Jump to content

Junior football, what is the future?


Burnie_man

Recommended Posts

Just now, Blackie Gold said:

Okay I was bored.  Just wanted to stir you from your lair as you have been very quiet since Bonnyrigg got shafted.

What were you expecting me to say? Have a look in the EoS forum. On the flip side my own club plus five others have been Licenced and have shown what can be achieved with a bit of ambition.  The SFA have got it badly wrong with Bonnyrigg and the five others who were refused a Licence but ultimately they will pick themsevles up and I expect most to be Licenced this time next year along with a few others. Progress will continue.

What should concern you more is the SJFA shafting west clubs and stopping them from entering the Pyramid next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Blackie Gold said:

Cheers very informative and lets me know who we might face.

Suppose on the plus side you've now got less of a chance of facing trips to Golspie or Banks O'Dee, but you're very likely to draw a club from the EoS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFS I've been called an arsehole by better people than you thank you very much.  Someone on another thread posted a list of clubs that have qualified for Scottish cup.

4. Auchinleck Talbot (Junior Cup)


Not yet. Largs Thistle might have something to say about that [emoji848]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

What were you expecting me to say? Have a look in the EoS forum. On the flip side my own club plus five others have been Licenced and have shown what can be achieved with a bit of ambition.  The SFA have got it badly wrong with Bonnyrigg and the five others who were refused a Licence but ultimately they will pick themsevles up and I expect most to be Licenced this time next year along with a few others. Progress will continue.

What should concern you more is the SJFA shafting west clubs and stopping them from entering the Pyramid next season.

Were the 6 clubs you refer to, all refused because of no floodlights ? Or for other reasons ?  Are there any appeals pending ? Originally, seventeen licence applicants were mentioned on some earlier posts, plus 2 West junior clubs.

Assuming  there isn't another SFA Board meeting  in June/early July (?) that approves any additional licences, to what extent will there will be changes in the Scottish Cup format for 2019/20 ?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were the 6 clubs you refer to, all refused because of no floodlights ? Or for other reasons ?  Are there any appeals pending ? Originally, seventeen licence applicants were mentioned on some earlier posts, plus 2 West junior clubs.
Assuming  there isn't another SFA Board meeting  in June/early July (?) that approves any additional licences, to what extent will there will be changes in the Scottish Cup format for 2019/20 ?   


There’s normally a licensing meeting around June, LTHV and a few others got licensed around that time, it basically ‘last chance for Scottish cup’ meeting. However given the SFA line unless clubs can quickly erect flood lights for then they aren’t getting in, even bonnyrigg who seem furthest along seem unlikely to get them up that quick.(and if they do it wouldn’t change number of entrants as they are a qualifier anyway)

The 6 rejected all seem to just be floodlights, there was 12 applications meant to be heard in February, with others rumoured to be heard in June.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Do we

5 minutes ago, parsforlife said:


There’s normally a licensing meeting around June, LTHV and a few others got licensed around that time, it basically ‘last chance for Scottish cup’ meeting. However given the SFA line unless clubs can quickly erect flood lights for then they aren’t getting in, even bonnyrigg who seem furthest along seem unlikely to get them up that quick.(and if they do it wouldn’t change number of entrants as they are a qualifier anyway)

The 6 rejected all seem to just be floodlights, there was 12 applications meant to be heard in February, with others rumoured to be heard in June.

 

Do you know who the other 6 clubs are ?  It was announced that Dunipace are one of them, but I thought they already have floodlights (?)  Not been to their ground, so can't confirm.  I am also  anticipating an early July 2019  Licensing meeting. 

Also the 2 junior licence applicants (Cumnock and allegedly Petershill**),  I presume have been rejected on the basis that they  do not comply with the "commitment to the pyramid" licensing rule.

(** apparently not yet confirmed officially by the club itself)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Robert James said:

Do we

Do you know who the other 6 clubs are ?  It was announced that Dunipace are one of them, but I thought they already have floodlights (?)  Not been to their ground, so can't confirm.  I am also  anticipating an early July 2019  Licensing meeting. 

Also the 2 junior licence applicants (Cumnock and allegedly Petershill**),  I presume have been rejected on the basis that they  do not comply with the "commitment to the pyramid" licensing rule.

(** apparently not yet confirmed officially by the club itself)

Dunipace were an 18th club EoS. They haven't actually begun the application process as the SFA haven't signed off on it beginning.

Rejected for not having floodlights:

  1. Bonnyrigg Rose (floodlights sourced)
  2. Camelon Juniors
  3. Dundonald Bluebell
  4. Haddington Athletic
  5. St Andrews United
  6. Tranent

Ongoing applications yet to pass the Licensing Committee for SFA Board approval:

  1. Dalkeith Thistle
  2. Edinburgh United
  3. Jeanfield Swifts (just had audit, but floodlights sourced waiting to be installed)
  4. Musselburgh Athletic
  5. Newtongrange Star

Waiting for official start of the application process:

  1. Dunipace
  2. Cumnock (not in pyramid, may have been rejected already)
  3. Petershill (not in pyramid, may have been rejected already)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

St Andrews were rejected solely for lack of floodlights. 

Spent a five figure sum on items which were needed for the licence but don't enhance our facilities.

Awaiting planning permission for floodlights and getting the finances in place to instal them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, leftbehind said:

Bonnyrigg appealed    and lost.  full reason on their website   still Crowdfunding on web page for funding from supporters and local businesses.     Have obtained lights from local council and Away Sponsor going to erect them as next years Sponsorship.  initial work commencing in the next few weeks.  

Congratulations to Bonnyrigg that they have received planning permission for floodlights from Midlothian Council. And also, to the club's purchase of  floodlights, as set out in the Club Statement.

IMO the SFA has put itself in a very questionable position, which is open to a league challenge.  Also its reason for doing so, is apparently to avoid setting a precedent. In theory this is sound, but in practice IMO it is weak in law, for the reasons stated below.  The core of the club's case, as I see it, is -

1. the application was made in 2018, under the SFA's licensing rules (2018) applicable at that date. As I understand it, the fee was paid, and accepted under those rules.  To then backdate the rule change, is arguably a breach of contract,, to the detriment of Bonnyrigg FC, its players, and its supporters  

2. the SFA's action, by denying the club promotion, has/will result in a loss of income to the club during 2019/20, and was not made in good faith.  IMO it is therefore a breach in its own constitution and articles

3. the SFA's claim that to award Bonnyrigg a derogation would  set a precedent for any of the other applicants in 2018, is dubious, and irrelevant in this instance. None of the other 5 clubs whose licensing has been rejected (under the no floodlights rule change), did not finish as the EoSL's champion club, do not therefore have any expectation of promotion to the Lowland League. in this instance.  A  change in the licensing rules can easily be approved at the SFA's AGM in June 2019, thereby preventing any future (precedent) challenges from other clubs,  as the current situation could not arise again (unless of course, the SFA decides to make a habit of backdating rule changes, to invalidate existing licensing applications)    

4. the revised SFA licensing rules (including floodlighting) are applicable for 2019, as stated on the SFA's own website (see the date on its summary list of licensed clubs). The SFA's audit was carried/completed in December 2018. There has been no valid reason given, as to why the club licensing process was delayed throughout the latter part of 2018, and again until April 2019 

5. finally, given the above 4 points, it is surely perverse that the Lowland League currently has three clubs in its membership,  who do not have floodlights. Have these clubs been given a floodlights derogation, and if so for how long, and why have Bonnyrigg been denied a similar outcome, as they had an expectation to be promoted as the East of Scotland League's champions for 2018/19 ?  

Please note that I am not connected with Bonnyrigg Rose Athletic FC in any way.  But it seems to me that the SFA's actions, on this occasion, are simply wrong (or ill advised), and may be difficult to defend. Whether or not the club decides to take legal action against the SFA, is however something which I am sure they will consider very  carefully before proceeding, given the costs and timescales involved, with the new season  not much more than 3 months away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

St Andrews were rejected solely for lack of floodlights. 
Spent a five figure sum on items which were needed for the licence but don't enhance our facilities.
Awaiting planning permission for floodlights and getting the finances in place to instal them.
What do you mean dont enhance your facilities ?
Does the license actually require useless expenses?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, superbigal said:

What do you mean dont enhance your facilities ?
Does the license actually require useless expenses?

Buying new dugouts as licence  requires that they are together on one side. Our dugouts on either side of the pitch were fine.

Replacing perfectly adequate goals with licence compliant ones.

Putting screening behind the big trees to stop people peeking/sneaking in.

To name a few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buying new dugouts as licence  requires that they are together on one side. Our dugouts on either side of the pitch were fine.
Replacing perfectly adequate goals with licence compliant ones.
Putting screening behind the big trees to stop people peeking/sneaking in.
To name a few.


Dugouts on one side is pretty universal outside of juniors/amateur it’s just far easier to referee. Licences are required for tier 5 and above and Scottish cup, these have assistant refs who typically work with a ‘senior/specialist’ assistant who is trained with managing dugout situations and sub procedures etc. It makes no sense to have them on opposite sides.

Again screening to prevent sights from outside the ground is always going to be expected.

I don’t know the conditions of the old goalposts, but again it’s perfect sense such things are regulated.

I absolutely get the anger over the SFA, clubs have been fucked over here, however let’s not question the full licensing process, is been made clear since day 1 that licensing is to apply to much more than having a decent ground.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, gogsy said:

Slightly off topic but wasn't the plan a few years ago in the juniors that all dug outs were to be on the same side. I seem to remember a whole load of teams moved them.

If that's the case many Irvine Meadow , Beith , Kilwinning etc have not complied. Glenafton's are on same side but about 40 yards apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...