Pyramid 2019/2020

[LongTimeLurker]

7 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

They've reached 16 with Berwick Rangers (likely) getting relegated and nobody promoted. There is no vacancy.

That's now how the rule is actually drafted. As written it implies that the Selkirk vacancy is being dealt with by application, and Whitehill get relegated if Berwick are relegated and then can only get back in through application with other applicants considered as well. The LL board's decision is final and can't be appealed so they can easily decide to effectively do it the way you are describing and probably will, but the rule as drafted gives them the ability to replace Whitehill Welfare with a club like Linlithgow Rose.

Edited May 11, 2019 by LongTimeLurker

[FairWeatherFan]

2 minutes ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

17 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Right this very minute there are a bunch of clubs that don't currently have floodlights that were also rejected. Bonnyrigg aren't alone in this.
 

Bonnyrigg are the only ones who are waiting on promotion. And the original poster mentioned future applications - this won't be an issue for future applications.

Bonnyrigg applied on 26th October. On the 22nd November they were told they would be audited on 12th December. Then received the 2019 criteria changes on 11th December.

SFA licensing runs by the calendar year not by the football calendar. Going to say that no one is ever going to apply for an application within a similar time frame?

[Gimme]

Bonnyrigg applied on 26th October. On the 22nd November they were told they would be audited on 12th December. Then received the 2019 criteria changes on 11th December.
SFA licensing runs by the calendar year not by the football calendar. Going to say that no one is ever going to apply for an application within a similar time frame?

Probably not, the only reason the applications were made so late was the SFA's embargo for which no explanation has yet been given. Had the clubs been able to apply in June/July time, they'd have been audited and accepted under the 2018 rules.

I'm not saying the situation won't ever arise in the future, just that it's unlikely.

[FairWeatherFan]

4 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

That's now how the rule is actually drafted. As written it implies that the Selkirk vacancy is being dealt with by application, and Whitehill get relegated if Berwick are relegated and then can only get back in through application with other applicants considered as well. The LL board's decision is final and can't be appealed so they can easily decide to effectively do it the way you are describing and probably will, but the rule as drafted gives them the ability to replace Whitehill Welfare with a club like Linlithgow Rose.

In deciding that Dalbeattie Star cannot be relegated, then Rule B4 b) doesn't apply and Whitehill Welfare cannot be relegated by Berwick getting relegated. They can only get relegated by a licensed Tier 6 champion.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

3 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

In deciding that Dalbeattie Star cannot be relegated, ...

Where has this been officially stated?

[Footballfirst]

21 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

They've reached 16 with Berwick Rangers (likely) getting relegated and nobody promoted. There is no vacancy.

If I could set out where we agree and disagree (please correct me if I've misrepresented your position):

I'm sure that you agree would agree that the Pyramid Play-Off rules are in play re Cove/Berwick - with Berwick likely to be "Relegated"

I'm sure that you also agree that the Pyramid Play-off rules have also been applied to Bonnyrigg/Whitehill (bottom club).  It appears that Bonnyrigg will be denied promotion by not being eligible, with Whitehill escaping relegation.

Where we disagree is in how Berwick's likely relegation would impact on the make up of the LL for next season. You believe that Berwick's relegation would be sufficient (under the LL rules) to take the LL back to 16 teams and that no other action I necessary. My take is that Berwick's relegation still requires that a team is relegated from the LL. Normally that would be the bottom - Whitehill, or 2nd bottom -Dalbeattie (had Bonnyrigg been promoted).  That relegated side can apply to be re-elected to the LL. 

I think we can both agree that the practical end result will be that Berwick will replace Selkirk. It is only the means by which that end result will be achieved that we disagree on.   

Edited May 11, 2019 by Footballfirst

[FairWeatherFan]

8 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Where has this been officially stated?

Officially either in a LL Board meeting or LL meeting. Publicly? They don't have to say anything on the matter. You've got the posts on the forum from LL affiliated posters and Dalbeattie are publicly announcing their plans for next season's Lowland League

https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dalbeattiestarfc/news/club-statement-2422706.html

 

9 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Where we disagree is in how Berwick's likely relegation would impact on the make up of the LL for next season. You believe that Berwick's relegation would be sufficient (under the LL rules) to take the LL back to 16 teams and that no other action I necessary. My take is that Berwick's relegation still requires that a team is relegated from the LL. Normally that would be the bottom - Whitehill, or 2nd bottom -Dalbeattie (had Bonnyrigg been promoted).  That relegated side can apply to be re-elected to the LL. 

I think we can both agree that the practical end result will be that Berwick will replace Selkirk. It is only the means by which that end result will be achieved that we disagree on.   

The rule around bottom and second bottom being relegated is only used "In order to maintain a membership of sixteen clubs".

[Marten]

When I was driving home from the Cove v Berwick game, I listened to football on BBC Radio Scotland. They were talking a fair few minutes on Bonnyrigg and completely slamming the SFA.

[LongTimeLurker]

3 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Officially either in a LL Board meeting or LL meeting. Publicly? They don't have to say anything on the matter. You've got the posts on the forum from LL affiliated posters and Dalbeattie are publicly announcing their plans for next season's Lowland League

https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dalbeattiestarfc/news/club-statement-2422706.html

 

So nothing official has been announced that implies the rule was interpreted in the way you were claiming it was. Best to do things that way to avoid lawyers representing would be applicant clubs getting involved, because they can always rely on the LL Board's decision being absolute and final to do what they like on this where WW and DS are concerned and move on from having had this complete mess of a rule in place with a minimum of fuss.  All that is being pointed out to you is that the rule as drafted is nothing like as clear cut as you have been implying on here because it strongly implies up front that the Selkirk vacancy is being dealt with by application no matter what in the context of having dropped to 15 teams due to the expulsion or resignation of a club after 16 clubs had been reached.

[Footballfirst]

5 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Officially either in a LL Board meeting or LL meeting. Publicly? They don't have to say anything on the matter. You've got the posts on the forum from LL affiliated posters and Dalbeattie are publicly announcing their plans for next season's Lowland League

https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dalbeattiestarfc/news/club-statement-2422706.html

 

The rule around bottom and second bottom being relegated is only used "In order to maintain a membership of sixteen clubs".

I believe that B4 makes it clear that the process of maintaining 16 clubs following a resignation/expulsion is by application (ergo - not promotion/relegation).

Thereafter, I believe that  the probable mismatch between the number of clubs promoted (none) and relegated (one) means  B4 (a) and (b) will apply.

I think we should agree to disagree on our interpretation of B4, otherwise we will end up in a circular debate.

 

[BS7]

Maybe Berwick will spell out their intentions now, as I’m hearing they don’t plan on going to lowland league.

[FairWeatherFan]

17 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I believe that B4 makes it clear that the process of maintaining 16 clubs following a resignation/expulsion is by application (ergo - not promotion/relegation).

It's not one or the other, it's the combination of both. Applications and promotion/relegation are equal to each other with neither given greater precedence.

Quote

Admission to Membership of the League will be by (a) written application until the maximum of sixteen (16) clubs is reached or (b) by promotion or relegation.

Through promotion and relegation they're going to reach 16 members again. So there's no vacancy to apply for.

[GNU_Linux]

Maybe Berwick will spell out their intentions now, as I’m hearing they don’t plan on going to lowland league.

 

I don't think theres any weight in them moving to England. Rumour heightned by knee-jerk reaction to their current plight. If they were to go south at the highest they'd be entering at is tier 9. And as East Stirling have shown being relegated to the LL isn't a death sentence.

 

[Footballfirst]

8 minutes ago, BS7 said:

Maybe Berwick will spell out their intentions now, as I’m hearing they don’t plan on going to lowland league.

Shame - I was looking forward to a local derby at some point in the future between Berwick and Tweedmouth.  Their grounds must be the closest of any pair in senior football.

[FairWeatherFan]

30 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

So nothing official has been announced that implies the rule was interpreted in the way you were claiming it was. Best to do things that way to avoid lawyers representing would be applicant clubs getting involved, because they can always rely on the LL Board's decision being absolute and final to do what they like on this where WW and DS are concerned and move on from having had this complete mess of a rule in place with a minimum of fuss.  All that is being pointed out to you is that the rule as drafted is nothing like as clear cut as you have been implying on here because it strongly implies up front that the Selkirk vacancy is being dealt with by application no matter what in the context of having dropped to 15 teams due to the expulsion or resignation of a club after 16 clubs had been reached.

By the way I am in no way saying the rule is clear cut. The rule's a mess and that's why I asked if 14th could get relegated back when Selkirk went under. The LL Secretary came back and said that B4 b) relating to "second bottom" could still apply meaning 14th could get relegated. Since September, the LL have obviously gotten together challenged that interpretation and decided there's no way that 14th could get relegated.

Club statement saying they're in the Lowland League next season.

Lowland League match previews saying they're safe.

Newspaper quotes saying they're safe.

If "second bottom" cannot be relegated then B4 b) cannot be used to relegate the "bottom club".

Which leads you back to the main body of B4 where "bottom" can only be relegated by a licensed Tier 6 champion.

 

[Robert James]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

That's now how the rule is actually drafted. As written it implies that the Selkirk vacancy is being dealt with by application, and Whitehill get relegated if Berwick are relegated and then can only get back in through application with other applicants considered as well. The LL board's decision is final and can't be appealed so they can easily decide to effectively do it the way you are describing and probably will, but the rule as drafted gives them the ability to replace Whitehill Welfare with a club like Linlithgow Rose.

I agree with your interpretation.

Moving to an 18 team Lowland League, would however, be better way of resolving (now) the current 'mess' , and would be better for the Pyramid itself, for the reasons I previously explained.  Surely this could be approved at the impending Lowland AGM ?

Even in Scotland, 34 league matches per season should be perfectly manageable for the highest level of the non-league pyramid. The SFA rule change on floodlights (which the Lowland League will replicate, albeit with a timescale for clubs without lights), makes it easier than previously. to fit in the 4 extra games.  It also provides an opportunity for 2 clubs to be promoted from Tier 6 to Tier 5 each season,  rather than 1 club as at present.

It would also help relieve any log jam, once the West of Scotland juniors join the pyramid... 

[Robert James]

1 hour ago, BS7 said:

Maybe Berwick will spell out their intentions now, as I’m hearing they don’t plan on going to lowland league.

Fake news.

[GordonS]

7 hours ago, Robert James said:

Yes : Berwick lost 0-4 in the  first leg.

Frequently when there is an issue where neither participant is prepared to 'depart from its view  that "they are right", continuing with the argument (eg Brexit, EJFA, etc), rarely results in an acceptable outcome. After years working in industrial/employment relations, you soon learn that things are going nowhere, or both sides end up getting  burnt.

That is why it is often useful for 3rd parties to "look outside the box" for a way ahead.

You have chosen not to respond to my suggestion that increasing the Lowland League to 18 clubs,which IMO is  desirable for the pyramid, now, and as a future structure for the SLL. Just look at the comparisons (of the number of league matches played), in my list of leagues. it is also a solution where no one gets hurt.   On one of the above posts, it is suggested that there may be a split in the EoS about Bonnyrigg's position. Is that a good idea ? No. Hence go for a "win win" solution, which is "outside the box."

In answering your question regarding what I am going to do about it, the answer is "nothing".  However, P&B is not without influence, and it is read by many including Association, League and Club  Officials. Probably by some of the media ? Therefore any positive responses on here may help to provide an agreed way ahead. 

Interested in other people's views on that, because I think it's entirely without influence.

[Cameron Wilson]

3 hours ago, GordonS said:

Interested in other people's views on that, because I think it's entirely without influence.

It's hard to know with much certainly of course, but given that there are committee members and club managers posting on here openly, and that P&B seems to be the main (or only?) public forum dedicated to Scottish football pyramid developments, it would follow that there would be at least some affect. 

It's likely that there are other people from inside the game, either lurking or using pseudonyms, monitoring what is said on here.

But if the powers that be  aren't listening to what is said on here, then they should be. In this day and age the Internet makes it possible for ideas to be exchanged freely, they would be stupid not to be taking ten minutes a day to have a look. Some of the ideas presented on here are absolutely worthy of consideration and as good as if not better than what officialdom comes up with.

All this is even more reason to avoid personal attacks and stay focused on trying to find ways to achieve what everyone wants to see  - Scottish football growing stronger from the bottom up.

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Cameron Wilson

[FairWeatherFan]

6 hours ago, GordonS said:

Interested in other people's views on that, because I think it's entirely without influence.

It's clear that there are a people that read the forum. I just don't think that effect is significant enough to influence changes. Nobody is about to start ripping up league formats based on what gets talked about on here.