Club Licence

[Gimme]

Has any club received feedback on where they are with the licensing?

All clubs should have received feedback after their inspections, those who were due to be considered last week should have had everything in place or an application for derogation submitted.

[Robert James]

On 17/02/2019 at 13:57, Gimme said:

On 17/02/2019 at 07:57, lowenan said:

Has any club received feedback on where they are with the licensing?

All clubs should have received feedback after their inspections, those who were due to be considered last week should have had everything in place or an application for derogation submitted.

As favourites for promotion to the Lowland, surely your club must have received some feedback by now. And they must have been notified as to when their application will be approved, or rejected ?  Timing is important as there is also an appeal fight, in the (unlikely ?) event that your application is rejected. There is also the question of "derogation" (timescale) regarding floodlights, now incorporated into the 2019 licensing rules, for clubs whose application was received by the SFA before 1st January 2019. 

Very best wishes for [promotion.

On 17/02/2019 at 13:57, Gimme said:

On 17/02/2019 at 07:57, lowenan said:

Has any club received feedback on where they are with the licensing?

All clubs should have received feedback after their inspections, those who were due to be considered last week should have had everything in place or an application for derogation submitted.

 

[Gimme]

 

You should find all you need to know here -

http://www.bonnyriggrosefc.co.uk/teams/118321/news/launch-of-floodlight-fundraisers-2399807.html

[Robert James]

4 minutes ago, Robert James said:

As favourites for promotion to the Lowland, surely your club must have received some feedback by now. And they must have been notified as to when their application will be approved, or rejected ?  Timing is important as there is also an appeal fight, in the (unlikely ?) event that your application is rejected. There is also the question of "derogation" (timescale) regarding floodlights, now incorporated into the 2019 licensing rules, for clubs whose application was received by the SFA before 1st January 2019. 

Very best wishes for [promotion.

 

Yes but when is the LC meeting to decide the licensing applications ?  Surely applicants must have been told when the outcome will be announced ?

[Robert James]

3 minutes ago, Gimme said:

You should find all you need to know here -

http://www.bonnyriggrosefc.co.uk/teams/118321/news/launch-of-floodlight-fundraisers-2399807.html

Excellent information, thank you.

On the assumption that your application was received before 1st January 2019, in my opinion you should qualify for a floodlights derogation automatically. However the question for all  applicants in a similar position is : would this derogation be for 12 months, or longer (as it should be for floodlights).  

[Burnie_man]

Yes but when is the LC meeting to decide the licensing applications ?  Surely applicants must have been told when the outcome will be announced ?

Robert, the LC met as scheduled on 12th Feb, all those who ticked every box now need the SFA Board to approve full membership before they issue a licence, all those who ticked all boxes except floodlights and applied for derogation were also referred to SFA Board for a decision on derogation plus full membership.

I'm not aware that the SFA Board have set a new date for the cancelled meeting, but time is becoming a major issue for those in the running for promotion.

[Robert James]

4 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

Robert, the LC met as scheduled on 12th Feb, all those who ticked every box now need the SFA Board to approve full membership before they issue a licence, all those who ticked all boxes except floodlights and applied for derogation were also referred to SFA Board for a decision on derogation plus full membership.

I'm not aware that the SFA Board have set a new date for the cancelled meeting, but time is becoming a major issue for those in the running for promotion.

Thanks. Helpful info as always.

Hence I am concerned about the timescale for the SFA Board meeting.  As I understand it, most (all ?) of the current licence applications were submitted BEFORE the rule change on floodlights, so derogation (on lights) in these circumstances should be automatic.  Twelve months has to be the minimum derogation period IMO.  

[Robert James]

On 23/02/2019 at 13:28, Burnie_man said:

Robert, the LC met as scheduled on 12th Feb, all those who ticked every box now need the SFA Board to approve full membership before they issue a licence, all those who ticked all boxes except floodlights and applied for derogation were also referred to SFA Board for a decision on derogation plus full membership.

I'm not aware that the SFA Board have set a new date for the cancelled meeting, but time is becoming a major issue for those in the running for promotion.

It is understood that the SFA Board will be reconvened before 31st March, which if correct, should consider and determine the recommendations from the Licensing Committee, from its meeting on 12th February. According the the above post, the SFA Board also has the power to determine  derogation and membership.

However, I remain confused (baffled) as to which body has the requisite authority to determine what happens about the East Juniors joining the Pyramid. In particular, what are the relevant powers of the Professional & Non Professional Game Boards, the Pyramid Working Group, and the PWG 'sub group.'  Also, do any of these bodies have the power/authority to over-ride any objections from either or both, of the Lowland League's and the East of Scotland League's Management 'boards/committees' ? 

Finally, can the SFA Chief Executive instruct these bodies, if he doesn't agree with their decisions ? 

Edited February 25, 2019 by Robert James
post sent in error before completed

[Robert James]

On 11/02/2018 at 09:14, HTG said:

There really shouldn't be a difference in requirement at tier 5. If one part insists on it then so should the other.  And that should have been the case from day 1.

Because the 2019 SFA Licensing rules  require floodlights, the Lowland & Highland Leagues now  have the same licensing requirements for any NEW clubs, entering tier 5 in the future , 

However, there are 2 issues arising from this which the SFA/Board must decide in March :

(1) will a lighting 'derogation' be applied to those clubs who applied for a licence (without floodlights)  prior to 1st January 2019 (eg  Bonnyrigg, etc), and (assuming that this is the case ?)  , what timescale will they be given to install floodlights, as this will determine their impending  SLL promotion entitlement, and Scottish Cup participation for 2019/20  (and beyond)?

(2) will the same floodlighting  'derogation' timescale be applied to existing SFA  licensed clubs (eg Civil Service Strollers, Whitehill Welfare, Burntisland Shipyard, etc)., as they dpn't currently have lights ?

It is worth noting by reference to an earlier post above, that the SFA  'diagram' for the licensing process  illustrates a 7 week process. As 1st January 2019 is now  more than seven weeks ago, we can assume that the dozen or so applicants have received feedback about their application, and await a decision about (any) 'derogation' from the SFA Board.  I assume that this decision, is outside the jurisdiction of the Licensing Committee. 

Any news on the date of the SFA Board Meeting, or about any further delays ?

[TFW]

Will those clubs in the West, who may be thinking of moving into the new set up also be allowed a year's grace / derogation then or are the SFA now saying they don't want them?

[Gimme]

Will those clubs in the West, who may be thinking of moving into the new set up also be allowed a year's grace / derogation then or are the SFA now saying they don't want them?

I don't see why they would be given anything, similarly any club in the East who now applies needs to adhere to the latest set of requirements which require floodlights.

 

The issue with the existing applicants is that the goalposts were moved whilst clubs were already in the process.

 

[GNU_Linux]

Will those clubs in the West, who may be thinking of moving into the new set up also be allowed a year's grace / derogation then or are the SFA now saying they don't want them?

My understanding is this derogation grace period is a one off thing. The length of the derogation period is as of yet unknown

[Burnie_man]

I think derogation was only ever envisaged to be used for current SFA member clubs, eg. to allow Whitehill Welfare a period of grace to comply with new requirements, be that covered disabled places, floodlights, or whatever.

I get the impression it was never intended to be used for new applicants (because all new applicants should already be compliant in all areas), hence why the Licence Committee have passed the buck over to the SFA board to make that decision as those new applicants began the process before the requirements changed.

Any new applicants who start the process in 2019 onwards will need floodlights in place before their application will go in front of the Licence committee.

 

[FairWeatherFan]

57 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

I think derogation was only ever envisaged to be used for current SFA member clubs, eg. to allow Whitehill Welfare a period of grace to comply with new requirements, be that covered disabled places, floodlights, or whatever.

I get the impression it was never intended to be used for new applicants (because all new applicants should already be compliant in all areas), hence why the Licence Committee have passed the buck over to the SFA board to make that decision as those new applicants began the process before the requirements changed.

Any new applicants who start the process in 2019 onwards will need floodlights in place before their application will go in front of the Licence committee.

 

As far as I can tell from seeing 2017-2019 derogation has always been part of the application process. I don't think it's ever been envisaged for something on the scale as floodlights though.

I think derogation was only really meant for minor changes that new applicants could sort in a short timeframe..

[Burnie_man]

5 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

As far as I can tell from seeing 2017-2019 derogation has always been part of the application process. I don't think it's ever been envisaged for something on the scale as floodlights though.

I think derogation was only really meant for minor changes that new applicants could sort in a short timeframe..

As I said, I don't think derogation was ever intended for new applicants, you're supposed to tick all the boxes before the LC even look at you hence the bit of a shambles we're currently in with the LC and SFA Board playing pass-the-parcel over who makes the decision on derogation in these circumstances, because it's never been done before.  Ordinarily it would be "tough", come back once you have everything in place.

I get the impression that derogation has never before been requested at all by anyone.

[parsforlife]

As I said, I don't think derogation was ever intended for new applicants, you're supposed to tick all the boxes before the LC even look at you hence the bit of a shambles we're currently in with the LC and SFA Board playing pass-the-parcel over who makes the decision on derogation in these circumstances, because it's never been done before.  Ordinarily it would be "tough", come back once you have everything in place.
I get the impression that derogation has never before been requested at all by anyone.

Linlithgow had one on pyramid commitment.

[Burnie_man]

Linlithgow had one on pyramid commitment.

That wasn't really derogation as such, Banks O'Dee still dont comply in that case and it's been 5 or more years.

[parsforlife]

22 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

40 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Linlithgow had one on pyramid commitment.

That wasn't really derogation as such, Banks O'Dee still dont comply in that case and it's been 5 or more years.

It was, just one without a specific time limit.

Tho its worth remembering licences are renawed annually and any derogation give can be removed. I would expect linlithgow to have been under more pressure to comply had they chosen to stay last summer. 

 

[TFW]

On this basis then it's probably safe to assume there'll be no Junior Cup or Super League winners in the Scottish Cup next season without floodlights?

 

On a different perspective, the SFA now seem to be going down the same route as the FA down south where strict ground criteria, regardless of any club potentially bankrupting themselves for absolute minimum return, will oversee everything else. So many excellent clubs with long proud histories,  like the original King's Lynn FC,  put themselves out of business because of constant ground upgrading requirements they just couldn't realistically finance.

[GNU_Linux]

On this basis then it's probably safe to assume there'll be no Junior Cup or Super League winners in the Scottish Cup next season without floodlights?
 
On a different perspective, the SFA now seem to be going down the same route as the FA down south where strict ground criteria, regardless of any club potentially bankrupting themselves for absolute minimum return, will oversee everything else. So many excellent clubs with long proud histories,  like the original King's Lynn FC,  put themselves out of business because of constant ground upgrading requirements they just couldn't realistically finance.

the pathway for league/cup winners will continue. non-members of the the EOS & SOS can qualify for the scottish cup by either winning the league or non-members cup (winner of Alex Jack Cup vs winner of Alba Cup)