Junior football, what is the future?

[Bestsinceslicebread]

3 hours ago, G4Mac said:

Can we be clear that joining the pyramid, as of right now, does not mean you have to become sfa licensed. That is only applicable if you play at tier 5 in the Lowland League. Every west and east junior side will come in at tier 6, sfa licence is only required to play in the LL.

Yes Understood this

Quote

 

Travel will be the same (particularly for the west) as the leagues will most likely port over as is. Travel would only become an issue at tier 5 or above and again, probably wouldnt be that much different for most clubs.

That's if all teams join as a whole and also if and when the SFA decide to start a fekcing West section. I don't understand why a WOS hasn't been started yet as I'm sure if the SFA started one then few will jump ship to join straight away. SFA, sometimes we all think are up to summit. Also if there's an eventual WOS will any from the EOS or SOS leave to join the West, even if its at a different tier or not to where they are ?

 

Clubs simply not wanting to join is another issue. I dont buy the 'make clubs choose one or the other' argument tbh. I'm a big suprter of the pyramid and want all non league clubs (junior clubs inclusive) playing in the same set up. That being said there will be clubs who simply don't want to move over, that is fine for me, stay junior and keep playing in the sjfa. This is an individual club decision.

100% Agree

 

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by Bestsinceslicebread

[Guest]

 

I don't disagree with your west region viewpoint. For me there were zero objections from the eosfl or LL to the west juniors moving over en masse for this season. The sjfa were not content with this and stated they wanted all regions to move en masse at tier 6 (in other words stopping the west clubs moving, along with the east where there is already a league in place and conveniently forgetting about North and above the tay clubs in their stance)

For me, the reason there isn't a West is down to the sjfa not wanting to have one. There were no other associations who objected, not one person attempted to block the west.

[LongTimeLurker]

The EoS and LL did still block the compromise proposal that Ian Maxwell could identify two additional clubs for the LL entry playoff, so it's arguably not quite as simple as that. That's water under the bridge though and all that really matters now is what happens next. Will be interesting to see what the SFA's posture is at the next PWG meeting. Last season they appeared to be siding with the SJFA's vision of four tier 6 feeders for the LL with one straddling the Tay boundary rather than the EoS's posture of only three feeders with Tayside clubs hooking up with the HL. The key is probably what happens with the Tay boundary and whether it is as rigidly carved in stone as the EoS/LL clubs think it is.

Edited August 28, 2019 by LongTimeLurker

[Black & Red Socks]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

The EoS and LL did still block the compromise proposal that Ian Maxwell could identify two additional clubs for the LL entry playoff, so it's arguably not quite as simple as that. That's water under the bridge though and all that really matters now is what happens next.

It really was as simple as G4Mac states. The compromise you mention was never seriously proposed and, if it had been, would have been viewed as the ludicrously ill-conceived, 'quick, cast around for another idea' suggestion that it was. The route to the Pyramid is as open to the west region today as it always has been, no one other than the hierarchy of the SJFA stands in the way.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Black & Red Socks

[LongTimeLurker]

The compromise mentioned would have provided clubs in the west like Clydebank that could get licensed reasonably quickly over the next few months with a way into the LL by next season.

Edited August 28, 2019 by LongTimeLurker

[Black & Red Socks]

2 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

The compromise mentioned would have provided clubs in the west like Clydebank that could get licensed reasonably quickly over the next few months with a way into the LL by next season.

See above. Namely the bit about a "ludicrously ill-conceived, 'quick, cast around for another idea' suggestion".

[LongTimeLurker]

From the point of view of the SFA providing a way in for west clubs that could be implemented before the various blazers sort out their petty politics was a desirable outcome. It's unfortunate that was blocked and that the LL also didn't add a second automatic relegation place to speed things along in terms of getting the clubs that should be in tier 5 into the LL as quickly as possible.

[FairWeatherFan]

3 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

From the point of view of the SFA providing a way in for west clubs that could be implemented before the various blazers sort out their petty politics was a desirable outcome. It's unfortunate that was blocked and that the LL also didn't add a second automatic relegation place to speed things along in terms of getting the clubs that should be in tier 5 into the LL as quickly as possible.

The SFA locked in the LL pyramid playoff for the 2019-20 season. LL creating a 2nd automatic relegation spot this year would have meant applications.

[Black & Red Socks]

3 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

From the point of view of the SFA providing a way in for west clubs that could be implemented before the various blazers sort out their petty politics was a desirable outcome. It's unfortunate that was blocked and that the LL also didn't add a second automatic relegation place to speed things along in terms of getting the clubs that should be in tier 5 into the LL as quickly as possible.

If I understand what went down at the end of last season and at the EoS General Meeting attended by Ian Maxwell and Rod Petrie correctly, the compromise you are talking about was merely Petrie casting about for support as he floundered under a barrage of criticism. It was never, at any stage, put to a vote so, accordingly, was never "blocked" by the LL.

I support entirely your point re relegation from the Lowland League.

[Burnie_man]

7 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

From the point of view of the SFA providing a way in for west clubs that could be implemented before the various blazers sort out their petty politics was a desirable outcome. It's unfortunate that was blocked and that the LL also didn't add a second automatic relegation place to speed things along in terms of getting the clubs that should be in tier 5 into the LL as quickly as possible.

This "Ian Maxwell pick and mix" idea was never proposed, Petrie suggested it at the infamous meeting - probably off the top of his head - and was effectively laughed out the room. End of suggestion.  Nobody "blocked" anything.

[Burnie_man]

1 minute ago, Black & Red Socks said:

If I understand what went down at the end of last season and at the EoS General Meeting attended by Ian Maxwell and Rod Petrie correctly, the compromise you are talking about was merely Petrie casting about for support as he floundered under a barrage of criticism. It was never, at any stage, put to a vote so, accordingly, was never "blocked" by the LL.

I support entirely your point re relegation from the Lowland League.

Well there you go.

[ShrimpLok]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

The key is probably what happens with the Tay boundary and whether it is as rigidly carved in stone as the EoS/LL clubs think it is.

I'm not sure anyone thinks the line is carved in stone.

I took the EOS's point to be that the line was not of their making and could only be altered by the SPFL and LL as it was their arrangement, probably also needing the agreement of the SFA and HL. 

Personally I'd definitely like to see some changes to the line  in terms of making it more based on local authority boundaries rather than a line of latitude (to avoid anomalies like Scone Thistle in the LL area while Luncarty are in the HL despite being only a few miles away). I'd also like to see some flexibility for clubs within a certain distance of the boundary line to choose which side they wish to move to (e.g allowing Tayport to remain with Dundee clubs). 

I'd happily acknowledge though that changes to the line like that are not in the power of the EOS. 

[Ginaro]

23 minutes ago, ShrimpLok said:

Personally I'd definitely like to see some changes to the line  in terms of making it more based on local authority boundaries rather than a line of latitude (to avoid anomalies like Scone Thistle in the LL area while Luncarty are in the HL despite being only a few miles away). I'd also like to see some flexibility for clubs within a certain distance of the boundary line to choose which side they wish to move to (e.g allowing Tayport to remain with Dundee clubs).

You can put Scone and Tayport in the HL area by just moving the boundary 2 miles south. It would mirror the current East Region North/South divide.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Ginaro

[LongTimeLurker]

The Tay boundary probably made sense when the pyramid was basically just a senior grade thing and there were no HL clubs south of Cove and Fort William and no EoS clubs north of Burntisland and Stirling Uni. The footprints of the three junior superleagues probably wasn't even taken into consideration at that point. There never seems to be much enthusiasm for dropping into the HL rather than the LL when Angus clubs are threatened with relegation from the SPFL and I doubt the HL are hugely keen on regular trips to Dundee, so the HL and SPFL are unlikely to be adamant about it having to be at the midpoint of the Tay Road Bridge.

A line drawn at Montrose in a similar manner to the junior superleagues would arguably be a better fit for what has traditionally happened in Scottish football, so it will be interesting to see whether the SFA officeholders try to push that over the next few months. Think the parting shot from them where the PWG was concerned was that there had been "confusion" over the Tay boundary, so that made it sound like the next issue they would try to resolve. If they don't address that it's very difficult to see how they can continue to side with the SJFA's posture rather than that of the EoS.

[Robert James]

On 27/08/2019 at 09:29, LongTimeLurker said:

They got in at the same time as Linlithgow Rose did, so the commitment to progression angle might not be applicable in their case, because it was added when their application was already at a very advanced stage.

Girvan and Golspie Sutherland became SFA members in the 60's, approximately 50 years before  Banks O'Dee became members. If BoD can retain their (protected) membership because their  application pre-dated the SFA's  "commitment to the pyramid" rule, then Girvan & Golspie Sutherland have a strong case to argue that their "protected" status should also continue as there was no "floodlights" rule  half a century ago. when they were elected as SFA members.

Yes,  a  different reason, but its the same principle about  maintaining protected status on the basis that a club's continuing SFA membership, pre-dates a rule change. Equality of treatment surely ?

 

 

 

[Robert James]

On 27/08/2019 at 08:33, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

If the north votes to stay junior then yeh they should be made to commit to one or the other.

agreed

[Robert James]

1 hour ago, FairWeatherFan said:

The SFA locked in the LL pyramid playoff for the 2019-20 season. LL creating a 2nd automatic relegation spot this year would have meant applications.

I isn't necessary to have a 2nd Lowland promotion/relegation spot at present, but will be advisable when the West Joins the pyramid.

[Bestsinceslicebread]

I'm going to be criticized here and expect as much for the following post.
Its a bit crude and thrown up but most will get the idea.

In the past in the East, The North and the West there has been problems with teams wanting to join wholly or indecently, what league to play in or allowed to play in and all these things have caused confusion.  Whose allowing teams in by vote and whose blocking teams in or blocking anything else like a new league.  The SFA should just tell the Highland League, Lowland league etc... what to do and they run it accordingly but teams joining are scrutinised by say an independent body within the SFA.  The types of voting I don't not like as clubs will vote to help themselves and not serve Scottish Football better in the long term.
The SFA should not be allowed to stop any team from becoming a member as long as each team fits into the criteria and requirements of their, (tier), entry.
I'm not too sure at the pyramid commitment, as  I said if a team is at a certain division and win promotion and are not fit for the next/higher divisions due to requirements then they do not move and someone lower takes their place.  I'm sure after a few years of missing out, said teams would put in place changes so that they are not restricted.


My viewpoint is that if the SFA want and believe Scottish Football will be better served with more teams joining the senior ranks and the possibility of the pyramid system at all levels then they should take the voting of this out from everyone and use their own power at the top. Have the balls to decide, under consultation, the best way forward and structure if the current structure is to remain, (current structure is fine with the addition of the WOS),  then build on it, no squabbling, no voting, just get it sorted.  Someone mentioned the problem with the Highland league only wanting 20 teams, well feck them, if there are another 20 highland teams want to join the senior ranks and fit into the current criteria then they should be allowed, The Highland league just have to make up more divisions, deal with it.  The problem of the boundary, with teams like Tayport etc... I like the idea that if there are boundary lines added then if a team is outwith that boundary of say 5 miles then they are allowed to choose what league to play in,.  There is always going to be teams close to any boundary and which means teams have a bit of travelling, its part and parcel so they have to deal with it.

In all divisors there's promotion, I like 2 promoted and 3rd play off with 3rd bottom of higher division but might be a bit too much so 1 promoted n a 2nd place play off with 2nd bottom of higher division.. Also if a team wins divisions and are not deemed fit to enter at the next level because they do not have the correct requirements in stadia etc... then it goes to the next placed team.

No matter what anyone thinks, the idea is that everything will happen and happen straight away with no voting process.  Clubs can vote for example how the divisions are worked out. Say 40 teams are in the Highland league and the Highland league decide on two divisions or three divisions, teams can vote on this idea.

I've just woke up from nightshift  and read a few posts and see all these comments about voting so I've threw this post up, apologies if I read it in 5 hours time after woken up and thing, 'what was I on'

 

So SFA grab your balls and get it sorted, too many weaklings out there and too many only interested in their own jobs to cause big change.

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Bestsinceslicebread

[gaz5]

The compromise mentioned would have provided clubs in the west like Clydebank that could get licensed reasonably quickly over the next few months with a way into the LL by next season.

So, just to be clear, the "compromise" put forward wasn't that IM could propose "2 additional clubs" to take part in the LL playoff.

 

The "compromise" the LL and EoS were presented was that they (willingly) update their playoff rules to defer ALL decisions on who could take part in the LL playoff to IM. They were asked to give up the EoS and SoS guaranteed places and put it in the hands of the SFA CE in the hope that he would still choose them every year, with no legal/rules based guarantee he would.

 

IM would have been able to choose any clubs he wanted, from anywhere, to take part in the playoff. He could have chosen, for example, to allow 4 teams from the West to compete and none from the East or South, had the suggestion (which seemed to just come out of RP's head at the time) not been rightly laughed out the room.

 

Anyone who seriously thinks that "let's scrap the playoff rules and let one guy pick whatever teams he fancies at the end of each season" is a solution at all, never mind a better solution than the West coming in now and the East deferring a year, is a crackpot.

 

As if Scottish football wasn't seen as tinpot enough around the world. [emoji85]

 

 

 

[12 Angry Men]

It’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that the Lowland League rejected a ‘compromise’ proposal that would have broken the logjam preventing WRSJFA sides accessing the Pyramid. This smacks of a deliberate attempt at revisionism. As has been pointed out by several posters, it reportedly and quickly became clear during and after the EoSFL General Meeting near the end of last season that Rod Petrie was making things up on the hoof and that the ‘compromise’ deal which is being spoken of here (handpicking entrants into a Lowland League play-off)  was no more than an ill-thought out scheme poorly expressed during a garbled morass of other ill-thought out nonsense that was being sold as innovation by our new SFA President. I fear Rod Petrie and Ian Maxwell have other rabbit holes they will end up dragging Scottish football down but thankfully even they saw the folly of this particular one before it ever became a genuine proposition for the Lowland League – or the EoSFL – to vote on.

Edited August 28, 2019 by 12 Angry Men