Jump to content

Junior football, what is the future?


Burnie_man

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Marten said:

If I remember correctly, the first figure that was stated was the EoS would only allow 3 applicants. That in order to get a 16 team division with the 12 existing members (less promoted Kelty) & relegated Hawick.

That figure was only 23 off reality...

What's 23 between friends.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given all the politics, I can't see anyone get turned down presuming meet the basic criteria. However i don't know the size but I wouldn't have thought the LL/EOS have a very large workforce and rely heavily on partime/volunteers. It's going to be a lot to ask them to help run a WOS as well as their current leagues especially if numbers are high. There will be a lot of people ready to jump on any teething problems which you would think have a greater chance happening the larger the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, morley said:

Given all the politics, I can't see anyone get turned down presuming meet the basic criteria. However i don't know the size but I wouldn't have thought the LL/EOS have a very large workforce and rely heavily on partime/volunteers. It's going to be a lot to ask them to help run a WOS as well as their current leagues especially if numbers are high. There will be a lot of people ready to jump on any teething problems which you would think have a greater chance happening the larger the league. 

I'm fairly sure the LL/EoS guys will be looking towards WoS member clubs to help run the league before leaving them to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The trouble the WoS has is (probably) 90% of the teams will come from a league system that's already in place. I know some will say any amateur applicants should be treated on a par with juniors but that's a big gulf. I don't know if amateur teams coming would be particularly keen on getting their arses handed to them from the big junior sides if it went to conferences. A bit of common sense, from my PoV, would be for any new leagues to just take the league positions of junior sides as the starting point. Any licensed sides applying would go into a premier league with the highest placed junior sides making up the other 15/14 clubs. Then follow the placings in the juniors with the amateurs at the bottom.

Mind you if there's between 30 and 40 applicants I'll be lobbying for a single division with everyone playing each other once. Didn't Argentina try that in their league not long ago? Great laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, morley said:

Given all the politics, I can't see anyone get turned down presuming meet the basic criteria. However i don't know the size but I wouldn't have thought the LL/EOS have a very large workforce and rely heavily on partime/volunteers. It's going to be a lot to ask them to help run a WOS as well as their current leagues especially if numbers are high. There will be a lot of people ready to jump on any teething problems which you would think have a greater chance happening the larger the league. 


LL/EOS already have a very successful template for running / kick-starting the WoSFL. I would not anticipate any teething problems. The one issue that i would highlight is the desirability of finding a major sponsor for the WoSFL with the aim of "pump-priming" the competition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

The trouble the WoS has is (probably) 90% of the teams will come from a league system that's already in place. I know some will say any amateur applicants should be treated on a par with juniors but that's a big gulf. I don't know if amateur teams coming would be particularly keen on getting their arses handed to them from the big junior sides if it went to conferences. A bit of common sense, from my PoV, would be for any new leagues to just take the league positions of junior sides as the starting point. Any licensed sides applying would go into a premier league with the highest placed junior sides making up the other 15/14 clubs. Then follow the placings in the juniors with the amateurs at the bottom.

Mind you if there's between 30 and 40 applicants I'll be lobbying for a single division with everyone playing each other once. Didn't Argentina try that in their league not long ago? Great laugh.

If we went with that logic in the EOSFL Crossgates, Tranent, Blackburn possibly wouldn't be where they are as they weren't super league sides in the Juniors. A reboot sometimes is the answer as it was for these clubs and Mine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See your Joonyurs patter it wasn't funny the first time and it doesn't get any funnier the more you say it [emoji17]

Don;t let the Joonyurs muddy the waters. It will be conferences if theirs more same as it was in the EOSFL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

If we went with that logic in the EOSFL Crossgates, Tranent, Blackburn possibly wouldn't be where they are as they weren't super league sides in the Juniors. A reboot sometimes is the answer as it was for these clubs and Mine

It wasn't possible in the EOSFL due to 13 existing sides already being there.

The only fair way to fit "others" into a WOSFL is to let them request at which tier to join. It sounds odd, but I doubt they'd all request tier 6 anyway. Amateurs coming over wouldn't fancy a season of humpings if they can just slot in lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

If we went with that logic in the EOSFL Crossgates, Tranent, Blackburn possibly wouldn't be where they are as they weren't super league sides in the Juniors. A reboot sometimes is the answer as it was for these clubs and Mine

Was a bit different in the EoSFL as the juniors were joining a league that was already set up and it included a club being relegated from the tier above, a west junior team and amateurs. Even if the conference system they were seeded with the juniors/senior non-league being equal for the formation of the conferences.

A reboot might be beneficial for middle tier junior teams but also seems a bit unfair on clubs that have done well this season. That wasn't the case with the EoS conferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Marten said:

The only fair way to fit "others" into a WOSFL is to let them request at which tier to join. It sounds odd, but I doubt they'd all request tier 6 anyway. Amateurs coming over wouldn't fancy a season of humpings if they can just slot in lower.

This would work quite well most likely. If, say, Port Juniors request tier 6 there's a good reason to say "Don't be daft. Tier 7 for you" as there will be clubs who finished higher the season before ahead of them and, as you say, I doubt anyone coming from the ams would request it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Marten said:

If I remember correctly, the first figure that was stated was the EoS would only allow 3 applicants. That in order to get a 16 team division with the 12 existing members (less promoted Kelty) & relegated Hawick.

That figure was only 23 off reality...

It was actually 5 with the idea that would be workable as a single division. That's what people interpreted to be a cap as few had the imagination of the conference set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

Anyone feel their is going to be a major NWO Style heel turn here with like a Tayport or Whitburn going to join EOSFL?

Can't see Tayport moving as they still appear to think their ground is in the middle of Dundee. 

And I would have thought Whitburn would be head of the haters of the "traitors". I still think the West Lothian clubs may go to the West Region juniors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every Junior club that came over to the EoS last season (plus Inverkeithing) was given the chance to play at tier 6, and to claim a place in this seasons tier 6 Premier League.

I would expect the same to happen with the WoS if there are more applicants than a single division can accommodate.  I guess it would be upto member clubs to decide ultimately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy. If numbers dictate more than one league and new members don't want to have conferences then any clubs moving from within the current structure move to the same tier they currently sit in (e.g. SoSFL in at tier 6, a tier 7 EoSFL club in at tier 7). The remaining places are filled by West Region Juniors according to finishing position this season. All the others go in at the bottom.

Edit: Any current East Region Juniors go in at the same position as the equivalent positioned club in the West.

Edited by Gordon EF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

Was a bit different in the EoSFL as the juniors were joining a league that was already set up and it included a club being relegated from the tier above, a west junior team and amateurs. Even if the conference system they were seeded with the juniors/senior non-league being equal for the formation of the conferences.

A reboot might be beneficial for middle tier junior teams but also seems a bit unfair on clubs that have done well this season. That wasn't the case with the EoS conferences.

i dont see how its unfair they would be playing in the top league as they were just be conferences that are seeded their is no difference. what about Inverkeithing they came in at the same level and could potentially next season be in the premier while arniston rangers a once great junior club languishing in tier 7 and would have been tier 8 had they went to divisional structure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a Guess who maybe involved in WOSFL next season (no means neccesarilly to be correct)

1. Bonnyton Thistle

2. Glasgow UNI

3. Kilwinning Rangers

4. Auchinleck Talbot

5. Pollok

6. Irvine Meadow

7. Clydebank

8. Glenafton

9. Rossvale

10. Beith Juniors

11. Hurlford

12. Cumnock

13. Troon

14. Kilbirnie

15. Benburb

16. Rob Roy

17. Glencairn

18. Largs Thistle

19. Darvel Juniors

20. Renfrew

21. Arthurlie

22. Whitletts Vics

23. Gartcairn

24. Petershill

25. St Rochs

26. Maryhill

27. Girvan

28. Yoker

That would be 2 leagues of 14 and their could be more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

i dont see how its unfair they would be playing in the top league as they were just be conferences that are seeded their is no difference. what about Inverkeithing they came in at the same level and could potentially next season be in the premier while arniston rangers a once great junior club languishing in tier 7 and would have been tier 8 had they went to divisional structure

It could be construed as unfair because, generally, the clubs higher up in the division can attract better players and sponsors and will receive more away fans. Going into a conference with weaker opposition, diluted quality and less away fans could have negative financial consequences.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Junior clubs joined another division in the EoS. Junior clubs are practically creating the division in this instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

It was actually 5 with the idea that would be workable as a single division. That's what people interpreted to be a cap as few had the imagination of the conference set up.

Yes, you're right. I now remember 18 was the number that was talked about as a maximum, not 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

It could be construed as unfair because, generally, the clubs higher up in the division can attract better players and sponsors and will receive more away fans. Going into a conference with weaker opposition, diluted quality and less away fans could have negative financial consequences.

You're comparing apples and oranges. Junior clubs joined another division in the EoS. Junior clubs are practically creating the division in this instance.

Did it have a negative affect for Bonnyrigg, Bo'ness, Camelon it didn't.

Going by your logic we should have all went in at tier 7 and Inverkeithing should have been no where near Arniston Rangers. We will agree to disagree and seeing as we know conferences will happen

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...