Pyramid 2019/2020

[PastyMan]

9 hours ago, PRICEY said:

 

So this is your league set up from now on?.

Obviously it will have to adapt to take in teams moving from the East Region Juniors

[Auld Heid]

15 hours ago, newcastle broon said:

^^^^^^^^

Gutted didn't get fast tracked to LL.

Fairly certain those THREE clubs yer referring to in the LL will have been given ultimatums. So in time you will get yer wish and they'll be penalised unless they get them pesky floodlights which until very recently yer own team never used and  weren't anything to do with license requirements. It's been talked aboot countless times now regarding where they stand regarding licenses.  

Edit its shit what's happened to Bonnyrigg and very fortunate if ww are given a reprieve by the way. 

Most definately not - personally I had no desire to see my team in the LL based on Licence alone - I believe in progression based on football abilities alone.  

That's why I am making reference to such a requirement being part of  Licensing as infrastructure/policies/football ability should all go hand in hand.   For me it seems clear the SFA are trying to limit licenses by changing the criteria (adding lights).   So if they are going down that route then the  rules should be applied across the board

 

[Robert James]

On 13/05/2019 at 12:40, Duraglit shareholder said:

If Bonnyrigg are refused entry due to not having floodlights, and its a stipulation of entry to the Lowland League, then surely as a matter of fairness and integrity the 3 other teams currently playing in the LL without floodlights  should be demoted and replaced by the next best teams that have the infrustructure that meets the current criteria.That may sound harsh and provide me with a few red dots, but the treatment dished out to Bonnyrigg is unforgivable, and if the blazers are moving the goalposts about having lights, then surely entry to big Scottish Cup should only be open to teams that have them,this would hurt the team i follow but prospects of playing replays at 1pm on a weekday afternoons are ludicrous.I just dont believe the SFA want junior or ex junior teams anywhere near the top 4 leagues in Scotland so they hand out piecemeal parts like entry  to the Scottish, but not really as there are now about 3 preliminary rounds,they see what Cove done to Berwick and  then the Bonnyrigg saga,i understand now the reluctance of west juniors to join the pyramid.Scottish league football has been a closed shop for years, do you think league 2 and 3 clubs want to be in Berwicks shoes,gone are the cash handed down from tv money that stops at Lowland League level,do turkeys vote for xmas.Once teams go to expence of getting lights,it will then be"oh, you need a cartain number of seats etc etc", they'll always have ways and means to protect the established.

Don't be surprised if, in the light of Berwick's relegation, the SPFL resurrects its earlier proposal to form League Three, as a 10 team division (this time, without Colts teams being involved), to give added protection to existing league clubs. As an enticement, the formation of the new division, would include automatic relegation for the bottom club, replaced by the winners of the Highland/Lowland champions play-off, who would be promoted (automatically). The SPFL may also offer a play-off between the bottom but one SPFL club and the losers of the Highland/Lowland play-off.  This would be broadly consistent with the relegation arrangements currently applying in the higher SPFL divisions.

It is in the best interests of Scottish football that the bottom end of the SPFL, and the HFL/LL Tier of the non-league pyramid, are dynamic and fluid. The spread of floodlights (however unpopular ?) makes this viable, and would help address a promotion "log jam", if the leading West Juniors join the pyramid. 

Edited May 22, 2019 by Robert James
post sent in error before completed

[Vollyman]

Any future league organisation (expected to be premier, championship and first division the season after next) will be voted on by member clubs at an AGM prior to the season staring, this is so every club knows what they are aiming for next year. 

Do the majority of clubs have a vote or are they not allowed to vote as they have not been members for a period of 2 years.

[LongTimeLurker]

Voting rights kick in from this year's AGM onwards.

[Burnie_man]

1 hour ago, Auld Heid said:

Most definately not - personally I had no desire to see my team in the LL based on Licence alone - I believe in progression based on football abilities alone.  

That's why I am making reference to such a requirement being part of  Licensing as infrastructure/policies/football ability should all go hand in hand.   For me it seems clear the SFA are trying to limit licenses by changing the criteria (adding lights).   So if they are going down that route then the  rules should be applied across the board

So how does it work in your world where a smaller club who will probably never reach tier 5 football, but who want to compete in the Scottish Cup, what do they have to do with regards to "football abilities" to get a Licence and how do you audit it?

[Robert James]

19 hours ago, G4Mac said:

What everyone must appreciate is that for teams steeped in winning history then the expectation would be to maintain that level. For other clubs having a youth set up, involving the local community and making steady progression on and off the park is the aim.... In order to get success.... Over a period of time. 

To suggest that any top level junior team would easily dispose of LL teams and that the LL teams should now 'move aside' because the juniors is on board makes me chuckle a little..... I've said it before and say it again, most clubs would get a shock when playing in the LL over a league season when weighted against a league season in the respective junior leagues, the standard is better. The teams are more consistent and LL teams naturally have access to better players leaving league 2 clubs, which is why the standard is higher. Automatic promotion and more places is a given though. 

Licensing is a tick box, that's its base function. It is present to ensure clubs don't just bash right through the levels by putting all their money in the playing side and have appropriate facilities that meet not only expected standards, but comply with certain legislation. I think it's a good thing for everyone to ensure that only clubs who are as successful off the park as they are on it make our top leagues. It ensures that clubs don't just succeed based on what happens on a Saturday. The next step for me, thinking ahead for the sfa, if they wish to raise standards further, will undoubtedly be seated cover instead of stand g cover for 100. Albeit this years decision (bonnyrigg and others) with regards floodlights wasn't right. 

 

Adding floodlights to become an SFA Licensing criterion was the correct decision. The SFA is entitled to review, and revise standards.

However, what was totally incorrect, was backdating the implementation date, to exclude clubs which had already applied under the pre-2019 rules. These clubs should have been assessed on that basis of the rules applying at the time they applied for a licence.

The SFA could/should review the Licensing rules each year (for formal adoption at its AGM ?), but never apply the new rules retrospectively 'against' clubs which had already applied, unless the clubs concerned had (through their own fault) failed to comply with the licensing timescale, as set out within the SFA's handbook. This is currently a timescale 'guide',only, but it should be formalised by adding maximum timescales for each major step in the licensing process.

[Burnie_man]

44 minutes ago, Robert James said:

Don't be surprised if, in the light of Berwick's relegation, the SPFL resurrects its earlier proposal to form League Three, as a 10 team division (this time, without Colts teams being involved), to give added protection to existing league clubs. As an enticement, the formation of the new division, would include automatic relegation for the bottom club, replaced by the winners of the Highland/Lowland champions play-off, who would be promoted (automatically). The SPFL may also offer a play-off between the bottom but one SPFL club and the losers of the Highland/Lowland play-off.  This would be broadly consistent with the relegation arrangements currently applying in the higher SPFL divisions.

It is in the best interests of Scottish football that the bottom end of the SPFL, and the HFL/LL Tier of the non-league pyramid, are dynamic and fluid. The spread of floodlights (however unpopular ?) makes this viable, and would help address a promotion "log jam", if the leading West Juniors join the pyramid. 

Having a "League 3" would be insane, we need less teams to be playing nationally, not more.  So that makes your suggestion very likely.

[Fife Journeyman]

14 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Having a "League 3" would be insane, we need less teams to be playing nationally, not more.  So that makes your suggestion very likely.

Im sure if i go back far enough you shot me down for Fife Clubs playing in more local regional leagues.

[bravehearts dad]

13 minutes ago, Robert James said:

Adding floodlights to become an SFA Licensing criterion was the correct decision. The SFA is entitled to review, and revise standards.

However, what was totally incorrect, was backdating the implementation date, to exclude clubs which had already applied under the pre-2019 rules. These clubs should have been assessed on that basis of the rules applying at the time they applied for a licence.

The SFA could/should review the Licensing rules each year (for formal adoption at its AGM ?), but never apply the new rules retrospectively 'against' clubs which had already applied, unless the clubs concerned had (through their own fault) failed to comply with the licensing timescale, as set out within the SFA's handbook. This is currently a timescale 'guide',only, but it should be formalised by adding maximum timescales for each major step in the licensing process.

I agree with your comments in para2

After the recent Hillsborough trial at Preston Crown Court Duckenfield was found not guilty, whilst the Sheffield Wednesday Safety Officer  Mackrell was found guilty of a charge and punished in accordance with the laws of 1989, to which the High Court  Judge made comment on.

N.B. Sfa a High Court Judge not some agency office operative.

[Burnie_man]

3 minutes ago, Fife Journeyman said:

Im sure if i go back far enough you shot me down for Fife Clubs playing in more local regional leagues.

That's some leap trying to connect criticism of having a national League 3 to criticising  a Fife League in the Juniors  

Edited May 22, 2019 by Burnie_man

[Fife Journeyman]

1 minute ago, Burnie_man said:

That's some leap from trying to connect criticism of having a national League 3 to criticising  a Fife League in the Juniors  

did you or did you not shoot me down for  saying Fife clubs shouldnt be playing local leagues and travelling to Dundee or Edinburgh shouldnt be an issue,?  now you state  clubs should be playing more regional.

i did say a few years back more ambitious clubs would join a pyramid and the others would fall into local leagues and be basically amateur .

 

i think what we both agree on is the more ambitious clubs from tier 6 and above  there isnt an issue with travelling but for tiers 7 and below leagues should be local hence why i think tier 7 should be regional from  season 20/21, i dont think there would be a huge appetite from clubs at tier 8 to travel from Tweedmouth to St Andrews if it were to occur.

[Burnie_man]

2 minutes ago, Fife Journeyman said:

did you or did you not shoot me down for  saying Fife clubs shouldnt be playing local leagues and travelling to Dundee or Edinburgh shouldnt be an issue,?  now you state  clubs should be playing more regional.

i did say a few years back more ambitious clubs would join a pyramid and the others would fall into local leagues and be basically amateur .

i think what we both agree on is the more ambitious clubs from tier 6 and above  there isnt an issue with travelling but for tiers 7 and below leagues should be local hence why i think tier 7 should be regional from  season 20/21, i dont think there would be a huge appetite from clubs at tier 8 to travel from Tweedmouth to St Andrews if it were to occur.

No what I said was League 3 is a crazy idea and that there should be less clubs playing nationally in the SPFL (but that will probably never happen).

A Fife league has it's place, but it is probably tier 8 at best, maybe 9.  Most clubs with a modicum of ambition don't want to play their football within a 30 mile radius of their home ground.  I certainly don't want to see Blackburn playing in a regional league at tier 7 which a few years down the line (if we ever have unity in the east) could effectively be a West Lothian league, what an awful prospect.

St.Andrews have always made the point on here that travelling within the EoS area isn't an issue to them.

[patriot1]

49 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

No what I said was League 3 is a crazy idea and that there should be less clubs playing nationally in the SPFL (but that will probably never happen).

A Fife league has it's place, but it is probably tier 8 at best, maybe 9.  Most clubs with a modicum of ambition don't want to play their football within a 30 mile radius of their home ground.  I certainly don't want to see Blackburn playing in a regional league at tier 7 which a few years down the line (if we ever have unity in the east) could effectively be a West Lothian league, what an awful prospect.

St.Andrews have always made the point on here that travelling within the EoS area isn't an issue to them.

Correct.

Peebles, Eyemouth, Tweedmouth here we come!!

[Robert James]

5 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

Having a "League 3" would be insane, we need less teams to be playing nationally, not more.  So that makes your suggestion very likely.

I am not advocating a League 3, but don't be surprised if it reappears as a proposal.  Division 2 & 3 clubs are worried about falling into the Lowland League, especially as more clubs get licensed, and if  a West feeder league becomes a reality.  A more vibrant pyramid, will increase pressure on the SPFL to move to "Club 42" being automatically  relegated each season. 

Watch this space ! 

[Cameron Wilson]

36 minutes ago, Robert James said:

I am not advocating a League 3, but don't be surprised if it reappears as a proposal.  Division 2 & 3 clubs are worried about falling into the Lowland League, especially as more clubs get licensed, and if  a West feeder league becomes a reality.  A more vibrant pyramid, will increase pressure on the SPFL to move to "Club 42" being automatically  relegated each season. 

Watch this space ! 

Isn't the LL just League 3 in all but name? Seems to me the worry is that some clubs don't want to fall out of "The league" but tier 5 is tier 5 no matter what it gets called.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Cameron Wilson

[Cowden Cowboy]

A few random thoughts. 

The clubs in the SPFL long ago made the commitment to play in a National League and few would be interested in regionalisation - very non-league/junior world thinking. 

Talking about what should happen at various tiers is artificial - for example the SPFL in theory could move its 42 clubs into a 2 league system.  Thus most clubs go up two tiers but makes no material difference to most. 

An SPFL 3 would work OK if it had prize monies allocated

The SPFL clubs including my own agreed to the Pyramid and the play off so made a major concession

The dead wood and unambitious jibes thrown at many L1/2 clubs are nonsense (Shire is really the only example). My own club played in Tier 2 for 4 seasons not long ago, Albion Rovers were doing OK in L1, look at Montrose.  Somebody has to be bottom that doesn't make them imbeciles, parasites, dead wood or any other variant nor is every new aspirant a breath of fresh air, a community club,  all done through its own efforts on a shoestring, a fairy tale.  Most are well funded and have some advantage in that area. 

Most clubs rely on income from many and varied sources to buy success or maintain their position - Cowdenbeath for a long time had stock car income - many have benefactors - directors, owners, investors who are bankrolling things.  That's only usually a problem when there is a web of debt behind that such as at Gretna and Dunfermline.   Don't see that problem at Kelty for example. 

The pyramid was launched by SFA in a rush and it could have been done better - however it might never have gotten off the ground if all the fine details were to be ironed out.  For example, the HL/LL could have been made associate SPFL Leagues (no SPFL voting power and run their own affairs) but have been given a small share of the SPFL prize monies, Scottish Cup participation should have been withdrawn from the Regional Junior Champions unless they became part of the Pyramid, until the LL has all the best teams in its catchment area in it it is unlikely SPFL clubs will move to Club 42 auto-relegation

[Burnie_man]

17 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

A few random thoughts. 

The clubs in the SPFL long ago made the commitment to play in a National League and few would be interested in regionalisation - very non-league/junior world thinking. 

Talking about what should happen at various tiers is artificial - for example the SPFL in theory could move its 42 clubs into a 2 league system.  Thus most clubs go up two tiers but makes no material difference to most. 

An SPFL 3 would work OK if it had prize monies allocated

The SPFL clubs including my own agreed to the Pyramid and the play off so made a major concession

The dead wood and unambitious jibes thrown at many L1/2 clubs are nonsense (Shire is really the only example). My own club played in Tier 2 for 4 seasons not long ago, Albion Rovers were doing OK in L1, look at Montrose.  Somebody has to be bottom that doesn't make them imbeciles, parasites, dead wood or any other variant nor is every new aspirant a breath of fresh air, a community club,  all done through its own efforts on a shoestring, a fairy tale.  Most are well funded and have some advantage in that area. 

Most clubs rely on income from many and varied sources to buy success or maintain their position - Cowdenbeath for a long time had stock car income - many have benefactors - directors, owners, investors who are bankrolling things.  That's only usually a problem when there is a web of debt behind that such as at Gretna and Dunfermline.   Don't see that problem at Kelty for example. 

The pyramid was launched by SFA in a rush and it could have been done better - however it might never have gotten off the ground if all the fine details were to be ironed out.  For example, the HL/LL could have been made associate SPFL Leagues (no SPFL voting power and run their own affairs) but have been given a small share of the SPFL prize monies, Scottish Cup participation should have been withdrawn from the Regional Junior Champions unless they became part of the Pyramid, until the LL has all the best teams in its catchment area in it it is unlikely SPFL clubs will move to Club 42 auto-relegation

Protectionism.

It exists at most levels of Scottish football, we're seeing it now with the SFA and Licencing. We see it now with the ridiculous play-off format between SPFL Premiership and Championship. We see it now with the SPFL and their meagre concession of one play-off place. We see it with the Lowland League and their meagre one relegation spot. We see it with the SJFA and wanting to remain relevant. There are probably other examples.

I also understand there is a resolution to come before the SFA AGM to ensure all new members are regarded as "associate members" and not bona fide full members unless they are tier 5 or above, removing their voting rights.

Protectionism is a cancer that runs throughout our game, it needs cut out.

Edited May 22, 2019 by Burnie_man

[HTG]

6 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

So how does it work in your world where a smaller club who will probably never reach tier 5 football, but who want to compete in the Scottish Cup, what do they have to do with regards to "football abilities" to get a Licence and how do you audit it?

It isn't a question of auditing. Football performance is based on facts and outcomes. The most recent Lowland League application sought confirmation across a range of areas - performance outcomes over the last 3 seasons, fit with current licence criteria, community engagement and future strategy. 

It wouldn't be difficult to develop a more holistic view of both governance and performance if one were required. 

[Cowden Cowboy]

1 minute ago, Burnie_man said:

Protectionism.

It exists at most levels of Scottish football, we're seeing it now with the SFA and Licencing. We see it now with the SPFL and their meagre concession of one play-off place. We see it with the Lowland League and their meagre one relegation spot. We see it with the SJFA and wanting to remain relevant. There are probably other examples.

I also understand there is a resolution to come before the SFA AGM to ensure all new members are regarded as "associate members" and not bona fide full members unless they are tier 5 or above, removing their voting rights.

Protectionism is a cancer that runs throughout our game, it needs cut out.

Yes all right we know that's your hobby horse.  Meantime back in the real world sensible changes are worked through over time.  On the SFA front - few organisations would admit a huge number of new members who could take over control from the existing membership which had built it up over many, many years.