clubs and the sjfa chose not to..... How does that now become the sfa's fault? 

Unless what we are saying is the sjfa should have had the red carpet rolled out and everyone else should have fallen in line..... Which I strongly hope we are not saying? 

[Sergeant Wilson]

6 minutes ago, G4Mac said:

What learning from the LL were the sfa to undertake? Now, by no means am I their champion, but at the LL inception all parties were invited to discuss it were they not? Everyone was provided the same information and everyone else barring the sjfa bought into the pyramid concept, at that time. The sjfa were the only ones not to do so and fed back information to their members that was inaccurate and incorrect..... How could the sfa have done things any differently? 

At the risk of repeating myself, the sjfa chose their path at the time (my view is that the path was self preservation) and mislead the clubs so they would follow suit. 

The sfa put together the LL proposal and junior clubs were invited to and free to apply..... The clubs and the sjfa chose not to..... How does that now become the sfa's fault? 

Unless what we are saying is the sjfa should have had the red carpet rolled out and everyone else should have fallen in line..... Which I strongly hope we are not saying? 

It was done in a hurry and real or perceived injustices are impacting now.

[bluebell1]

41 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

One of the disappointing things on this forum is when people feel the need to bring personality into it, I only expect it from the trolls.   You've chosen to have a dig at several posters, inc Ginaro who is one of the best contributors on this subject on here, yet no comment on the contributions from the other side. Personally I post based on what I know, I don't consider anything I post to have any impact on the EoS as it's all either fact or on balance a good chance of being fact IMO, and people are free to challenge it. If that's considered arrogance I wont apologise for that. 

On the specific points you raise;

1) I understand that the SFA do want the SJFA to oversee discipline etc (ridiculous IMO) but I'm not sure how close or far apart they are.  The EoS, LL, SoS will want it all handled in exactly the same way as the SFA handle it for consistency. I guess they need to be happy as well with what is going to happen.

2) What SFA directive? I think it's fair to say that the SFA Board are a little worried about a whole load of Junior clubs coming over the hill wanting membership, hence embargo. I think they had no objections to the Juniors being involved in the Pyramid but know little of the granular detail or the politics involved, leaving that to PWG to handle.  I doubt the SFA Board know too much about the HL/LL line or the Lower Pyramid Play-Off rules.  Maxwell jumped the gun with his infamous email on behalf of the Professional Game Board, I don't think he fully grasped the issues, he thought it was a quick fix.

3) Agree, the whole thing needs to be much more open. Not necessarily in the public domain, but at least amongst the clubs. Once again clubs - particularly in the ERJFA - will be left to try and make sense of it all before deciding to stick or twist. They have 7 weeks.

As far as Licencing is concerned, this is the make or break week.  It provides an insight into how the SFA operate where nobody can agree on who makes the decision on derogation for floodlights.  With that in mind and going back to point 2, I don't think the SFA Board care too much about the current goings on at PWG, all they want to know is how many more members might this give us.

First of all a wasn’t intending to have a dig at anyone just saying it as a see it on here.  

We’ve all got opinions and I respect them although don’t agree with them at times. People no doubt don’t agree with mine either. A won’t lose any sleep over it and wouldn’t expect them to lose any over it either.  To reply:-

(1) Am no troll.  A think most people will know who I am a don’t hide behind user names.  General Manager at the Bluebell that’s me. Although views on here are mine not necessarily the clubs.

(2)  To quote yourself “no comment from the contributions from the other side”.  A don’t see an us and them type of situation a see it as non league football.  The us and them attitude from both sides  doesn’t help anybody and contributes significantly to where we are. 

I agree with all your other points to be honest, this is a big week licence wise and as a club with currently no floodlights the support from David Baxter has been excellent and supportive.  

The directive has came from Ian Maxwell and the SFA board.  Definatley done without full knowledge of the consequences and as has been said on here before shows him and his board up for lack of knowledge of the non league game but none the less they did give a directive to the PWG to allow the juniors in at tier 6 and it hasn’t been revoked. 

What I was alluding to when a said the PWG now need to report back to SFA to say we cannot comply with directive for reasons previously given is fair to me.  The question is then will the SFA accept they didn’t have all the facts to make that decision and look at a different model or will they try and bull doze through in some way their original directive.  Their track record means it could go either way for me.

As for the SFA getting hounded by Lego eating Al from Camelon if the juniors get in at tier 6 am sure that won’t sway any decision but you never know. That’s a light hearted statement al don’t take offence neebs.  Am away to play ma banjo in fife 

[Guest]

Perceived injustices? If you are invited and for whatever reason (money or any other) choose not to join, how can it be an injustice? You were free to apply or join..... Maybe I am looking at it too black and white, however. 

[Burnie_man]

1 minute ago, bluebell1 said:

First of all a wasn’t intending to have a dig at anyone just saying it as a see it on here.  

We’ve all got opinions and I respect them although don’t agree with them at times. People no doubt don’t agree with mine either. A won’t lose any sleep over it and wouldn’t expect them to lose any over it either.  To reply:-

(1) Am no troll.  A think most people will know who I am a don’t hide behind user names.  General Manager at the Bluebell that’s me. Although views on here are mine not necessarily the clubs.

(2)  To quote yourself “no comment from the contributions from the other side”.  A don’t see an us and them type of situation a see it as non league football.  The us and them attitude from both sides  doesn’t help anybody and contributes significantly to where we are. 

I agree with all your other points to be honest, this is a big week licence wise and as a club with currently no floodlights the support from David Baxter has been excellent and supportive.  

The directive has came from Ian Maxwell and the SFA board.  Definatley done without full knowledge of the consequences and as has been said on here before shows him and his board up for lack of knowledge of the non league game but none the less they did give a directive to the PWG to allow the juniors in at tier 6 and it hasn’t been revoked. 

What I was alluding to when a said the PWG now need to report back to SFA to say we cannot comply with directive for reasons previously given is fair to me.  The question is then will the SFA accept they didn’t have all the facts to make that decision and look at a different model or will they try and bull doze through in some way their original directive.  Their track record means it could go either way for me.

As for the SFA getting hounded by Lego eating Al from Camelon if the juniors get in at tier 6 am sure that won’t sway any decision but you never know. That’s a light hearted statement al don’t take offence neebs.  Am away to play ma banjo in fife 

I didn't accuse you of being a troll as I know who you are, I said I only really expect it from the trolls that hang around here who are not interested in debate, just having a go at certain posters. On the whole those interested in the topic deal with what what is posted, not who posts it, and that is how it should be.  I made the observation that you were happy to call out posters who sit on the "Pro-Pyramid" side of the fence but didn't call anyone out on the other side. That was my only observation on that point, no matter.

Re SFA directive, what did it say, who was it issued to? I've never seen nor heard of this before. The SFA cannot ignore rules and regulations and bulldoze anything through, they would be breaking their own procedures and they have no track record of doing that to leagues as far as I am aware, and do they really care enough to even attempt it? 

The PWG has been in place for a long time, before the LL was even set-up.  As was pointed out in the minutes that were posted up here, it's just a forum for leagues to come together to discuss issues, it isn't an offcial "board" or a "panel", it's just a collection of minds from the various leagues.  They are not working to a set agenda issued by the SFA as far as I can work out, there's no objective, no time limit.  If the SJFA dont come on board then the PWG continue to sit and deal with any future issues arising from LL2 or SPFL3 etc and how that would work with the Pyramid and the play-offs etc.  In short, they aren't just there to get the Juniors on board.

The SFA's handling of Licencing so far has been very poor. This week will be a test of how they handle it going forward.  There is an easy and sensible decision to make, but will they make it. We'll see.

[Sergeant Wilson]

15 minutes ago, G4Mac said:

Perceived injustices? If you are invited and for whatever reason (money or any other) choose not to join, how can it be an injustice? You were free to apply or join..... Maybe I am looking at it too black and white, however. 

That's why I said perceived. The invitation was made, but many clubs felt there wasn't time to fully consider the implications, therefore it wasn't a genuine and considered offer.

You might say, what's the worst that could happen?

But by not recognising points of view, compromise and reassuring you won't overcome any fears, real or imagined.

[jc1]

If the ERJFA retain their 36 clubs and somehow join the SFA Pyramid at Tier 6 for 2019/20 (as promoted by their officials), they would have 39 clubs with the addition of.
Breadalbane FC (Aberfeldy)
Linlithgow juniors (Amateur club)
Bo'ness juniors (Amateur club)
Would the ERJFA be enlightened enough to progess with 39 clubs as this would destroy the concept of 2 divisions of 18 clubs?
So would we have a flat pyramid of 3 district divisions of 13 clubs with playoffs at the end of the season for progression to the LL Pyramid Playoffs (subject to Licensing  restrictions)?
OR
Retention of the existing structure with Fauldhouse etc retaining their expensive trips to Tayside?
 
Were these issues discussed at the latest ERJFA meeting?
There are a number of issues that need to be ironed out including:
- the loss of status if there is no Super League and just 2 or 3 weak district leagues
- the avoidance of "cricket score" results for teams like Lochee if the league structure is revised on a district basis
- the possibility that teams like Fauldhouse will  be faced with excessive costs and little income playing matches against Tayside clubs if the Super League is retained.
The ERJFA  need to make a positive position statement so that clubs can make informed decisions on their future.
 

My thoughts and only my opinion are it stays as is we have no choice but to go

[Arthurlie1981]

Perceived injustices? If you are invited and for whatever reason (money or any other) choose not to join, how can it be an injustice? You were free to apply or join..... Maybe I am looking at it too black and white, however. 

Because questions were not answered (we were not the only club to ask questions from the west) and there was a perceptions around the clubs it was set up to benefit the clubs in the EOSL. That might be wrong but nothing was done to make clubs in the west want to join. I agree with part of what you say that there may have been an element from self preservation from some people at the SJFA but the same goes for the EOSL at that time. There were several clubs in the west that expressed interest but without a feeder league to fall back on it was impossible to join.

If the lowland league really were inclusive then could of directly spoke to clubs in the west about how issues could of been overcome and maybe a league could of been created, but they decided to carry on regardless. Now to goalposts have moved and there is a need for a west league and we have ended up in the mess we have now.

[Burnie_man]

17 hours ago, superbigal said:

Also if the East Juniors are in pyramid alongside Eos next season, surely talk of killing the superleague is an absolute joke of a suggestion ?

Having 2 or even 3 equal district leagues with no relegation would be an absolute shocker.

Would be a pretty flat looking pyramid

 

17 hours ago, locheeboy said:

I would also add I am not interested in reorganising leagues etc there are enough on P&B who are doing that just now. 

 

17 hours ago, superbigal said:

Glad to here the current structure is good enough for Lochee Utd

Watching Tayport v Coupar Angus or Arbroath Vics as staple stuff fills me with dread. 

I believe Fauldhouse should be told to leave for the EOS if they cannot afford to stay in the East super.

 

4 minutes ago, jc1 said:

My thoughts and only my opinion are it stays as is we have no choice but to go

 

Welcome aboard JC 

 

[pipedreamer]

3 minutes ago, Arthurlie1981 said:

 

Because questions were not answered (we were not the only club to ask questions from the west) and there was a perceptions around the clubs it was set up to benefit the clubs in the EOSL. That might be wrong but nothing was done to make clubs in the west want to join. I agree with part of what you say that there may have been an element from self preservation from some people at the SJFA but the same goes for the EOSL at that time. There were several clubs in the west that expressed interest but without a feeder league to fall back on it was impossible to join.

If the lowland league really were inclusive then could of directly spoke to clubs in the west about how issues could of been overcome and maybe a league could of been created, but they decided to carry on regardless. Now to goalposts have moved and there is a need for a west league and we have ended up in the mess we have now.

 

Didn’t help with Tom Johnstone saying that anyone that leaves would be placed at the bottom if they reapplied and there were no guarantees of getting back in. 

The association then tried to stop a club leaving by claiming that you had to give 12 months notice. Which btw for any club wanting to move west in the sjfa would apply to. 

[Guest]

As I say, maybe too black and white in my thoughts. Although other clubs from the west went in.... East Kilbride, Cumbernauld colts and bsc.... From my experiences with these clubs they would have made an I formed choice, not a jump into the abyss. 

Whilst I understand there may be perceived injustices, do these remain because the LL is now seen as a chance missed? 

[nicotina]

think 3 leagues would make a pyramid mathematically speaking

according to my old mate pie thy goras

[Burnie_man]

I see it as fault on both sides at the time.

The LL was implemented too quickly with little consideration given to the difficulties Junior clubs faced, probably driven by the agenda of a few EoS clubs at the time (remember there was no offer of promotion during the first season), and the SJFA were an absolute disgrace in how they approached it.

[Sergeant Wilson]

7 minutes ago, pipedreamer said:

Didn’t help with Tom Johnstone saying that anyone that leaves would be placed at the bottom if they reapplied and there were no guarantees of getting back in. 

The association then tried to stop a club leaving by claiming that you had to give 12 months notice. Which btw for any club wanting to move west in the sjfa would apply to. 

He certainly didn't help and that's not changed.

6 minutes ago, G4Mac said:

As I say, maybe too black and white in my thoughts. Although other clubs from the west went in.... East Kilbride, Cumbernauld colts and bsc.... From my experiences with these clubs they would have made an I formed choice, not a jump into the abyss. 

Whilst I understand there may be perceived injustices, do these remain because the LL is now seen as a chance missed? 

None of those clubs had anything to lose.

[Vollyman]

What a mess no thought, no leadership the Egyptians were wise in not setting up s PWG if they had done so they would still be building the Pyramids

[GNU_Linux]

Didn’t help with Tom Johnstone saying that anyone that leaves would be placed at the bottom if they reapplied and there were no guarantees of getting back in. 
The association then tried to stop a club leaving by claiming that you had to give 12 months notice. Which btw for any club wanting to move west in the sjfa would apply to. 

Theres also the alleged/rumoured plan that if Clydebank left for the EOS last season they would be barred from groundsharing with any junior club

[AlanCamelonfan]

1 hour ago, bluebell1 said:

First of all a wasn’t intending to have a dig at anyone just saying it as a see it on here.  

We’ve all got opinions and I respect them although don’t agree with them at times. People no doubt don’t agree with mine either. A won’t lose any sleep over it and wouldn’t expect them to lose any over it either.  To reply:-

(1) Am no troll.  A think most people will know who I am a don’t hide behind user names.  General Manager at the Bluebell that’s me. Although views on here are mine not necessarily the clubs.

(2)  To quote yourself “no comment from the contributions from the other side”.  A don’t see an us and them type of situation a see it as non league football.  The us and them attitude from both sides  doesn’t help anybody and contributes significantly to where we are. 

I agree with all your other points to be honest, this is a big week licence wise and as a club with currently no floodlights the support from David Baxter has been excellent and supportive.  

The directive has came from Ian Maxwell and the SFA board.  Definatley done without full knowledge of the consequences and as has been said on here before shows him and his board up for lack of knowledge of the non league game but none the less they did give a directive to the PWG to allow the juniors in at tier 6 and it hasn’t been revoked. 

What I was alluding to when a said the PWG now need to report back to SFA to say we cannot comply with directive for reasons previously given is fair to me.  The question is then will the SFA accept they didn’t have all the facts to make that decision and look at a different model or will they try and bull doze through in some way their original directive.  Their track record means it could go either way for me.

As for the SFA getting hounded by Lego eating Al from Camelon if the juniors get in at tier 6 am sure that won’t sway any decision but you never know. That’s a light hearted statement al don’t take offence neebs.  Am away to play ma banjo in fife 

What songs can you play.