Jump to content
Burnie_man

Junior football, what is the future?

Recommended Posts

Guest
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.

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)

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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...