Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, newcastle broon said:

I answered ye further doon the page! (See Jason King's post). Ex Juniors,there I've answered ye and going by your posts your club (Linlithgow) were in a prime position and could've done something aboot it back then especially the position you were in licensewise but stayed where you were  ? It's not the fault of the LL this is all kicking off now ?

Massive credit to Kelty for getting where we are today in what shouldve been enforced years ago  ? 

 

I'm sorry, I still don't know what you're talking about. Done something about what? And who is saying it's the LL's fault? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, leftbehind said:

Political opportunism at its best.

I do agree with that, but I hope it gets cross-party support anyway as it would be a good signal to the SFA. Even though it's poorly worded (ideally it should get amended before voted through).

Edited by Marten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

I'm sorry, I still don't know what you're talking about. Done something about what? And who is saying it's the LL's fault? 

 I've answered you twice now you asked "who are these clubs" and I've gave ye the feckn answer. Go back to yer original post questioning mine! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, newcastle broon said:

 I've answered you twice now you asked "who are these clubs" and I've gave ye the feckn answer. Go back to yer original post questioning mine! 

No, you haven't. You've said ex Junior clubs (all 25 who joined the EoS?) should have done something before now about something, but you haven't said what they were supposed to do, or about what.

I'm not trying to trip you up, I'm just trying to find out what you're saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎08‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 12:50, newcastle broon said:

Maybe ridiculous but they're at a level where they obviously can sustain it financially and it seems to be allowed,why is this argument just coming out now shouldn't all these clubs have kicked off aboot it back then when it happened though  ? 

 

2 minutes ago, GordonS said:

No, you haven't. You've said ex Junior clubs (all 25 who joined the EoS?) should have done something before now about something, but you haven't said what they were supposed to do, or about what.

I'm not trying to trip you up, I'm just trying to find out what you're saying.

Hang on, I'll see if I understand.

Some fans on here are saying it's ridiculous that, for example, BSC Glasgow can be allowed a licence to play at a ground on the other side of the country. And you're saying the 25 ex Junior members of the EoS should have "kicked off" about that when the licences were granted. Have I understood you right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GordonS said:

No, you haven't. You've said ex Junior clubs (all 25 who joined the EoS?) should have done something before now about something, but you haven't said what they were supposed to do, or about what.

I'm not trying to trip you up, I'm just trying to find out what you're saying.

 

9 minutes ago, GordonS said:

 

Hang on, I'll see if I understand.

Some fans on here are saying it's ridiculous that, for example, BSC Glasgow can be allowed a licence to play at a ground on the other side of the country. And you're saying the 25 ex Junior members of the EoS should have "kicked off" about that when the licences were granted. Have I understood you right?

Ffs are you an English teacher or something, my grammar not as good as yours obviously !

YOU yes YOU don't like BSC playing where they are (neither do i) at present but clubs shouldve objected back then. 

Is that too much to take in, now I've already said I have my sympathies with Bonnyrigg here and rightfully  they should appeal least get back on topic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/05/2019 at 09:56, The Informer said:

I am always fascinated by this argument. 

The financial landscape in Scottish football is not a healthy one, so what are new clubs to do? Build their on ground or enter into a ground share agreement? 

The cost of a new build ground, when taking into account land costs, is probably prohibitive for lower league clubs. The club wants to enter the pyramid and progress, the sensible solution would appear to be ground-share?

The parochial attitude that seems to dominate Scottish football holds us back, and that includes attitudes towards “new clubs”. 

We need to look to modernise our thinking, which should include attitudes towards certain club’s infrastructures.

To be clear, I admire clubs like Rose who are ploughing their cash in to upgrade and offer the best possible product on the pitch. However, it’s not the fault of newer clubs that this has happened, that finger of blame points at Hampden.

And at the same time, its mind boggling that if half a dozen clubs in Midlothian want licences then half a dozen sets of floodlights have to be installed. These are community clubs - ground sharing would be the death of them.

If Penicuik, Newtongrange and Easthouses have lights why do Bonnyrigg, Dalkeith etc need them - its crazy to spend £50K a time on this when the money could be invested better.

But I suspect the SFA don't really have a grasp on financials at this level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

It wasn't in the criteria when they applied. It was altered while they were part-way through the process.

This has then been compounded by not waiving the new requirement or giving a grace period, while giving existing clubs time... and not recognising some applicant clubs are installing lights imminently, while some existing clubs aren't.

 

I think this is the centre of the issue - why the SFA have granted (or will grant) derogations to existing licences, but not to new ones. At worst it will mean the likes of Tranent and Haddington playing in the Scottish Cup next season but not the one after if they don't install lights. Are they trying to set a precedent for all future applications that derogation will not be considered and lights will have to be installed or no licence.

For something that virtually all the east of scotland teams could easily access now for the couple of times a season they would need them, it seems to be putting a great big financial barrier to progress.

It doesn't seem to be a problem for licenced clubs to shift games to other stadium as and when necessary, so this approach seems particularly harsh. I guess until we know the reasoning behind it, we won't know what the SFA agenda is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dalkeith have floodlights, Bonnyrigg will too in a couple of months, Arniston will if they ever manage to persuade the local NIMBYs that a new AstroTurf isn't going to see them attracting crowds in the 1000's anytime soon

That just leaves Whitehill who are currently the highest ranked team of the lot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BS7 said:

And at the same time, its mind boggling that if half a dozen clubs in Midlothian want licences then half a dozen sets of floodlights have to be installed. These are community clubs - ground sharing would be the death of them.

If Penicuik, Newtongrange and Easthouses have lights why do Bonnyrigg, Dalkeith etc need them - its crazy to spend £50K a time on this when the money could be invested better.

But I suspect the SFA don't really have a grasp on financials at this level.

I suspect you are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, BS7 said:

 

I think this is the centre of the issue - why the SFA have granted (or will grant) derogations to existing licences, but not to new ones. At worst it will mean the likes of Tranent and Haddington playing in the Scottish Cup next season but not the one after if they don't install lights. Are they trying to set a precedent for all future applications that derogation will not be considered and lights will have to be installed or no licence.

For something that virtually all the east of scotland teams could easily access now for the couple of times a season they would need them, it seems to be putting a great big financial barrier to progress.

It doesn't seem to be a problem for licenced clubs to shift games to other stadium as and when necessary, so this approach seems particularly harsh. I guess until we know the reasoning behind it, we won't know what the SFA agenda is.

Losing a licence doesn't mean losing your SFA membership. They would still get Scottish Cup entry they'd just not receive any of the prize money.

image.png.a158b8a5d9701905ae887a020331fb61.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good that the motion is getting cross-party support. A strong majority of MSPs (looking likely with both Labour & SNP behind this now) condemning the SFA would at least give a message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Marten said:

Good that the motion is getting cross-party support. A strong majority of MSPs (looking likely with both Labour & SNP behind this now) condemning the SFA would at least give a message.

Political affiliations should be left aside and every MSP should be backing this, every one of them will have a football club in their area, and it's about time the SFA were investigated by the Govt over their competency to oversee our game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Burnie_man said:

Political affiliations should be left aside and every MSP should be backing this, every one of them will have a football club in their area, and it's about time the SFA were investigated by the Govt over their competency to oversee our game.

It could easily get support from the other parties as well, there aren't any Greens / LibDems / Tories who have signed it (yet), but that doesn't mean they won't vote for it. This is the kind of motion that could easily get unanimous support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

Political affiliations should be left aside and every MSP should be backing this, every one of them will have a football club in their area, and it's about time the SFA were investigated by the Govt over their competency to oversee our game.

I really hope this grows arms and legs and goes the whole way.  The SFA are so morally reprehensible, Bonnyrigg are actually turning to Politicians of all people, somewhat ironically, in the hope that they take the moral high ground! Quite right too, Bonnyrigg are to be applauded. 

Infact, now that Line of Duty has ended for another season and they are at a loss for something to do for the foreseeable future, any chance of AC12 turning up at Hampden - if they can’t detect any corruption within those offices then they don’t deserve a 6th series! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bonnyrigg looked jaded but we were excellent. Looking forward to final vs spartans hopefully be 18th
The boys were out on their feet before the game even started, we're at the stage where if you can walk your getting stripped.

Camelon should really have been out of site by half time but somehow we were still in it until the end.

Can't really ask much more of the boys, it's been a long season and in light of this weeks events one the club would probably prefer to be over.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gimme said:

The boys were out on their feet before the game even started, we're at the stage where if you can walk your getting stripped.

Camelon should really have been out of site by half time but somehow we were still in it until the end.

Can't really ask much more of the boys, it's been a long season and in light of this weeks events one the club would probably prefer to be over.

Big Alan hit the post just before halftime we looked comfortable I thought until bonnyrigg scored. Ryan kane the  2nd goal was a peach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marten said:

It could easily get support from the other parties as well, there aren't any Greens / LibDems / Tories who have signed it (yet), but that doesn't mean they won't vote for it. This is the kind of motion that could easily get unanimous support.

What vote? Do you seriously think the Scottish Parliament will legislate for Bonnyrigg's application to be accepted.

Link to comment
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...