Club Licence

[Cyclizine]

2 minutes ago, TFW said:

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?

There'll still be unlicenced teams in the cup: Superleague winners, Junior and Amateur Cup winners, (unlicenced) East and South League winners and South/East Cup winners. The only thing that may change is what home ground they play at.

[Burnie_man]

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 entry level licence is hardly taxing, apart from the floodlight element which should really have been a requirement for top end Junior football decades ago.

 

[Burnie_man]

4 hours ago, parsforlife said:

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. 

 

Derogation relates to Licencing, I don't think playing in the Pyramid is a Licence requirement, only a requirement for SFA membership.

[parsforlife]

Derogation relates to Licencing, I don't think playing in the Pyramid is a Licence requirement, only a requirement for SFA membership.

 

I'm sure a Linlithgow fan can explain it fully, htg certainly mentioned it a lot in the past

[Robert James]

6 hours 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.

 

Surely not even the SFA could be so stupid as to "move the goalposts" for clubs that made applications under the pre-2019 Licensing Rules ! As I recall, the licensing process was suspended during 2018,  for reasons which were less than transparent (to me anyway). ( LTHV were the last club to be licensed).  A dozen or so clubs have submitted applications, which they presumably considered met the licensing rules applying at that time, only to end up in a situation (potentially) where the could be told that

"Dear club X, your application met all the current  licensing criteria, but after you applied, we changed the rules. Sorry but you can't have a derogation either Try again after you have installed floodlights."

Indefensible nonsense, which can't be correct ! Or can jt ?

 

[Robert James]

On 01/02/2018 at 13:13, Guest said:

My Rosey Posey chum, with respect can I suggest you are perhaps teaching your Grannie how to suck eggs. You are surely aware that Talbot were all geared up to press the licence button, before they realised that unlike you're own club, they had the rug well and truly pulled. However, as usually happens with these posts, people dive in with preconceived bias without actually interpreting what my point is. Another poster new to our forum "Robert James" another missing the point.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My man, organisations are entitled to set out rules, but if I'm not mistaken we are not in the People's Republic of China, North Korea or a modern day Stalingrad, therefore the people are equally entitled to challenge it. Consequently I for one will not “stay as they are , and let's see how things have turned out in ten years time” I consider that the SFA have gone about this the wrong way and continue to do so. I use the example of Burtisland to highlight just one more point to suggest that the whole concept of the current so called pyramid is a dugs dinner and they could not have made a bigger James Hunt of it had that been their aim all along, now there’s a thought!

Dear Guest

This is a football forum, not a political one.

"China, North Korea, Stalingrad".    Give Donald Trump a call. He needs you.

From Uncle Bob

 

 

[San Starko Rover]

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.

Get what your saying TFW but some of the Kings Lynn example for clubs has to be put at the board, if to move up a level you need to meet certain criteria for your stadium the board should be asking “can we afford this” if the answer is no then they should not do the work and lose the promotion until they’re in a position to answer yes to that question.

For example Tweedmouth I understand are improving their ground I would assume to gain a licence which is great but they need to ensure the improvements are done only when they can afford them. There’s no sense in rushing in and buying everything through loans and bankrupting the club. It should be done one stage at a time even if it takes a few years and stops them gaining promotion and guaranteed cup entry.

I’d rather have a club to support at a lower level than a few good years and potentially no club left. Many in Scotland have made this mistake and only through the fans raising money and local businesses writing off debt do they still have a club to support.

[FairWeatherFan]

4 hours ago, San Starko Rover said:

 

Get what your saying TFW but some of the Kings Lynn example for clubs has to be put at the board, if to move up a level you need to meet certain criteria for your stadium the board should be asking “can we afford this” if the answer is no then they should not do the work and lose the promotion until they’re in a position to answer yes to that question.

For example Tweedmouth I understand are improving their ground I would assume to gain a licence which is great but they need to ensure the improvements are done only when they can afford them. There’s no sense in rushing in and buying everything through loans and bankrupting the club. It should be done one stage at a time even if it takes a few years and stops them gaining promotion and guaranteed cup entry.

You can also look at Lothian Thistle HV, they actually had to make that choice over the years. The first time they won the EoS title without a licence they could of ran out and spend money they never had to ensure promotion. Instead they've made the gradual improvements and finally got their licence last summer.

[TFW]

My club, Auchinleck Talbot, have made many upgrades to their ground over the years, new stands, toilets for females and disabled folk inside the ground, new pie hut, new sponsors hut being looked at, and floodlights now the main area for which we've already started fundraising - an initial crowdfunder before the Hearts game reaped £5,000. Not every club is in our position though and it certainly does appear that the moving of the goalposts is designed to keep a further mass of clubs from doing what those in the East are doing.

[Burnie_man]

Remember that the inclusion of floodlights in the Licence requirements also applies to clubs that are currently Licenced inc Lowland League clubs Whitehill Welfare, Vale of Leithen & Civil Service Strollers, plus the likes of Burntisland Shipyard, Coldstream, Golspie etc. and they will have to also comply or apply for derogation for 12/24 months. 

It does appear that a move to bring this requirement into the process at this current time is a calculated move to slow down the rate of new applicants for SFA Membership/Licencing (there's the whole political issue of more non-league clubs than SPFL clubs in SFA membership), but at the end of the day it’s something that is needed when you’re faced with Scottish Cup replays with 1.00pm midweek kick-offs, and it should be a given anyway for tier 5 league football.

[Robert James]

On 31/01/2018 at 21:26, Cyclizine said:

You should have a look at Golspie Sutherland's park, Isa. Another licenced team for you to froth at the mouth about...

For those who haven't been there, Golspie Sutherland's King George 5th Park is an excellent example as to why smaller clubs in 'remote' parts of Scotland, can and should be members of the SFA.  Formed in 1871, the club have been members of the SFA  for around 80 years, and have been North Caledonian League champions 9 times. The club has in the past, applied for permission to erect floodlights, but were apparently refused because of some nearby resident's raised objections. 

As an aside, but IMO a relevant point, the NCL is a senior league, which represents the north & west Highlands, and Islands, but (unlike the SoSL, the EoSL, and the 3 Junior Superleague champions + various Cup winners), the league's champion club is NOT currently invited to enter the Scottish Cup each year.  Patently unfair in my view, and a shame because Orkney FC are the current NCL champions, and the club's entry into the Scottish Cup this season, would have underlined that it is a national competition, without geographical discrimination.

 

[FairWeatherFan]

28 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Remember that the inclusion of floodlights in the Licence requirements also applies to clubs that are currently Licenced inc Lowland League clubs Whitehill Welfare, Vale of Leithen & Civil Service Strollers, plus the likes of Burntisland Shipyard, Coldstream, Golspie etc. and they will have to also comply or apply for derogation for 12/24 months. 

The earliest any of them was audited was August 2018. So I'd imagine they'd get to at least summer 2020 due to when their next audits will fall in the first half of the 2019/20 season.

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by FairWeatherFan

[Robert James]

24 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Remember that the inclusion of floodlights in the Licence requirements also applies to clubs that are currently Licenced inc Lowland League clubs Whitehill Welfare, Vale of Leithen & Civil Service Strollers, plus the likes of Burntisland Shipyard, Coldstream, Golspie etc. and they will have to also comply or apply for derogation for 12/24 months. 

It does appear that a move to bring this requirement into the process at this current time is a calculated move to slow down the rate of new applicants for SFA Membership/Licencing (there's the whole political issue of more non-league clubs than SPFL clubs in SFA membership), but at the end of the day it’s something that is needed when you’re faced with Scottish Cup replays with 1.00pm midweek kick-offs, and it should be a given anyway for tier 5 league football.

Don't forget juniors Girvan FC, who didn't have floodlights when I last visited the ground.

By the way, Golspie would almost certainly reach agreement with Brora Rangers, or Wick Academy, that they could  use one of their (floodlit) grounds for Scottish Cup matches.

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by Robert James

[Burnie_man]

Don't forget juniors Girvan FC, who didn't have floodlights when I last visited the ground.
By the way, Golspie would almost certainly reach agreement with Brora Rangers, or Wick Academy, that they could  use one of their (floodlit) grounds for Scottish Cup matches.
 

Your home ground needs to comply. Moving games for Scottish Cup isn't complying.

[Marshmallo]

48 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

it should be a given anyway for tier 5 league football.

Why?

[Burnie_man]

Why?

Why not? SPFL clubs being relegated into a league where some clubs don't have the ability to play midweek games for 6 months of the season is a bit amateur, and won't help when trying to get more relegation places.

That's not withstanding that we're way behind most of Europe in this when it comes to floodlights at lower levels. In England all clubs have lights right down to the lowest of non league. We've spent decades neglecting facilities and spunking cash on players instead.

[Marshmallo]

5 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Why not? SPFL clubs being relegated into a league where some clubs don't have the ability to play midweek games for 6 months of the season is a bit amateur, and won't help when trying to get more relegation places.

That's not withstanding that we're way behind most of Europe in this when it comes to floodlights at lower levels. In England all clubs have lights right down to the lowest of non league. We've spent decades neglecting facilities and spunking cash on players instead.

Let's not compare ourselves to England as a starting point.

I don't necessarily disagree but tier 5 seems like a fairly arbitrary point to draw the line. It doesn't increase safety, provide access to a traditionally marginalised group, or improve the quality of the game. 

[Burnie_man]

10 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Let's not compare ourselves to England as a starting point.

I don't necessarily disagree but tier 5 seems like a fairly arbitrary point to draw the line. It doesn't increase safety, provide access to a traditionally marginalised group, or improve the quality of the game. 

Well yes let’s use England as an example as they are only down the road, and clubs who barely get 50 a game have floodlights right down to West Region League Two level and below, as well as cover and seats.  In fact, let’s use the Highland League as an example as well, all clubs have lights and cover and seats, and some of them barely get 100 through the gate.

Tier 5 isn’t an arbitrary line, it’s the two main regional feeder leagues to the SPFL and in fact only 3 clubs out of the 34 don’t have lights so they’re nearly all there anyway, and it is far from unreasonable to require any clubs going upto those feeder leagues to have lights to facilitate midweek games and ensure the fixture calendar doesn’t fall behind.  I’ll bet in a few years time seats will also be needed for a Licence.

It’s time clubs in Scotland started thinking more about facilities rather than players, particularly those so called big non-league clubs where you still have to pish against a wall. That improves the quality of the game and may encourage more people to games if they know there’s proper basic facilities. Should have been a requirement years ago with the introduction of the Superleagues.

[Dylangt7]

24 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

 It doesn't increase safety, provide access to a traditionally marginalised group, or improve the quality of the game. 

As a parent of young boys that play themselves both days of the weekend, I'm part of a rather large marganilised group that is more likely to attend a midweek game than a Saturday game. At any level.

[Marten]

8 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Well yes let’s use England as an example as they are only down the road, and clubs who barely get 50 a game have floodlights right down to West Region League Two level and below, as well as cover and seats.  In fact, let’s use the Highland League as an example as well, all clubs have lights and cover and seats, and some of them barely get 100 through the gate.

Tier 5 isn’t an arbitrary line, it’s the two main regional feeder leagues to the SPFL and in fact only 3 clubs out of the 34 don’t have lights so they’re nearly all there anyway, and it is far from unreasonable to require any clubs going upto those feeder leagues to have lights to facilitate midweek games and ensure the fixture calendar doesn’t fall behind.  I’ll bet in a few years time seats will also be needed for a Licence.

It’s time clubs in Scotland started thinking more about facilities rather than players, particularly those so called big non-league clubs where you still have to pish against a wall. That improves the quality of the game and may encourage more people to games if they know there’s proper basic facilities. Should have been a requirement years ago with the introduction of the Superleagues.

The lowest level in England where floodlights are required is tier 10, not quite as low as your suggest (although local leagues might enforce additional rules). There are roughly 1000 clubs in the top 10 tiers in English football, taking the difference in population into account that would mean that the 1000th club in England is comparable to the 100th in Scotland, which would take you down to the top of tier 6. England is an exception though in how low down in the pyramid floodlights are required.

I've also looked up how the situation is in other nearby countries and compared it population-wise.

• The Netherlands - required until 4th tier, 92 clubs, comparable to 31 clubs in Scotland, so League 1 level
• Belgium - required until 4th tier, 88 clubs, comparable to 41 clubs in Scotland, so League 2 level
• Germany - required until 4th tier, 148 clubs, comparable to 10 clubs in Scotland, so Premiership level

So requiring floodlights until the 5th tier is comparable with English football, but a fair bit stricter when compared to other countries.