Junior football, what is the future?

[gaz5]

Pricey senior lol

Tomato / Tomato. Both as bad as each other. [emoji846]

[LongTimeLurker]

2 hours ago, parsforlife said:

this is getting ridiculous,  you're twisting absolutely everything.  Your using rules that deal with neither league having a licenced champion or clubs playing illegible players to argue that the play-off agreement can just be chucked out, utter madness  

Your point appears to be that the LL acknowledge that a new agreement would have to be made. That's nothing more than what you want to be the case. The actual rules as written point in another direction on intent in that regard.

The rules I highlighted show that the playoff format was deliberately future proofed when it was drafted in a way that gives the LL and its board, as opposed to the SFA, EoS and SoS, all kinds of flexibility if the initial envisaged set of circumstances are changed in some way or an unusual set of circumstances arise.

There is nothing specific about it applying to pro/rel to and from tier 5 since the wording only refers to pro/rel from the EoS/SoS into the LL, so things are nothing like as clear cut as you were claiming above in that regard.

There is nothing specific about licensing being an LL requirement given the "in circumstances where it is required to do so as the Candidate Club in terms of the SLFL Rules " phrasing. That leaves scope for a future unilateral change in the SLFL Rules by the SLFL on whether that is even required or not. Why phrase things that way rather than stating that the Candidate Club must have entry level licensing to be able to enter tier 5, if it wasn't to make an LL2 at the community board level potentially doable?

They even have a phrasing that "the relevant club in the SLFL will retain its place " where they could have easily just stated the bottom placed club in the LL if they hadn't wanted to give the SLFL flexibility on that point as well. That arguably means the LL potentially still has scope to make a second agreement of this type with another league/association just as long as it's a different "relevant club" that is involved.

Edited January 24, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[AlanCamelonfan]

4 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Your point appears to be that the LL acknowledge that a new agreement would have to be made. That's nothing more than what you want to be the case. The actual rules as written point in another direction on intent in that regard.

The rules I highlighted show that the playoff format was deliberately future proofed when it was drafted in a way that gives the LL and its board, as opposed to the SFA, EoS and SoS, all kinds of flexibility if the initial envisaged set of circumstances are changed in some way or an unusual set of circumstances arise.

There is nothing specific about it applying to pro/rel to and from tier 5 since the wording only refers to pro/rel from the EoS/SoS into the LL, so things are nothing like as clear cut as you were claiming above in that regard.

There is nothing specific about licensing being an LL requirement given the "in circumstances where it is required to do so as the Candidate Club in terms of the SLFL Rules " phrasing. That leaves scope for a future unilateral change in the SLFL Rules by the SLFL on whether that is even required or not. Why phrase things that way rather than stating that the Candidate Club must have entry level licensing to be able to enter tier 5, if it wasn't to make an LL2 at the community board level potentially doable?

They even have a phrasing that "the relevant club in the SLFL will retain its place " where they could have easily just stated the bottom placed club in the LL if they hadn't wanted to give the SLFL flexibility on that point as well. That arguably means the LL potentially still has scope to make a second agreement of this type with another league/association just as long as it's a different "relevant club" that is involved.

They have a scope to do whatever. Rules can change it's not rocket science. Obviously if weat region got in at tier6 their would be a rule change

[FairWeatherFan]

14 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Your point appears to be that the LL acknowledge that a new agreement would have to be made. That's nothing more than what you want to be the case. The actual rules as written point in another direction on intent in that regard.

The rules I highlighted show that the playoff format was deliberately future proofed when it was drafted in a way that gives the LL and its board, as opposed to the SFA, EoS and SoS, all kinds of flexibility if the initial envisaged set of circumstances are changed in some way or an unusual set of circumstances arise.

There is nothing specific about it applying to pro/rel to and from tier 5 since the wording only refers to pro/rel from the EoS/SoS into the LL, so things are nothing like as clear cut as you were claiming above in that regard.

There is nothing specific about licensing being an LL requirement given the "in circumstances where it is required to do so as the Candidate Club in terms of the SLFL Rules " phrasing. That leaves scope for a future unilateral change in the SLFL Rules by the SLFL on whether that is even required or not. Why phrase things that way rather than stating that the Candidate Club must have entry level licensing to be able to enter tier 5, if it wasn't to make an LL2 at the community board level potentially doable?

They even have a phrasing that "the relevant club in the SLFL will retain its place " where they could have easily just stated the bottom placed club in the LL if they hadn't wanted to give the SLFL flexibility on that point as well. That arguably means the LL potentially still has scope to make a second agreement of this type with another league/association just as long as it's a different "relevant club" that is involved.

A lof of the flexibility comes from not have a full complement of 16 clubs at the time the Lowland pyramid playoff rules were written, as well as to allow for situations like Bonnyrigg, LTHV where they wouldn't have been officially licensed until after a required playoff. 

End of the day the won't be doing anything without the approval of the EoS & SoS as they have to keep working together and have established good relationships they wouldn't want to break.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

You are actually making yourself less believable pricey.

I liked it better when he just lurked.

[Burnie_man]

2 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

End of the day the won't be doing anything without the approval of the EoS & SoS as they have to keep working together and have established good relationships they wouldn't want to break.

As I said a few days ago. the EoS will be backing the LL proposal of a new WoSFL at next weeks PWG, as will the SoS.   So unless the SFA try somehow to put a blocker on it to protect the SJFA, it will be up and running for next season with applications invited.   We already know that the SJFA will table "option Z" which will be rejected by the other three leagues.

So if the SFA are wanting to see tangible progress, rather than more delays, they allow the LL to go ahead and form the WoSFL and the three pyramid leagues will amend the tier 5/6 play-off regulations accordingly to include the new league..

Personally, with the three senior leagues backing it. I can't see the SFA putting blockers in as I doubt they want to be seen as stopping progress and it doesn't really affect them, unlike the blocker they put on SFA licencing. I guess we'll see next week, it'll either be major progress or more of nothing just like the previous 2 years. 

[Marshmallo]

5 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

As I said a few days ago. the EoS will be backing the LL proposal of a new WoSFL at next weeks PWG, as will the SoS.   So unless the SFA try somehow to put a blocker on it to protect the SJFA, it will be up and running for next season with applications invited.  

Yes!

[Black & Red Socks]

As I said a few days ago. the EoS will be backing the LL proposal of a new WoSFL at next weeks PWG, as will the SoS.   So unless the SFA try somehow to put a blocker on it to protect the SJFA, it will be up and running for next season with applications invited.   We already know that the SJFA will table "option Z" which will be rejected by the other three leagues.
So if the SFA are wanting to see tangible progress, rather than more delays, they allow the LL to go ahead and form the WoSFL and the three pyramid leagues will amend the tier 5/6 play-off regulations accordingly to include the new league..
Personally, with the three senior leagues backing it. I can't see the SFA putting blockers in as I doubt they want to be seen as stopping progress and it doesn't really affect them, unlike the blocker they put on SFA licencing. I guess we'll see next week, it'll either be major progress or more of nothing just like the previous 2 years. 

Wait. Just wait a minute. Have any of these organisations thought to engage Lurker so that they can fully understand the nuances, inferences and subtleties of their own rules?

[FairWeatherFan]

14 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

As I said a few days ago. the EoS will be backing the LL proposal of a new WoSFL at next weeks PWG, as will the SoS.   So unless the SFA try somehow to put a blocker on it to protect the SJFA, it will be up and running for next season with applications invited.   We already know that the SJFA will table "option Z" which will be rejected by the other three leagues.

So if the SFA are wanting to see tangible progress, rather than more delays, they allow the LL to go ahead and form the WoSFL and the three pyramid leagues will amend the tier 5/6 play-off regulations accordingly to include the new league..

Personally, with the three senior leagues backing it. I can't see the SFA putting blockers in as I doubt they want to be seen as stopping progress and it doesn't really affect them, unlike the blocker they put on SFA licencing. I guess we'll see next week, it'll either be major progress or more of nothing just like the previous 2 years. 

If all 3 are good with it I don't the SFA blocking it either. So as not to completely dismiss the SFA & SJFA in this I would play it diplomatically as possible.

Ask for the WOSFL in 2019-20 to be capped at a maximum of 16. Keeps the SFA happy over numbers to do the rules since that's been their complaint.

Doesn't gut the West Region so the sjfa can continue and not be forced into the pyramid.

Hopefully when the news hits the West Region chooses to breakaway to get into the pyramid intact.

[LongTimeLurker]

The flexibility of the playoff format rules means the SFA are likely to be facing a fait accompli on this if Burnie_man's information is accurate. Going into Rab McGlinchey mode that means they cannae stop it.

[BTID]

3 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

As I said a few days ago. the EoS will be backing the LL proposal of a new WoSFL at next weeks PWG, as will the SoS.   So unless the SFA try somehow to put a blocker on it to protect the SJFA, it will be up and running for next season with applications invited.   We already know that the SJFA will table "option Z" which will be rejected by the other three leagues.

So if the SFA are wanting to see tangible progress, rather than more delays, they allow the LL to go ahead and form the WoSFL and the three pyramid leagues will amend the tier 5/6 play-off regulations accordingly to include the new league..

Personally, with the three senior leagues backing it. I can't see the SFA putting blockers in as I doubt they want to be seen as stopping progress and it doesn't really affect them, unlike the blocker they put on SFA licencing. I guess we'll see next week, it'll either be major progress or more of nothing just like the previous 2 years. 

Fantastic news really hope this comes through. Time to ditch the dinosaurs and folk holding the development of non league football back.

[Guest]

Your point appears to be that the LL acknowledge that a new agreement would have to be made. That's nothing more than what you want to be the case. The actual rules as written point in another direction on intent in that regard.
The rules I highlighted show that the playoff format was deliberately future proofed when it was drafted in a way that gives the LL and its board, as opposed to the SFA, EoS and SoS, all kinds of flexibility if the initial envisaged set of circumstances are changed in some way or an unusual set of circumstances arise.
There is nothing specific about it applying to pro/rel to and from tier 5 since the wording only refers to pro/rel from the EoS/SoS into the LL, so things are nothing like as clear cut as you were claiming above in that regard.
There is nothing specific about licensing being an LL requirement given the "in circumstances where it is required to do so as the Candidate Club in terms of the SLFL Rules " phrasing. That leaves scope for a future unilateral change in the SLFL Rules by the SLFL on whether that is even required or not. Why phrase things that way rather than stating that the Candidate Club must have entry level licensing to be able to enter tier 5, if it wasn't to make an LL2 at the community board level potentially doable?
They even have a phrasing that "the relevant club in the SLFL will retain its place " where they could have easily just stated the bottom placed club in the LL if they hadn't wanted to give the SLFL flexibility on that point as well. That arguably means the LL potentially still has scope to make a second agreement of this type with another league/association just as long as it's a different "relevant club" that is involved.

Good god. Do you scour any form of media to find any small piece if detail you can try to manipulate to sound like things can change for the sjfa's good.

Do you have any other tact to take, any other misinformation or insight to spread or are you going to continue to clutch at straws?

[LongTimeLurker]

^^^how on earth can anyone reading that think I'm arguing something for the "sjfa's good" when I am pointing out that the LL have the ability to add a west division at tier 6 without needing the SFA, EoS and SoS to sign off on any changes? Know from first hand experience that one of the main problems on getting anything concrete done at a league or association meeting is that many of the people who will represent clubs at meetings like that will lack the IQ level needed to understand most of what is going on.

Edited January 24, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[Guest]

No you are pontificating, consistently, about nonsense John and its becoming pretty tiresome and tedious. Go and get a hobby and stop posting about things you know little about and have had no involvement in, at any time.

 

We can all interpret things however we like but somethings are just simply not achievable in reality no matter how you attempt to spin it. [emoji854]

 

And what does iq level have to do with anything related to this. You really love throwing nonsense around don't you?

 

 

[FairWeatherFan]

23 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

^^^how on earth can anyone reading that think I'm arguing something for the "sjfa's good" when I am pointing out that the LL have the ability to add a west division at tier 6 without needing the SFA, EoS and SoS to sign off on any changes? Know from first hand experience that one of the main problems on getting anything concrete done at a league or association meeting is that many of the people who will represent clubs at meetings like that will lack the IQ level needed to understand most of what is going on.

They can't quite do it unilaterally though. Look at how the Lowland League tried to change their relegation rules after Selkirk's demise, only for the SFA to kibosh it.

The Lowland League within the existing framework could get away with adding a division(s). It would need the support of the likes of the EoS and SoS though as they would challenge it with the SFA if they felt they were aggrieved.

[LongTimeLurker]

The issue with the Selkirk situation was that LL clubs wanted to ignore how their own constitution was worded, because they didn't like its implications. The playoff format rule has been worded in a way that gives them a level of flexibility that they didn't have on that.

[Guest]

The issue with the Selkirk situation was that LL clubs wanted to ignore how their own constitution was worded, because they didn't like its implications. The playoff format rule has been worded in a way that gives them a level of flexibility that they didn't have on that.

Place the scatter gun back in its cabinet. Its the eos, no its the LL, no its the sfa no wait its the eos again, or is it the LL...... [emoji1787]

It's duck season, no its rabbit season, springs to mind......

[Burnie_man]

12 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

They can't quite do it unilaterally though. Look at how the Lowland League tried to change their relegation rules after Selkirk's demise, only for the SFA to kibosh it.

The Lowland League within the existing framework could get away with adding a division(s). It would need the support of the likes of the EoS and SoS though as they would challenge it with the SFA if they felt they were aggrieved.

I think they tried to change the rules mid-season. The SFA said only in close season.

The LL has support from EoS and SoS to form a WoS, the LL runs it for 2 seasons and then hands it over to WoS club officials  (or maybe sooner, who knows). EoS could assist with rules and regs as they can simply mirror them, they have offered before.

[honestman54]

4 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

As I said a few days ago. the EoS will be backing the LL proposal of a new WoSFL at next weeks PWG, as will the SoS.   So unless the SFA try somehow to put a blocker on it to protect the SJFA, it will be up and running for next season with applications invited.   We already know that the SJFA will table "option Z" which will be rejected by the other three leagues.

So if the SFA are wanting to see tangible progress, rather than more delays, they allow the LL to go ahead and form the WoSFL and the three pyramid leagues will amend the tier 5/6 play-off regulations accordingly to include the new league..

Personally, with the three senior leagues backing it. I can't see the SFA putting blockers in as I doubt they want to be seen as stopping progress and it doesn't really affect them, unlike the blocker they put on SFA licencing. I guess we'll see next week, it'll either be major progress or more of nothing just like the previous 2 years. 

If this goes through and applications are invited, what happens if they get more than 16 applicants?  Will they consider a 2nd tier at Tier 7, or am I going to far now?

[Guest]

If there is enough interest they would make a call on what would be best, either two leagues, maybe conferences like the east. Who knows, until they have club numbers we won't know, I'd suspect though they would have demand for a straight league format, which is a reasonable request to be fair.