Junior football, what is the future?

[paul wright scores]

3 minutes ago, Arthurlie1981 said:

There was attempts made to give tickets to the schools but due to a number of issues on both sides it never happened.

I agree about the board. We looked into getting something close to what whitecraigs have in the Mearns. There were concerns about vandalism of the board and it was shelved.

My hope is that the ground move that is currently under discussion will reenergise the club!!

 

Cheers - I think the club should try and revisit the tickets to schools option again. 

I hope the ground move is not to the pitch in Waulkmill - I don't think that would energise the club at all, in fact I think that would be a complete disaster.

Will probably see you there on Saturday as we play one of the arse cheeks on Sunday!!!

 

 

[Robert James]

2 hours ago, GNU_Linux said:

 

 

You quote from a post by Burnie-man ("2 hours ago") about the PWG meeting, but it isn't on this forum. Where is it ? 

[GNU_Linux]

You quote from a post by Burnie-man ("2 hours ago") about the PWG meeting, but it isn't on this forum. Where is it ? 

its in the pyramid thread over in the EOS sub forum

[Monalie]

This on the BBC website re artificial pitches.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47237204

Edited February 14, 2019 by Monalie

[paul wright scores]

1 hour ago, Monalie said:

This on the BBC website re artificial pitches.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47237204

And what do these clowns train on regularly?

They also need artificial pitches as part of Project Brave as far as I know. 

[FairWeatherFan]

Just because I know it has been asked for in the past. The Lowland League has added the Lower Pyramid Playoff Rules to there website. The most important bit with regards to the EoS having a veto:

credit to @Burnie_man

[locheeboy]

34 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Just because I know it has been asked for in the past. The Lowland League has added the Lower Pyramid Playoff Rules to there website. The most important bit with regards to the EoS having a veto:

credit to @Burnie_man

Nobody is disputing those rules. What I have continually said is there is agreement between all parties despite what the EoS are telling you. No shit stirring just plain fact. 

[FairWeatherFan]

1 minute ago, locheeboy said:

Nobody is disputing those rules. What I have continually said is there is agreement between all parties despite what the EoS are telling you. No shit stirring just plain fact. 

I'm not disputing it either. The EoS have themselves said they're okay with it, you're just overlooking the conditions placed on that.

AKA the Tayside League.

[AlanCamelonfan]

26 minutes ago, locheeboy said:

Nobody is disputing those rules. What I have continually said is there is agreement between all parties despite what the EoS are telling you. No shit stirring just plain fact. 

The agreement is for Tayside. Clubs to go to highland league. Ersjfa won't come in as a whole. But I'm sure if it's Tayside only you'd say you were right

[Pyramidic]

With regard to some of the legal info that Burnie_Man and FairWeatherFan have kindly turned out on the two Pyramid threads do we have an issue that the EoSL/EoSFA could potentially take to the Court of Arbitration for Sport ("CAS") or International Council of Arbitration for Sport ("ICAS") if their postion is over-ruled by the SFA?

Are the rules / statutes that have been quoted legally binding in sports terms?

 

Sources: Court of Arbitration for Sport ("CAS")  / International Council of Arbitration for Sport ("ICAS")

https://www.tas-cas.org/en/general-information/frequently-asked-questions.html

https://www.tas-cas.org/en/icas/code-statutes-of-icas-and-cas.html

NB: Copied over from the other thread.

[GNU_Linux]

LL advertising for applications. The relevant bit is the highlighted which indicates the demarcation line between HL/LL is still the same thus clubs north of this line ie Tayside clubs from the ERJFA would be unable to be in a feeder league to the LL.

[In TJ we trust]

On 10/02/2019 at 16:14, AlanCamelonfan said:

Or just you get some sense. If someone says black you say white. 

Or just get a mind of your own. If Burnieman says jump you say how high?

[AlanCamelonfan]

4 minutes ago, In TJ we trust said:

Or just get a mind of your own. If Burnieman says jump you say how high?

At least I'm not a troll who has multiple usernames

[In TJ we trust]

1 minute ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

At least I'm not a troll who has multiple usernames

Hiya Camel fanny . Number 82 now I believe. 

[Cameron Wilson]

25 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:

 

 

LL advertising for applications. The relevant bit is the highlighted which indicates the demarcation line between HL/LL is still the same thus clubs north of this line ie Tayside clubs from the ERJFA would be unable to be in a feeder league to the LL.
 

 

So much for the "pyramid" concept. Promotion and relegation should be decided on the pitch provided the teams in question are licensed, seeing there is a structure in place. 

Really need two promotion places to LL if they are serious about upping the standard what with all the strong junior teams coming into the pyramid.

[GNU_Linux]

So much for the "pyramid" concept. Promotion and relegation should be decided on the pitch provided the teams in question are licensed, seeing there is a structure in place.  Really need two promotion places to LL if they are serious about upping the standard what with all the strong junior teams coming into the pyramid.

 

 

the application is related to the LL only having 15 teams because of Selkirk folding. The winner of the SOS/EOS playoff is still coming up regardless (if licensed ofc). I'm in full agreement the LL needs to increase to 2 relegation spots.

 

 

 

[santheman]

21 minutes ago, In TJ we trust said:

Hiya Camel fanny . Number 82 now I believe. 

Now that was funny

[GNU_Linux]

Minutes from the most recent PWG meeting:

Ok here are the minutes as I was sent them.  I wasn't going to share them in full but give there are accusations of "lying" from certain quarters I think it's important to see the full transcript (I do not know who wrote these and the source isn't the EoS). It looks to me that what the EoS are reporting back to member clubs is entirely accurate, and that TJ is worried that there are disagreements in the discussions and wants the SFA Board to intervene presumably to force through change. I don't think they can, the PWG is not a constituted body, they follow no procedures and there is no time limit on their discussions.  The leagues represented have as much of a voice as the SFA, who to my eyes are there as an arbiter to facilitate agreement.
There appears to be disagreements on the SJFA running its own discipline, on the issue of the HL/LL line, and on the ERJFA entering at all. As was pointed out, Maxwell appears to be still moaning about the clubs who joined the EoS 6 months previously. He wants a quick fix but he's not getting one.  All these "done deal" claims appear to emanate from TJ's belief that because the SFA Board agreed to the SJFA joining the Pyramid back around August, that this means it's on their terms.  No mention either of NRJFA.
Make up your own mind if you think there will be full agreement and plans in place to deliver the Juniors into the Pyramid anytime soon.
 
Minutes of Meeting
Sub-Group of Pyramid Working Group
Wednesday 9 January 2019
Attendance: Ian Maxwell (Chief Executive, Scottish FA) - IM, Laura Dougan (Head of Football Governance, Scottish FA) - LD, Sandy Bryson (Head of Registrations Department, Scottish FA) - SB, Vicki McMullan (Disciplinary Department Manager & Judicial Panel Secretary, Scottish FA) - VM, Tom Johnston (Secretary, Scottish Junior FA) - TJ, George Fraser (Chairman, Scottish Lowland Football League) - GF, Andrew Renwick (Vice-President, East of Scotland FA) - AR, John Greenhorn (Secretary, East of Scotland FA) - JG, Richard Osborne (Secretary, Southern Counties FA) - RO.
IM stated that the draft Minutes were now available from the meeting on 14 November 2018 and they would be circulated to all members after the meeting.
AR complained that the Minutes were not available before now and that there seemed to be a reluctance to produce and distribute Minutes. IM explained that they were late due to workload.
LD confirmed that TJ had amended the SJFA Disciplinary Procedures to bring them into line with the Scottish FA’s Disciplinary Procedures. The only difference was that the SJFA would continue to issue fines. The Claims Process would also mirror the Scottish FA’s process and requires clubs to produce video evidence. LD mentioned that the SJFA process for Team Staff discipline was more severe than the Scottish FA. LD stated that she was more than happy with the progress made by SJFA and would continue to work with TJ where required.
AR and JG declared their disappointment that SJFA club discipline would not be dealt with by Scottish FA. LD stated that this was not possible due to resource and that SJFA leagues would continue to administer their own discipline.
RO explained that each organisation has its own rules. The Play Off Rules will cover all organisations.
LD further explained that when all clubs, who qualify, go into the Play Off competition, they will be governed by the same set of Play Off Rules. There will be uniformity.
IM reiterated that when clubs enter the Play Off competition, they will all abide by the rules in place for that competition.
TJ confirmed that he had already written to the SLFL to say that the SJFA would agree to the Play Off Rules. He stated that the objective must be to protect the integrity of the Play Off Competition.
AR asked TJ how the SJFA leagues were run. TJ stated that the leagues dealt with their own administration. AR asked why the SJFA leagues were not represented at this meeting. TJ confirmed that he was the representative.
AR asked if the accumulation of cautions procedure for SJFA clubs would be the same as Scottish FA. LD confirmed that this would be the case.
IM asked GF to confirm the position with the draft Play Off Rules. GF stated that he would have to get a formal proposal from the working group to proceed. He confirmed that the Play Off Rules need agreement from the East, South, SLFL and the Scottish FA.
RO mentioned that this had not been the case in the past. GF confirmed that all parties must agree to the Play Off Rules. IM stated that if there was an agreement at this working group, then that would be all parties in agreement. JG stated that could not be the case as he would have to run the information past the EOS FA Board first.
There was a brief discussion on the agreement and whether majority agreement would suffice or if all parties had to agree. 
LD asked all parties present if they felt there was anything at the moment that would mean they could not agree to the proposal. She acknowledged that there were a few hurdles to get over but asked all parties if they felt there would be formal opposition.
JG mentioned that the SHFL were not represented at the working group. This was followed by a general discussion regarding the demarcation line and the geographical issues regarding that and how some teams would potentially have to travel large distances.
AR stated that it looked like the East were objecting to everything, but insisted that this was not the case. He felt there were grey areas and his Board may have objections relating to in particular discipline.
RO asked why, if there was a general desire for this to work, could the working group not focus on developing the rules and making it happen, rather than trying to find fault. JG said it was the job of the working group to make it happen.
AR said that he expected the new leagues to be represented at the NPGB. LD confirmed that they were already represented by TJ. AR also asked about the obligation on SJFA clubs to comply with audit regulations. TJ confirmed clubs require to do this at the moment. GF asked TJ if there was any feedback from SJFA clubs on the floodlight issue. TJ stated there was none at all. He said that the SJFA clubs have always known they would need floodlights to progress.
IM stated that he felt that there was nothing that could be considered a “show-stopper” and felt the process could be fairly straightforward. He stated that if there was a vote – for the wrong reasons – to stall the process, the Scottish FA Board would consider such action.
GF confirmed that there was a SLFL Board meeting on 17 January and a general meeting on 7 February. The East confirmed that they had a meeting soon and RO confirmed that the South had a meeting scheduled for end of February. All parties agreed to keep their clubs up to date.
IM agreed that he would produce a proposal, along with LD, to allow the SLFL to progress the Play Off Rules, as required by GF.
AR mentioned that the contentious matter was Tayside. That would be where the East clubs would have an objection. JG clarified that rather than Tayside, another East league would be the issue. There were already East leagues and there could be no room for another one. AR said that the Pyramid must be extended to north of the Tay and the West as there was a gap there.
TJ said that the SJFA has Tayside and West Lothian clubs and he would not be willing to tell them that they had to join the EOS FA to progress. TJ said that the matter had already been agreed by the Scottish FA Board and that AR and JG were going over old ground. The decision has been made at Scottish FA Board level and it has to be agreed how it will work. It cannot be changed or challenged at this stage.
IM suggested that the appetite from clubs for the Pyramid could change over time. Clubs who are not interested at the moment could be interested in the future. It was the purpose of this working group to make the Pyramid work.
AR declared that there would be objections from the East. IM asked if the fundamental objection was the geography issue. There was a general discussion regarding the 25 clubs leaving the SJFA at the end of Season 2017/2018 and joining the East of Scotland and who was responsible for that. IM stated that consultation was not a one way street and that communication from EOS FA surrounding the process could have been better.
LD asked parties to be upfront with their concerns so that the process would not be delayed. She asked for any problems to be dealt with now and not further down the line.
JG asked SB about a proposal he made for a change in the Scottish FA’s Articles. SB confirmed that the proposal had been received and would follow the normal Rules Revision process as Articles could not be changed during the course of the season.
TJ asked IM to alert the Scottish FA Board to the direction of travel as he felt, due to the concerns raised at this meeting, that there could be an issue with the working group being able to comply with a Board directive.

[Cameron Wilson]

18 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:

 

the application is related to the LL only having 15 teams because of Selkirk folding. The winner of the SOS/EOS playoff is still coming up regardless (if licensed ofc). I'm in full agreement the LL needs to increase to 2 relegation spots.

 

 

 

You're right. Just feel now is the time to switch the focus away from nomination if it can be avoided, would send a positive signal to teams joining the pyramid that it is indeed the right way to go.

[Marten]

1 hour ago, Cameron Wilson said:

You're right. Just feel now is the time to switch the focus away from nomination if it can be avoided, would send a positive signal to teams joining the pyramid that it is indeed the right way to go.

Agreed. Once the pyramid is functioning better, they should do away with applications altogether. If there is a vacancy due to a resignation/liquidation of a club, they should just either reprieve a club from relegation or promote the next best team in the tier below. There should also always be promotion, if the tier 6 champion has no license, they should just promote the best team that does have a license (probably with the added rule that you have to be top 4 to be considered or something like that).

On that subject, does anyone know whether or not the SPFL still have the rule of application for vacancies should a club resign/get liquidated? Or would they just promote/reprieve the losing team of the League 2 play-off (or not have it and instead let the winner of the HL/LL PO fill the vacancy if the vacancy arises before the date of the PO)?