Junior football, what is the future?

[gaz5]

The west region members appear to have been told that the SPFL support an LL west. Being outnumbered at an AGM by tier 5 clubs isn't necessarily an issue depending on how the professional game board is structured and given the limited range of issues (national team, Scottish Cup) that are involved.

Yet the reason given by Rod Petrie at the EoS meeting for limiting licenced clubs (which eventually led to associate membership for Tier 6 and below with no voting rights) was "having to listen to the concerns of existing members".

Hmm, nope, sure the two things have nothing in common and the SPFL will be happy to lose their voting majority to the non league block in order to get the Juniors what they want, at no benefit at all to the SPFL or anyone else.

Seems a legit theory. [emoji85][emoji848]

[AlanCamelonfan]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

They clearly saw all four as a possible basis for progress under certain circumstances, but what was interesting was that all three junior regions seem to have been steered towards Option Z by the blazers involved.

According to a Montrose Roselea poster the north region are apparently being told presumably by the SFA and SJFA at a meeting with the HL to get with the programme on pyramid entry or "graze alone". We have also had the recent BBC website story about the SFA consulting with the relevant bodies on a possible HL:LL boundary shift which is one of the things that would be needed to make Option Z possible. A subsequent tweet from the EoS talked of negotiations and sticking to their position on what should happen rather than refuting the info from the BBC.

The indications are that the SFA rightly or wrongly (please note I am not expressing my personal opinion on that only outlining my understanding of what is happening) still want to get the SJFA into the pyramid intact with all three regions at tier 6 and don't see a region by region approach that dismantles the SJFA or encourages breakaways from it as being the way to go. 

That is not what's happening. The sfa really dont care as much as you think about sjfa. Boundary change is because brechin and Montrose complained about it

[LongTimeLurker]

21 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

Yet the reason given by Rod Petrie at the EoS meeting for limiting licenced clubs (which eventually led to associate membership for Tier 6 and below with no voting rights) was "having to listen to the concerns of existing members".

Hmm, nope, sure the two things have nothing in common and the SPFL will be happy to lose their voting majority to the non league block in order to get the Juniors what they want, at no benefit at all to the SPFL or anyone else.

Seems a legit theory.

I agree the SPFL support looks a bit suspect which is why I had the "appear" in what I wrote, but the potential scope for future full membership at tier 6 level and below would have been much larger than having 16 extra clubs at tier 5 and bear in mind some of the extra clubs in the east that are likely to be in any future LL east (e.g. Lithgae, Dundonald, Penicuik, Broxburn, HoB) got their full membership before the new rule went into effect and still have voting rights on that basis. The nonleague seniors with full voting rights already outnumber the SPFL at an SFA AGM. 

Edited January 19, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[LongTimeLurker]

4 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

That is not what's happening. The sfa really dont care as much as you think about sjfa. Boundary change is because brechin and Montrose complained about it

I'd have probably seen it that way as well if there hadn't been the extra snippet of info from the Montrose Roselea poster. Strong arming the NRSJFA to get on board points to an all three regions in at the same time approach with the SJFA intact rather than doing things region by region with the SJFA being dismantled. As stated above I have been surprised by the SFA posture over the last 18 months but we have to remember that McRae and Regan who drove the pyramid club 42 playoff and LL formation at the time of the SFL-SPL merger and added the commitment to progression clause to entry level licensing have been replaced by Petrie and Maxwell.

[AlanCamelonfan]

Just now, LongTimeLurker said:

I'd have probably seen it that way as well if there hadn't been the extra snippet of info from the Montrose Roselea poster. Strong arming the NRSJFA to get on board points to an all three regions in at the same time approach with the SJFA intact rather than doing things region by region with the SJFA being dismantled. As stated above I have been surprised by the SFA posture over the last 18 months but we have to remember that McRae and Regan who drove the pyramid club 42 playoff and LL formation at the time of the SFL-SPL merger and added the commitment to progression clause to entry level licensing have been replaced by Petrie and Maxwell.

You are still talking shite. We have  been here  before and the more and more you go on you are embarrassing the sjfa.

 

Question for you what team do you support?

[LongTimeLurker]

Have already told you I am not connected to the SJFA and that I am not expressing personal support for Option Z. Won't be responding to any future posts from you.

[Junior Pub League]

4 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Have already told you I am not connected to the SJFA and that I am not expressing personal support for Option Z. Won't be responding to any future posts from you.

If your intention is to come across as a hysterical hectoring bully who cant take any criticism at all you are doing a fine job.

Log off, do something worthwhile. Come back when you have calmed down and are rational. Everyone but you can see you are doing the SJFA more harm than good with your ravings.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Junior Pub League

[Che Dail]

37 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

I was very surprised on the SFA posture when I read the PWG minutes posted on here last season, but there has been a bit of a regime change at the SFA with Rod Petrie and Ian Maxwell replacing Alan McRae of Cove Rangers and Stewart Regan.

Maybe check your timeline for when they were appointed - Maxwell in April 2018 (nearly 2 years!) and Petrie has been there for as long as most folk can remember.

The only change that is desperately needed and one that would have a significant positive outcome, would be the 'posture' from the SJFA or the member clubs themselves.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Che Dail

[FairWeatherFan]

7 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

I'd have probably seen it that way as well if there hadn't been the extra snippet of info from the Montrose Roselea poster. Strong arming the NRSJFA to get on board points to an all three regions in at the same time approach with the SJFA intact rather than doing things region by region with the SJFA being dismantled.

So who's "strong arming the NRSJFA" in this?

The SJFA telling the North Region you don't sign up for the pyramid, you're out of Junior football?

The SFA who have no control over the North Region?

On 17/01/2020 at 10:48, tellyboy said:

I believe that there was a meeting between the North Region JFA and the Highland League last week re the Pyramid. No details but understand it is a case of agree or be left to graze on your own. 

 

[BTID]

20 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

I'd have probably seen it that way as well if there hadn't been the extra snippet of info from the Montrose Roselea poster. Strong arming the NRSJFA to get on board points to an all three regions in at the same time approach with the SJFA intact rather than doing things region by region with the SJFA being dismantled. As stated above I have been surprised by the SFA posture over the last 18 months but we have to remember that McRae and Regan who drove the pyramid club 42 playoff and LL formation at the time of the SFL-SPL merger and added the commitment to progression clause to entry level licensing have been replaced by Petrie and Maxwell.

can anyone explain why the eos wouldn’t back a LL east/west (if it happened) given that they would probably get more clubs moved up quicker?

[gaz5]

I'd have probably seen it that way as well if there hadn't been the extra snippet of info from the Montrose Roselea poster. Strong arming the NRSJFA to get on board points to an all three regions in at the same time approach with the SJFA intact rather than doing things region by region with the SJFA being dismantled. As stated above I have been surprised by the SFA posture over the last 18 months but we have to remember that McRae and Regan who drove the pyramid club 42 playoff and LL formation at the time of the SFL-SPL merger and added the commitment to progression clause to entry level licensing have been replaced by Petrie and Maxwell.

 

For me, you keep obfuscating the possible (which covers a huge range of things including no change, which incidentally isn't on the options paper) with the probable. There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement of the power boundaries in any of your musing.

 

Let's just consider Option Z, as it's the one you are pushing and who would need to agree (having effective veto) over the proposed changes:

 

Agreement to split LL: LL, SPFL, SFA, EoS, SoS, HL.

 

LL: What is the benefit for the LL? Why would they give up one of free bargaining chips they have for automatic promotion, while at the same time reducing by a third their current promotion prospects, just to support the juniors? Surely you accept there's nothing in this for current LL clubs top or bottom? In which case, why are they going to vote for it, like they would need to do? Not to mention it still contains ERSJFA at Tier 6 as part of the plan which was unanimously rejected last year.

 

SPFL: Were quite clear at the outset that they wanted 1 feeder league, conceded to 2 with a playoff. Unlikely to be looking at a split to 3 favourably and surely clubs at the bottom would be looking at the potential makeup of the 2 LL divisions and thinking "f*ck me we're never coming back if we get relegation into either of those" What's in it for the SPFL to vote in favour, to suit only the Juniors and potentially Montrose and Brechin if the boundary change is a bargaining chip (their reasons around player location at best a nonsense)?

 

SFA: No real skin in the game so likely to support whatever most likely to gain consensus with minimal fuss

 

EoS: ERSJFA at Tier 6, already unanimously rejected

 

SoS: not likely to be overly concerned, but would they accept the theory that WRSJFA jump in above them? To be seen

 

HL: Being asked to take a reduction in promotion potential by a third in order to benefit the South of the Tay juniors. What's in it for them, even with their alleged objection to promotion, to hand double promotion spots to their LL counterparts.

 

Given this plan needs rules changed which these bodies would all need to agree to and there are at least 2, potentially 4 in that list who won't agree, the probability of this option being adopted are decidedly slim. Minuscule.

 

If I pre-empt your next point about "potentially not needing rule changes" that simply can't be. Even if we presume that in the highly unlikely scenario that only the LL and EoS object the SPFL and SFA can still alter the SPFL playoff rules to include a third league, you would have no way of forcing current LL members West based into that league, meaning a LL West with all new teams and a LL East with West based teams. As you would simply be plugging a new league in at Tier 5 without consensus, there would be no compelling reason for the LL/EoS/SoS to change their current promotion rules to the current LL (renamed East) to include the ERSJFA at Tier 6, ergo no juniors in as a block.

 

The simple truth here is that most people want a working pyramid, but each have their own red lines (which in all honesty are mostly perfectly sensible) and there's no one body (based on all the evidence we've seen) can steamroller through change without agreement which will mean concession. And from one area in particular, there is no concession.

 

I see no benefit in plan Z to anyone other than the Juniors, who would be getting their proverbial cake and eating it, if by some miracle plan Z was adopted.

 

So, for all those reasons I reiterate, the simplest and most achievable of the plans in the paper is W, West comes in next year and we work on the other issues going forward. Everyone who needs to has essentially agreed to that plan already, except the SJFA, for reasons suspected to be around nothing more than self preservation of officials.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

13 minutes ago, BTID said:

can anyone explain why the eos wouldn’t back a LL east/west (if it happened) given that they would probably get more clubs moved up quicker?

If Option Z unfolds the EoS would probably lose their ability to block having the ERSJFA as a parallel feeder in the east (right now their ability to do that revolves around the need to have them approve changes to the LL playoff rules, but that probably falls away if there is no longer a single LL), which is something they are vehemently opposed to. The SJFA want to enter intact. The EoS do not want the ERSJFA in as a parallel feeder meaning they don't want the SJFA to enter intact. There is no way to square that circle unless a way can be found to force one of these two parties to do something they don't want to do. For whatever reason the SFA appear to be targeting the EoS rather than the SJFA as the party that needs to do that.

Edited January 19, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[gaz5]

If Option Z unfolds the EoS would probably lose their ability to block having the ERSJFA as a parallel feeder in the east (right now their ability to do that revolves around the need to have them approve changes to the LL playoff rules, but that probably falls away if there is no longer a single LL), which is something they are vehemently opposed to. The SJFA want to enter intact. The EoS do not want the ERSJFA in as a parallel feeder meaning they don't want the SJFA to enter intact. There is no way to square that circle unless a way can be found to force one of these two parties to do something they don't want to do. For whatever reason the SFA appear to be targeting the EoS rather than the SJFA as the party that needs to do that.

There you go again. I just wasted my time putting all the reasons that isn't true in a long post above. You got an answer to any of those questions?

And to point out again, the EoS didn't block having ERSJFA as a parallel feeder. The EoS AND LOWLAND LEAGUE rejected it unanimously. You know why that point is particularly important in terms of plan Z being passed but you keep ignoring it.

[LongTimeLurker]

25 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

...The SJFA telling the North Region you don't sign up for the pyramid, you're out of Junior football?

The SFA who have no control over the North Region?

After last seasons fiasco of a meeting why would the SFA have even convened another north PWG meeting if the end game wasn't SJFA entry? The SFA could have told the SJFA to do it region by region, because the all three regions in approach was at a dead end. I'm actually shocked that's not what happened.

[LongTimeLurker]

1 minute ago, gaz5 said:

...The EoS AND LOWLAND LEAGUE rejected it unanimously...

I understand that. What I think you need to understand is that Option Z would end the Lowland League's existence and hit the reset button completely in a way that potentially gets around that. Otherwise, this is a complete waste of time and the SFA simply should have told the SJFA to do it region by region. The problem from an EoS standpoint is that their recent actions do not point in that direction.

[FairWeatherFan]

3 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

What I think you need to understand is that Option Z would end the Lowland League's existence and hit the reset button completely in a way that potentially gets around that.

No it doesn't.

9 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

After last seasons fiasco of a meeting why would the SFA have even convened another north PWG meeting if the end game wasn't SJFA entry? The SFA could have told the SJFA to do it region by region, because the all three regions in approach was at a dead end. I'm actually shocked that's not what happened.

The Lowland Subgroup PWG were seeking opinions on the HL/LL boundary. It makes sense for them to reconvene the Highland elemens and ask the HL/North and see what there thoughts were on it. You've also had Cove get promoted and leave the HFL at an odd number of clubs.

Two fundamental changes to the area.

Still don't see what body is meant to be threatening who to force through change.

[Jack Burton]

Struggling to see how the SFA are backing the SFJA. There was 4 options to be considered and based on the last PWG all were still on the table. The SFJA favouring option Z doesn't automatically mean the SFA are backing it.

Option Z is by far the most difficult to implement seeing as it requires every association to agree to the changes. The SPFL only wanted 1 league at tier 5 and can't see them suddenly supporting a 3rd league. Three leagues feeding into a 10 team league is nonsense anyway.

Were the other options even discussed at the meeting? I thought the PWG were looking for the associations to gather feedback on all ootions.

[gaz5]

I understand that. What I think you need to understand is that Option Z would end the Lowland League's existence and hit the reset button completely in a way that potentially gets around that. Otherwise, this is a complete waste of time and the SFA simply should have told the SJFA to do it region by region. The problem from an EoS standpoint is that their recent actions do not point in that direction.

Why does splitting the LL "end the Lowland League's existence"?

Are you suggesting that the SFA will/can bin the Lowland League entirely, regardless of whether LL teams agree to it and start again with Lowland League East and West and entirely new rules?

That is exactly my issue with your posts. The probability of that is tiny. For starters if the SFA had that power they would have done it last season with the EoS and ERSJFA.

Or is it more likely that what option z means is that the current LL splits, their official structure remaining in place, into 2 league's?

And to do that the LL need to agree to it. See my previous post.

[Guest]

Lurker. Please stop. You are peddling the sjfa line that they are feeding their membership to hold their power, whilst trying to suggest you are an impartial contributor.

You get it pointed out, time after time, why your stance can't happen, yet crack on regardless.

You then refuse to reply to direct questions, provide evidence to support your stance or give any reasoned responses to posters who clearly know how this works better than you. All because it doesn't fit your.... Sorry the sjfa narrative.

I've suspected for a while you may be connected to the sjfa in some manner. Each post of yours I read, going over and over and over and over the same stuff, saying the same things, in the face of reasoned, evidence based, responses convinces me you are connected with the sjfa. You then hit the 'I'm not responding to you anymore button'.

Please stop. You are undermining your own members clubs progression.

[LongTimeLurker]

10 minutes ago, Jack Burton said:

Struggling to see how the SFA are backing the SFJA...

Last follow up for a few hours. The SFA could have said the following to the SJFA. Your north region told us last season they don't want in, your east region can't even sustain a single 16 team superleague and a fair-sized chunk of it is in the HL catchment anyway and we are not shifting that boundary for you, so there is no way you can enter as an intact association. That means this has to be done region by region so from now on we have to deal with all three regions individually and sort out a solution for each one at a time. What's actually happening doesn't fit that.

Edited January 19, 2020 by LongTimeLurker