Jump to content

Junior football, what is the future?


Burnie_man

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, PastyMan said:

Does anyone know what the future role (if any) is envisaged for the SJFA under Option Z?

Still organising the junior cup for the three regions and a possible discipline role in the lower tiers that wouldn't be covered by the SFA's JAP (?) process that would only extend to tier 6. Same as now not very much. Most of the work on organising leagues and fixture lists etc is done by three regions.

Edited by LongTimeLurker
Link to comment
Share on other sites



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?
To try and play the arbitration role here, I think it's worth pointing out that there seems to be a large degree of misunderstanding around the current position and the purpose of the options paper.

- There is a paper in existence that contains 4 options
- All league's represented at the PWG had been asked to provide feedback on all 4 options and any additional ideas to move the issue forward.

There's no expectation that league's pick 1 and come back saying "that's our choice", like seems to be what was discussed at the WRSJFA meeting.

It was supposed to collect views on all available options, of which a WoSFL, though not in paper used to spark debate, is certainly a viable option to bring to the table.

If during discussion it seems that option is the path of least resistance, what's wrong with that.

I don't think it's the case that proposal is a "threat", rather it hasn't been explained properly to delegates at the West meeting what the purpose of the paper was.

It wasn't a vote.

To give perspective, we were asked to (and have) give feedback on all 4 options in the paper and general thoughts on structure.

We weren't asked to just pick one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, G4Mac said:

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.

 

tbh I'm not really that interested in the demographics of how leagues would eventually look as it's not going to affect my viewing pleasure any, and yes, the clubs were probably sold a duffer but it will be up to them to decide and they will give the SJFA the benefit of the doubt until they are eventually( and officially) told different

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Arthurlie1981 said:

 


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?

There's no patronising comment.  It means deal with the topic instead of attacking the poster.

Nobody is threatening a league, quite the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To try and play the arbitration role here, I think it's worth pointing out that there seems to be a large degree of misunderstanding around the current position and the purpose of the options paper.

- There is a paper in existence that contains 4 options
- All league's represented at the PWG had been asked to provide feedback on all 4 options and any additional ideas to move the issue forward.

There's no expectation that league's pick 1 and come back saying "that's our choice", like seems to be what was discussed at the WRSJFA meeting.

It was supposed to collect views on all available options, of which a WoSFL, though not in paper used to spark debate, is certainly a viable option to bring to the table.

If during discussion it seems that option is the path of least resistance, what's wrong with that.

I don't think it's the case that proposal is a "threat", rather it hasn't been explained properly to delegates at the West meeting what the purpose of the paper was.

It wasn't a vote.

To give perspective, we were asked to (and have) give feedback on all 4 options in the paper and general thoughts on structure.

We weren't asked to just pick one.


Thanks for the clarification. What I can’t understand then is, if the LL were interested in doing this then why not have it in the options presented to the west. Also I am disappointed that Rod Petrie hasn’t gone to the West meeting to give his views and allow for questions in a similar fashion to how he went the EoS meeting (I know there is a difference as the EoS clubs are members) as this would have avoided what has happened IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Arthurlie1981 said:

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.

The whole point of Options W, X, Y and Z was they were supposed to be discussed, as was the boundary between the Highland and Lowland League.

Going by the recaps i've seen none of the Options were discussed in depth and it doesn't sound like the HL/LL boundary was discussed.

Option Z was chosen and it's the messiest and least actionable Option of all of them. Option Z requires definition of new boundaries. discussion on promotion and relegation between LL West-SoS-West Region, LL East-EoS-East Region, HL-NCL-North Region. Changes to the SPFL Playoff, changes to the SPFL League Cup,  changes to the SPFL Challenge Cup. Likely over 10 clubs getting licenced in the West of Scotland in the next 18 months, all the while the small licensing department has to deal with applications from the North and East.

There's no certainty that can be resolved in time for 2021-22. And while all of that goes on the pyramid is hamstrung for another year tied into a lopside pyramid playoff that is not fit purpose.

During this time the SJFA gets to sit outside of the pyramid carrying on business as usual with the only concern being possible East moves to the EoS.

This has been going on since April 2018 and was hoped to be done in time for 2018-19. During that time the SJFA got their moratorium on Licensing applications, got to say it was a done deal that limited clubs moving to the EoS or other senior leagues in 2018-19. Tied up the Lowland League pyramid play-off so it can't be changed. And now its gone from saying entry at Tier 6 to reshaping Tier 5 to suit their interests.

image.thumb.png.edf67cecfd0fc3bb02850eb66d2db6f5.png

Yet its the Juniors that are being threatened.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, santheman said:

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

You have consistently claimed that most WRJFA clubs don't really care about the Pyramid, and many don't really want to move. Fair enough, look at sweep's posts (Lugar?) a few pages back which shows they're not really interested.

Therefore it follows that setting-up a senior league giving the option of staying Junior, or moving to the Senior Pyramid is probably a good thing rather than moving clubs en-masse whether they like it or not, agree?  It's an option not available so far in the west unlike the east.

There will however be clubs in the WRJFA wanting to be Licenced, and looking on as Broxburn beat Cowdenbeath and play at St.Mirren, Penicuik beat Stenhousemuir and play at Partick, Bonnyrigg beating Montrose and playing Clyde, all in front of large gates, some live on telly, and wondering why they can't do it next season. With respect to Broxburn and Penicuik, they're not the biggest clubs in the east, but they have done exceptionally well.

It appears that there won't be much progress at PWG if it means the LL having to split in half, they won't.  Therefore do the WRJFA have a plan B to fall back on? probably not becasue as explained above, the WRJFA meeting didn't do what it was asked by Petrie to do.

Nobody should feel threatened by having a choice.

 

 

Edited by Burnie_man
Link to comment
Share on other sites



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?


You talk about a threat as if it would be acting in bad faith to propose it, however given the WJFA are deliberately acting in bad faith then are they really in a position to complain if others try and force the issue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the lowland league and the EOS league who have embraced the pyramid from the beginning and even opened its doors to other teams have decided the only option to end this stalemate (because the sjfa keep moving the goalposts and trying to stream roll there way in instead of negotiating there way in) is to set up a new feeder league for the west area is now viewed as a threat to juniors 🤣🤣  anyone with any sense can see this is the only viable option left on the table and if the juniors get left outside they only have themselves to blame strip them of any future Scottish cup entry aswell will probably be the next step 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PWG meeting is on the 29th January. SJFA seem to be going for Option Z. The LL & EoS are apparently against it for perhaps all of the same reasons, some of them or different ones.

Chances are the next PWG meeting won't be until March. Getting quite late in the season to do things the organised way of committees.

Everyone cool with the league set up staying the same for 2020-21 and having the same arguments for another year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

PWG meeting is on the 29th January. SJFA seem to be going for Option Z. The LL & EoS are apparently against it for perhaps all of the same reasons, some of them or different ones.

Chances are the next PWG meeting won't be until March. Getting quite late in the season to do things the organised way of committees.

Everyone cool with the league set up staying the same for 2020-21 and having the same arguments for another year?

The EoS clubs don't meet until Thursday so there's no decision as yet.

As i said earlier, I doubt a new WoSFL would take too long to set-up if the SFA give the nod.   If the SFA don't give the nod, then the question is, what next? 

It appears to be the only option to get things done for next season, as the WRJFA have refused to support the other option of them moving in without the ERJFA, presumably because it's still a case of all in or none in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tbh I'm not really that interested in the demographics of how leagues would eventually look as it's not going to affect my viewing pleasure any, and yes, the clubs were probably sold a duffer but it will be up to them to decide and they will give the SJFA the benefit of the doubt until they are eventually( and officially) told different
Fair doos. I also believe the clubs, individually, should choose their own fate. If they want to go then go, if they want to stay then stay.

What frustrates me is a certain poster who has done nothing but muddy the water since day dot. What his agenda is I can only assume.

I would personally love to see Talbot, Pollok etc in the pyramid. I doubt it would take clubs, Talbot in particular long to get into a) the LL from tier 6 and b) into the spfl once in the LL. But only if that's what they want, which I'm sure they do given the extensive work over the years to get to where they are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Thanks for the clarification. What I can’t understand then is, if the LL were interested in doing this then why not have it in the options presented to the west. Also I am disappointed that Rod Petrie hasn’t gone to the West meeting to give his views and allow for questions in a similar fashion to how he went the EoS meeting (I know there is a difference as the EoS clubs are members) as this would have avoided what has happened IMO.
I think the honest answer to that is that the paper wasnt put together with input from any of the league's other than the SJFA and whoever put it together hadn't thought about that as an option. I don't think there's anything sinister in it not being there.

TBH, if you've seen the paper its pretty clear that not a lot of time or effort went into putting it together. It's pretty much the dictionary definition of back of a fag packet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ped said:

strip them of any future Scottish cup entry aswell will probably be the next step 

I've heard moves are afoot to restrict the Scottish Cup to Licenced clubs only.   No Licence, no entry, regardless of what league you play in or what competition you're in.

Whether it comes to pass at AGM or not is another matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the honest answer to that is that the paper wasnt put together with input from any of the league's other than the SJFA and whoever put it together hadn't thought about that as an option. I don't think there's anything sinister in it not being there.

TBH, if you've seen the paper its pretty clear that not a lot of time or effort went into putting it together. It's pretty much the dictionary definition of back of a fag packet.


Thanks again it does seem that way.

Feel it is wrong of the LL to be saying we don’t want option z, which is their right, but we will come up with our own option (that doesn’t seem to have been mentioned to the PWG). When the SJFA did this all hell broke lose.

If at the end of the day the stalemate can’t be broken then that’s fine, we have to create the WoS, but we are not there yet and until the PWG meeting March (or possibly beyond) we don’t know what the SFA are going to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard moves are afoot to restrict the Scottish Cup to Licenced clubs only.   No Licence, no entry, regardless of what league you play in or what competition you're in.
Whether it comes to pass at AGM or not is another matter.
Was this not tried a few years ago but didn't get enough votes? Was like 2016 or 2017 iirc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arthurlie1981 said:

Thanks again it does seem that way.

Feel it is wrong of the LL to be saying we don’t want option z, which is their right, but we will come up with our own option (that doesn’t seem to have been mentioned to the PWG). When the SJFA did this all hell broke lose.

If at the end of the day the stalemate can’t be broken then that’s fine, we have to create the WoS, but we are not there yet and until the PWG meeting March (or possibly beyond) we don’t know what the SFA are going to say.

The SJFA were also free to come up with other suggestions.  Indeed, one of the four suggestions (which was already rejected last year), was included at their insistence, quite why nobody knows.  The LL have come up with an alternative and who knows, maybe the EoS will come up with another.  Neither are the bad guys.

The WRJFA went about their meeting all the wrong way, it was a done deal behind the scenes with the ERJFA and what they weren't looking for was debate on this issue, indeed someone claimed the top table said the LL backed "option Z", which was clearly untrue.

The next PWG is next Wednesday, there could possibly be decisions made then hopefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:
13 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:
I've heard moves are afoot to restrict the Scottish Cup to Licenced clubs only.   No Licence, no entry, regardless of what league you play in or what competition you're in.
Whether it comes to pass at AGM or not is another matter.

Was this not tried a few years ago but didn't get enough votes? Was like 2016 or 2017 iirc.

Was that an attempt to remove Junior and Amateur clubs?  it could well be they're going about a similar result another way by insisting on a Licence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



To try and play the arbitration role here, I think it's worth pointing out that there seems to be a large degree of misunderstanding around the current position and the purpose of the options paper.

- There is a paper in existence that contains 4 options
- All league's represented at the PWG had been asked to provide feedback on all 4 options and any additional ideas to move the issue forward.

(Snipped for brevity)...

It wasn't a vote.

To give perspective, we were asked to (and have) give feedback on all 4 options in the paper and general thoughts on structure.

We weren't asked to just pick one.


Thank goodness someone has posted this since I was thinking how to put it myself. This idea that the SFA "back Option Z" or indeed back any of them is a red herring; they were always intended as discussion points to kick things off. By accident it design (I have my own ideas about which) the SJFA and the WRSJFA in particular seem to have decided that it's this option Z or nothing. As before (when the Jumior clubs had a survey where bizarrely they had different options of joining the senior pyramid at different levels, as if it was something they could just demand rather than being in the gift of others) they have went with something that a) allows some (i.e. clubs in the West) to skip ahead of clubs who committed to the pyramid sooner and b) would likely to be seen as the most problematic solution (which the more cynical would suggest makes it look like they want in while actually wanting to stay out). Which actually leads on to...

You have consistently claimed that most WRJFA clubs don't really care about the Pyramid, and many don't really want to move. Fair enough, look at sweep's posts (Lugar?) a few pages back which shows they're not really interested.
Therefore it follows that setting-up a senior league giving the option of staying Junior, or moving to the Senior Pyramid is probably a good thing rather than moving clubs en-masse whether they like it or not, agree?  It's an option not available so far in the west unlike the east.
(Also snipped for brevity)...

Nobody should feel threatened by having a choice.
 
 


Which is something I've always said. Nobody should be forced into the pyramid and so really the Junior "grade" if it wants to survive as a separate entity should be allowed to do so outwith the senior pyramid. There seem to be lots of clubs in the West in particular who aren't interested in being in the pyramid, even if ultimately nothing much will change for them. So let them do that. Set up a WoS League and if clubs don't want to be in it then fine. Even if it means Talbot, Cumnock, Pollok or whenever stays put - but the agreement must be that if you want to join later you start at the lowest level in your region. After a while you might get more movement and you might even get teams dropping back to the Junior ranks but it's by far the easiest solution and allows those who don't want to move that option, as there is and will presumably continue to be in the East. We can then move on to sorting out the Highland League catchment and Tayside in particular.
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...