Jump to content
Burnie_man

Junior football, what is the future?

Recommended Posts

^^^The LL are already exploring the possibility of having an LL2 at the suggestion of Civil Service Strollers so they clearly don't see it as being about tier 5 rather than being about promotion into whatever is the lowest LL tier. If you read the text of the rules, it's even not clear that this playoff agreement would automatically preclude a separate agreement being made with the SJFA, if the LL were so inclined and agreed internally to open up a second relegation place, which means Gaz did have a point that the opposition of both the EoS and the LL was important last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

^^^The LL are already exploring the possibility of having an LL2 at the suggestion of Civil Service Strollers so they clearly don't see it as being about tier 5 rather than being about promotion into whatever is the lowest LL tier. If you read the text of the rules, it's even not clear that this playoff agreement would automatically preclude a separate agreement being made with the SJFA, if the LL were so inclined and agreed internally to open up a second relegation place, which means Gaz did have a point that the opposition of both the EoS and the LL was important last season.

The LL2 being explored ( which seems to have died a death btw) doesn't mean the LL don't recognize the agreement and acknowledge that a new agreement would need put in place should they change structure.

Edited by parsforlife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try actually reading the rules. They have clearly been deliberately been drafted to provide the LL with lots of future flexibility. These sections for example:

i) A club which is found to have infringed these Pyramid Play-Off Rules, may be ordered to replay the Pyramid Play-Off Match in question, ata time and venue and subject to whatever conditions (including as to allocation and/or indemnification of financial benefits and liabilities) as deemed appropriate by SLFL board in its absolute discretion;

c) notwithstanding the terms above, the SLFLhas the power to investigate any matter pursuant to the operation of the Pyramid Play-Off Competitiond) No appeals shall be permissible from a SLFLdecision inrelation to an infringement of these Pyramid Play-Off Rules.

d) No appeals shall be permissible from a SLFLdecision inrelation to an infringement of these Pyramid Play-Off Rules.

and this:

e) In the event that neither the Champion Club of the EoSFLnor of the SoSFLcomplies with the Membership Criteria(By 31stMarch each year)in circumstances where it is required to do so as the Candidate Club in terms of the SLFLRules, and the SLFLBoard has not granted any waiver, relaxationor period of grace in respect of both Clubs' requirement to comply with the relevant part of the Membership Criteria, there will be no lower Pyramid Play-Off Competition at the end of the relevant Season and the relevant clubin the SLFLwill retain its place in the SLFLin the immediately succeeding Season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Try actually reading the rules. They have clearly been deliberately been drafted to provide the LL with lots of future flexibility. These sections for example:

i) A club which is found to have infringed these Pyramid Play-Off Rules, may be ordered to replay the Pyramid Play-Off Match in question, ata time and venue and subject to whatever conditions (including as to allocation and/or indemnification of financial benefits and liabilities) as deemed appropriate by SLFL board in its absolute discretion;

c) notwithstanding the terms above, the SLFLhas the power to investigate any matter pursuant to the operation of the Pyramid Play-Off Competitiond) No appeals shall be permissible from a SLFLdecision inrelation to an infringement of these Pyramid Play-Off Rules.

d) No appeals shall be permissible from a SLFLdecision inrelation to an infringement of these Pyramid Play-Off Rules.

and this:

e) In the event that neither the Champion Club of the EoSFLnor of the SoSFLcomplies with the Membership Criteria(By 31stMarch each year)in circumstances where it is required to do so as the Candidate Club in terms of the SLFLRules, and the SLFLBoard has not granted any waiver, relaxationor period of grace in respect of both Clubs' requirement to comply with the relevant part of the Membership Criteria, there will be no lower Pyramid Play-Off Competition at the end of the relevant Season and the relevant clubin the SLFLwill retain its place in the SLFLin the immediately succeeding Season.

You are actually making yourself less believable pricey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pricey senior lol
Tomato / Tomato. Both as bad as each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by LongTimeLurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 👏🏻

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^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 by LongTimeLurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

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

 

 

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...

×
×
  • Create New...