Pyramid 2019/2020

[Robert James]

7 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

As of last night we hadn't been advised, neither it seems has anyone else.

Do you know if the Board actually considered the licensing applications last Thursday ?  Or did licences get delayed again ?

Surely club secretaries  are advised by the SFA Board, when/how applicants will be notified ?   If not, don't secretaries ask for clarification  about the notification timescale, etc ?  Surely they are entitled to know this ?  

 For clubs planning ahead, notification is very important for clubs seeking promotion to the Lowland**, and for other clubs seeking entry into the Scottish Cup next season.  It is also important for clubs whose application may not have been approved, and who decide to use the appeal mechanism, or alternatively to carry out the required improvements, in time for the next (June ?) Board meeting.

Am I missing something about this drawn out saga ?

 

 (** yes I know the Lowland League has granted a temporary licence dispensation to EoSL conference promotion candidates, but this  shouldn't have been necessary) .

 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Robert James
typo error

[Burnie_man]

Do you know if the Board actually considered the licensing applications last Thursday ?  Or did licences get delayed again ?
Surely club secretaries  are advised by the SFA Board, when/how applicants will be notified ?   If not, don't secretaries ask for clarification  about the notification timescale, etc ?  Surely they are entitled to know this ?  
 For clubs planning ahead, notification is very important for clubs seeking promotion to the Lowland**, and for other clubs seeking entry into the Scottish Cup next season.  It is also important for clubs whose application may not have been approved, and who decide to use the appeal mechanism, or alternatively to carry out the required improvements, in time for the next (June ?) Board meeting.
Am I missing something about this drawn out saga ?
 
 (** yes I know the Lowland League has granted a temporary licence dispensation to EoSL conference promotion candidates, but this  shouldn't have been necessary) .
 

The club have heard nothing at all.

[Burnie_man]

It's not the actual SJFA, just some roaster from Ayrshire saying mon the juniors to their 666 followers - it's just a bit funny (or sad more like) when they unprivate the account to post and then they go private again when they can't handle the replies.
 

That account is run by an utter halfwit.

[FairWeatherFan]

11 minutes ago, Robert James said:

Do you know if the Board actually considered the licensing applications last Thursday ?  Or did licences get delayed again ?

Surely club secretaries  are advised by the SFA Board, when/how applicants will be notified ?   If not, don't secretaries ask for clarification  about the notification timescale, etc ?  Surely they are entitled to know this ?  

 For clubs planning ahead, notification is very important for clubs seeking promotion to the Lowland**, and for other clubs seeking entry into the Scottish Cup next season.  It is also important for clubs whose application may not have been approved, and who decide to use the appeal mechanism, or alternatively to carry out the required improvements, in time for the next (June ?) Board meeting.

Am I missing something about this drawn out saga ?

 

 (** yes I know the Lowland League has granted a temporary licence dispensation to EoSL conference promotion candidates, but this  shouldn't have been necessary) .

 

Go back to the Licensing Committee meeting there was meant to be 6 clubs that were told that they had their license and just needed the SFA Board approval. Then there were 6 clubs withouth floodlights that required a ruling on any potential derogation.

When it comes to the way the Licensing Committee operate they apparently give 5 days when they are the ones making the decision.

Then there's the bit about awarding licences where it suggests that the SFA can disclose the decision at any time.

[bravehearts dad]

1 hour ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

An embarrassment see even if we don't get our licence I'm still glad done it and shows what a farcentre juniors actually was being run

And if clubs don’t get their licence will the £2K fee be refunded or has that gone into the slush fund to pay off McLeish and his band of useless men?

[bravehearts dad]

1 minute ago, gogsy said:

Fee not refunded

So the clubs are paying twice for the inadequacies of those at the SFA.

To sum up -  SFA from the sfa

[Truthteller]

Methinks the SFA will eventually enforce their proposal against the wishes of the EOS if it cannot be resolved by consensus, so the question would be, what would/could the EOS clubs do about it ?  Refuse to play ? ??????????????

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Methinks the SFA will eventually enforce their proposal against the wishes of the EOS if it cannot be resolved by consensus, so the question would be, what would/could the EOS clubs do about it ?  Refuse to play ? ??????????????

Court of arbitration for sport? Could hold it all up for years.

[Burnie_man]

Methinks the SFA will eventually enforce their proposal against the wishes of the EOS if it cannot be resolved by consensus, so the question would be, what would/could the EOS clubs do about it ?  Refuse to play ? ??????????????

What mechanism can they use to do that? They also want colt teams in SPFL but they cant impose it. Where is the difference?

[FairWeatherFan]

24 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

Methinks the SFA will eventually enforce their proposal against the wishes of the EOS if it cannot be resolved by consensus, so the question would be, what would/could the EOS clubs do about it ?  Refuse to play ? ??????????????

It's not exactly clear what they can do to force the issue. Between the LL and EoS you're also looking at 21 existing SFA members and there's meant to be a new President (Rod Petrie, who last I heard was unopposed) and VP (Petrie's replacement). So i'm not sure they'd be willing to push this through less than 2 months away from their AGM.

As long as the EoS and LL continue with a united front it doesn't look like anything will change for the 2019/20 season.

[superbigal]

I get a funny feeling no cooperation equates to no licenses. Just gut feeling.

Maxwell did state previously he would not look kindly on any roadblocks.

It's the most obvious veto SFA could dish out.

 helps them the spfl object to licenses being dished out.

[FairWeatherFan]

9 minutes ago, superbigal said:

I get a funny feeling no cooperation equates to no licenses. Just gut feeling.

Maxwell did state previously he would not look kindly on any roadblocks.

It's the most obvious veto SFA could dish out.

 helps them the spfl object to licenses being dished out.

Then they'd face a a potential legal challenge on that front.

The Licensing Committee is largely made up of independent members not affiliated to Scottish Football. Presumably for the reason of impartiality. The committee has already told 6 clubs they meet all the 2019 licensing criteria, all they need is the stamp of approval of the SFA Board.

If those licenses are now denied that's lost revenue from the Scottish Cup, potentially denial of promotion, missing out on the revenue share, and missing out on potential grants available to SFA members. Combine just those 6 clubs that's over £100,000 on the low end without considering the speculation over what a decent Scottish Cup and the Scotland National Team qualifying for Euro 2020 could mean.

 

[Truthteller]

I wouldn't be surprised if this would be their "get out of jail card"

[Burnie_man]

12 minutes ago, Truthteller said:

I wouldn't be surprised if this would be their "get out of jail card"

I dont think you understand the context of that paragraph, which relates to confidentiality (of information provided by clubs) and transparency.

It has nothing to to with the actual criteria which determines whether a licence is awarded or not.

EDIT:  Remember the SFA do not award licences, the Licence Committee do that. All the SFA Board need to do is confirm SFA membership and for them to do that they need to know first that a club has passed their audit,   AUDIT - SFA MEMBERSHIP - LICENCE ISSUED,  as long as a club has passed their audit the SFA will confirm membership.

Edited April 19, 2019 by Burnie_man

[Burnie_man]

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

2 hours ago, Truthteller said:

Methinks the SFA will eventually enforce their proposal against the wishes of the EOS if it cannot be resolved by consensus, so the question would be, what would/could the EOS clubs do about it ?  Refuse to play ? ??????????????

What mechanism can they use to do that? They also want colt teams in SPFL but they cant impose it. Where is the difference?

Any chance of enlightening us?

[Robert James]

2 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Then they'd face a a potential legal challenge on that front.

The Licensing Committee is largely made up of independent members not affiliated to Scottish Football. Presumably for the reason of impartiality. The committee has already told 6 clubs they meet all the 2019 licensing criteria, all they need is the stamp of approval of the SFA Board.

If those licenses are now denied that's lost revenue from the Scottish Cup, potentially denial of promotion, missing out on the revenue share, and missing out on potential grants available to SFA members. Combine just those 6 clubs that's over £100,000 on the low end without considering the speculation over what a decent Scottish Cup and the Scotland National Team qualifying for Euro 2020 could mean.

 

The process for submitting licensing applications is set out clearly in the SFA  handbook.  The 17 or so Clubs have each paid £2k, for the inspection, audit, and award/refusal.  This is a contract between each individual club and the SFA who have accepted the fees. 

Legal action could be taken by the clubs, IF this matter is not concluded in good faith and time, resulting in loss of revenue to the applicants, as you correctly state.  I hope that common sense prevails, and that the clubs concerned will be informed of the outcome by the Licensing Committee, within the 5 days specified : ie allowing for Easter, before the end of next week .

  

[Truthteller]

16 minutes ago, Robert James said:

The process for submitting licensing applications is set out clearly in the SFA  handbook.  The 17 or so Clubs have each paid £2k, for the inspection, audit, and award/refusal.  This is a contract between each individual club and the SFA who have accepted the fees. 

Legal action could be taken by the clubs, IF this matter is not concluded in good faith and time, resulting in loss of revenue to the applicants, as you correctly state.  I hope that common sense prevails, and that the clubs concerned will be informed of the outcome by the Licensing Committee, within the 5 days specified : ie allowing for Easter, before the end of next week .

  

 

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

Any chance of enlightening us?

Article 62-64

[Robert James]

6 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

6 hours ago, Robert James said:

Do you know if the Board actually considered the licensing applications last Thursday ?  Or did licences get delayed again ?
Surely club secretaries  are advised by the SFA Board, when/how applicants will be notified ?   If not, don't secretaries ask for clarification  about the notification timescale, etc ?  Surely they are entitled to know this ?  
 For clubs planning ahead, notification is very important for clubs seeking promotion to the Lowland**, and for other clubs seeking entry into the Scottish Cup next season.  It is also important for clubs whose application may not have been approved, and who decide to use the appeal mechanism, or alternatively to carry out the required improvements, in time for the next (June ?) Board meeting.
Am I missing something about this drawn out saga ?
 
 (** yes I know the Lowland League has granted a temporary licence dispensation to EoSL conference promotion candidates, but this  shouldn't have been necessary) .
 

The club have heard nothing at all.

If nothing is announced by the end of next week, may I suggest that your club secretary rings the SFA  to ask when the licensing results will be notified to the clubs concerned. 

[Kemlin Dan]

14 hours ago, Robert James said:

Do you know if the Board actually considered the licensing applications last Thursday ?  Or did licences get delayed again ?

Surely club secretaries  are advised by the SFA Board, when/how applicants will be notified ?   If not, don't secretaries ask for clarification  about the notification timescale, etc ?  Surely they are entitled to know this ?  

 

 

Clubs were notified on procedure and intended timescale on the 4th April,as it has been pointed out its Easter weekend so don't be surprised that the SFA have not took that simple factor onboard and clubs will be left waiting until Tuesday no doubt.

[FairWeatherFan]

23 minutes ago, Kemlin Dan said:

Clubs were notified on procedure and intended timescale on the 4th April,as it has been pointed out its Easter weekend so don't be surprised that the SFA have not took that simple factor onboard and clubs will be left waiting until Tuesday no doubt.

Yeah, I've always assumed they would get something in the post rather than an email. So figured they wouldn't get anything till next week with the holidays in the way.