Jump to content

Junior football, what is the future?


Burnie_man

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, cmontheloknow said:

Could add Simon Murray was with Montrose before Tayport (and Dundee before that at boys level) and didn't make it (for whatever reason) at 1st team level.

He was at Dundee when they cut a lot of their Youth Development programme, think he was one of the first to be culled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bestsinceslicebread said:

I get why you are saying that and it sounds great but you have absolute no idea how it works at youth level unless you are fully involved.

This is the worst year I've know for teams folding at grassroots level. The Syfa aren't interested, more like jobs for the boys, same as the SFA and the councils aren't interested.
The prices charged by councils to kids is an absolute joke. boys at 17in the council where I operate in are being charged nearly £120 to play a game of football and £40 for a referee and then you have the training, think its £45 per 1/3s of a park per night, so per week you either pay £230 a week when playing at home or when away paying £110.  The pricing alone is just one example.

There needs to be an over hall of the Syfa the way it works and that wont happen. They make decisions and rules that harm youth football and do not want to over commit to anything. I am experienced in producing lads from youth football to either junior or senior level but the SYFA wouldn't listen to any of our suggestions or complaints. They make the decisions and say keep using them even if they don't work.

No,  I fully appreciate your pain - essentially Scottish Football and its selfish fiefdoms and misplaced egos in a nutshell, with short term thinking and not always seeing the bigger picture.

A recent one: can we align SYFA sides with senior sides to promote 16/ 17 / 18yr olds as trialists? NO CHANCE. ffs.

And yes, the costs are ridiculous - but they are generally outith the control of the clubs - all the more reason for them to invest that cash  in facilities to make them accessible and help bring the cost down.

Councils are skint and need to charge - but then generally so are football clubs, despite the injection of private money.

So in a round about way, why should council taxpayers fund a £150k wage bill at a semi-pro football club when that money could be spent bringing down the cost of youth football down?

And in the case of that £600k you could think of it like Norway v UK approach to oil dividends: create a 'sovereign fund' to invest in the future, or fritter it away and ultimately have nothing to show for it.

Just my opinion btw.

Iceland has not a single professional club. Tiny wee country with more full-size indoor pitches (and qualified coaches per head of population) than Scotland and they qualify for world tournaments. Why is that?

Because the focus is 100% on facilities, community football, education and kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

It's just my observations based on views from several Bankies fans I know and posts on here.   There is undoubtedly a split in opinion and there's a significant portion of your support who want to get away from Junior football and into Senior asap as per the vote taken some time ago, which has yet to be acted upon which for them is very frustrating.   A new, independent WoSFL would provide exactly what was voted for.  

However, it's for Clydebank fans to decide, and this isn't solely about Clydebank.

Do you think a new WoSFL would attract the minimum 12 clubs?

I think it’s actually much more one sided than you believe. I don’t think there’s any doubt if the wosl appears from the Lowland league we’d vote to apply. The majority of fans believe in a pyramid. 
 

we are probably like a lot of clubs though. Caught in the juniors run by committees that can’t agree on how we get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That could work, but my understanding is that the SoS may not be on the same page as the EoS (and if Burnie_man's info is accurate the LL) on these issues and are probably happy keeping a D&G focus. They haven't objected to WRSJFA entry in the way that the EoS have to ERSJFA entry.
because its not exactly the same. Two clubs who crossover because Bonnyton wanted to be in the pyramid. and Kello Rovers didn't isn't the same as a bunch of teams from West Lothian playing in each grade and putting them in the pyramid. Stop going back to old shit pricey
Fair enough it isn't the same, and I don't blame the SoS for wanting to keep things as is, but you could argue that the original EoS teams are practically back to status quo come next season, and have had a nice little change up of scenery with playing different teams, taking not bad gate receipts over incorporatimg EJFA until they revert back to a league similar to where they are now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ArabAuslander said:

Even the credible threat of a breakaway by six or seven top clubs, might scare the Blazers into asking for a Tier 6 position for next season. So there's no reason for that not to happen.

Wouldn't be surprised if there's discussions going on in private between several clubs.

I think that was said 2 years ago, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I think that was said 2 years ago, too.

A breakaway made sense when the SJFA were opposed to entry. It's more difficult to justify now that all three regions have agreed to an SFA plan on how to enter. Unfortunately the blazer politics are more important to the people involved with the negotiations than making the compromises needed to get an integrated pyramid up and running ASAP. It's too bad the constitution of the SFA doesn't provide the powers needed for the SFA board to dictate a solution if an impasse is reached.

Edited by LongTimeLurker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LongTimeLurker said:

A breakaway made sense when the SJFA were opposed to entry. It's more difficult to justify now that all three regions have agreed to an SFA plan on how to enter. Unfortunately the blazer politics are more important to the people involved with the negotiations than making the compromises needed to get an integrated pyramid up and running ASAP.

These "private talks" may not be along the lines of  forming a breakaway league, but more about going to the EoSL/LL and saying "You set up a WoSL and A B C D E F G & H will join it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still a breakaway from the existing west region and would result in having two parallel leagues in the west rather than the common sense solution of getting the existing one in intact toute de suite. It all revolves around which set of blazers gets to exert power rather than how do we complete the pyramid, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A breakaway made sense when the SJFA were opposed to entry. It's more difficult to justify now that all three regions have agreed to an SFA plan on how to enter. Unfortunately the blazer politics are more important to the people involved with the negotiations than making the compromises needed to get an integrated pyramid up and running ASAP. It's too bad the constitution of the SFA doesn't provide the powers needed for the SFA board to dictate a solution if an impasse is reached.
In one post, you have obliterated every little droplet you have put into almost 1000 previous posts about the sfa doing what you have just said they can't, constitutionally. [emoji122]

The sjfa are still opposed. They are just playing the game to keep clubs sweet. They, and everyone else involved know, that option z.1.2.version 6 isn't going to work. Hence they backed it, peddled rumour about sfa support and provided smokescreens.

Oh and the eos didn't block ersjfa entry to the pyramid. (don't know how many times people have to say this to you)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

A breakaway made sense when the SJFA were opposed to entry. It's more difficult to justify now that all three regions have agreed to an SFA plan on how to enter. Unfortunately the blazer politics are more important to the people involved with the negotiations than making the compromises needed to get an integrated pyramid up and running ASAP. It's too bad the constitution of the SFA doesn't provide the powers needed for the SFA board to dictate a solution if an impasse is reached.

There's been ngeotiations for over a year now and we're apparently going into the next PWG meeting with another stalemate.

A LL backed WoSFL, which ultimately would mean SFA, EoS, SoS backed WoSFL kind of makes more sense than a breakaway.

  • Like the Lowland League entry would probably be capped at 16, minimum 12 to be considered viable. (Leaves at least 47 clubs in the West Region so it doesn't get gutted)
  • Applicants would be prioritised by ability to get licensed. (Avoids a bottle neck of clubs unable to get licensed. Long term focus on getting LL West & LL East when licenced)
  • Only adds 16 more clubs that can get licensed. (Alleviates strain on the relatively small licensing deparment, also allows them to focus.)
  • Would be done in advance so that all leagues can plan for 2020/21.
  • Doesn't require approval over SPFL changes, boundary changes and other contentious issues that could waste 2020/21.

The end game can still be 2021-22 or 2022-23 Lowland West and Lowland East split. During that time the SJFA remains viable and ulimately fall in at Tier 6 under the Highland League, Lowland West and Lowland East.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 pages of what the WRJFA should or shouldn’t do with hardly any input from the people that matter and who will have the final say on what happens.

The vast majority of clubs, if not all will back the SJFA until such times as negotiations with the PWG/SFA have gone as far as they can (however long that takes) and a definite yay or nay to pyramid entry is given.

Only then will things progress one way or another so everything else is wishful thinking or speculation at this time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair it is surely reaching that point for everyone concerned where they all walk away their own ways. The sjfa have now had 2 messy attempts to integrate (my view is they have expected everyone to change barring themselves and they look as though they think they should waltz straight to the top table after years of throwing mud about the LL and its 'standard') and appear unlikely to be able to deliver any of their 'done deals'.

I wouldn't be surprised if the LL, eos and sos walk away after this round of talks and simoly propose to set up a wosfl. It gives everyone what they want, which is a feeder in the West for the LL, and it involves minimal changes (changes to LL relegation only - nothing for the eos, sos or spfl to worry about)

The only contentious thing thereafter is who would be the first to jump and then, who would follow. Out of 63 teams I'd think at least 12 would give it a go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 pages of what the WRJFA should or shouldn’t do with hardly any input from the people that matter and who will have the final say on what happens.
The vast majority of clubs, if not all will back the SJFA until such times as negotiations with the PWG/SFA have gone as far as they can (however long that takes) and a definite yay or nay to pyramid entry is given.
Only then will things progress one way or another so everything else is wishful thinking or speculation at this time
It isn't really though, the LL won't split. There are too many variables involving too many other changes for that to happen, it wouldn't be logical to do all that just to get the wrsjfa in at its chosen level.

The deal was dead in the water as soon as it was the option that was picked.

Blindly following it, with some false sense of solidarity will only delay things further. Sadly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LL proposing (note, proposing)  to set-up a WoSFL is a fact, not a threat and they are quite at liberty to provide alternative suggestions to the PWG, that what it's all about.  The LL not splitting in two is a fact, not a threat (they control what happens to their league set-up, nobody else).  I haven't mentioned joining the SoS.
You have quite a bizarre definition of what constitutes a threat, which is an odd term to use in this context anyway.  Neither am I telling anyone what to do, I've been clear in what is just my opinion, which is what a forum is about.  This has nothing to do with TJ nor my opinion of him.  Does that cover your rant?
After you put your foot in it last year blaming the EoS for this, that and the next thing which you then had to retract, you perhaps should calm it a little and not repeat the same mistake.
Play the ball, not the man.


Yes it was a rant and I did put my foot in it last year and I retracted and apologised. I believed the discussion were going one way and was lead down the garden path (like many others) but as I said at the time I had no reason to believe people from the EoSL over the West Region.

What is your definition of a threat to an existing league?

A threat is being made to the juniors in the west by proposing this while discussions are ongoing. If discussions had made no progress then by all means make the proposal. But to say if you don’t agree with our position we will set up a rival league in your area sounds like a threat to me.

I don’t even know what your patronising comment at the end is supposed to mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, G4Mac said:

It isn't really though, the LL won't split. There are too many variables involving too many other changes for that to happen, it wouldn't be logical to do all that just to get the wrsjfa in at its chosen level.

The deal was dead in the water as soon as it was the option that was picked.

Blindly following it, with some false sense of solidarity will only delay things further. Sadly.

Theyre not blindly following it though, you are just mistaking solidarity with loyalty to an Association that they have been connected with for 30/40/50 years and who have served them well in the past and that doesn't just disappear overnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theyre not blindly following it though, you are just mistaking solidarity with loyalty to an Association that they have been connected with for 30/40/50 years and who have served them well in the past and that doesn't just disappear overnight.

Solidarity, loyalty.... They are pretty much the same. The end game doesnt change because you stick with something because its seen you well for 30 or 40 years.

 

And some are blindly following, based on conversations I've had, based on posts on here, people involved in voting for option z didn't know what they were voting for. They saw getting in at the top level, they were presented getting in at the top level, they weren't given all of the factors that would, could and should influence that being accepted or rejected.

 

In essence they were not given the platform to make an informed choice.

 

For the LL to split the impact would be too widespread and too much required to change. Not even counting on lowering the available promotion spaces to the spfl from 1 in 2 to 1 in 3.

 

Sadly, clubs were sold a dead deal, at the off.

 

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...