Would you like to see your club join the Pyramid?

[Bella La ghostie]

1 hour ago, FairWeatherFan said:

I'd maybe agree but on the same day that the EoS were telling there members to get applications in now because of speculated licensing changes, Ian Maxwell was sending is now (in)famous email saying the SJFA was in at Tier 6.

With licensing only required for Tier 1-5,  it looks more like floodlights were being added as the next box to be ticked on raising infratructure standards. Just like speculation turning to having seating as the next thing.

Not quite understanding your point, I consider floodlights and seats and decent cover for more than 100 should always have been in the criteria. I also think that there should be knew considerations year on. My contention is that going from a very easily achievable criteria to one considerably difficult isn’t really fair. Tier six or not, if a club wants a licence that is irrelevant. 

[daleboy1969]

1 minute ago, Bella La ghostie said:

Not quite understanding your point, I consider floodlights and seats and decent cover for more than 100 should always have been in the criteria. I also think that there should be knew considerations year on. My contention is that going from a very easily achievable criteria to one considerably difficult isn’t really fair. Tier six or not, if a club wants a licence that is irrelevant. 

I would suggest this should have been a must for junior superleague .too many clubs have done nothing about enhancing the grounds while spending lavishly on players . Talbot and linlithgow done superb jobs on the stadium side of the game .england have steadily rising standards as you move up through the leagues .

[FairWeatherFan]

56 minutes ago, Bella La ghostie said:

Not quite understanding your point, I consider floodlights and seats and decent cover for more than 100 should always have been in the criteria. I also think that there should be knew considerations year on. My contention is that going from a very easily achievable criteria to one considerably difficult isn’t really fair. Tier six or not, if a club wants a licence that is irrelevant. 

You can't really call it very easily achievable criteria though. LTHV just got licensed playing at Saughton where they groundshared with Tynecastle. Tynecastle don't have a license and ground wise Meggetland seems up to licensing standards, so there's something else that they are misssing. Sauchie Juniors apparently have floodlights but are not on the list of clubs that have applied that's going round in EoS circles.

Nobody knows 100% how the ongoing applications are going to be treated derogation wise for those that do not have floodlights. The likes of Bonnyrigg, Jeanfield, Haddington and St Andrews are all known to have applied and don't have them. According to some they won't get licensed but we'll have to see.

As for any Juniors there's nothing stopping them joining Tier 6 licensing wise and they've got an 18 month advance warning before they'd be needed. As you look at the likes of Blackburn and Dalkeith that had their applications accepted in May(?) they've still not been awarded one. So there's little chance anyone not already in the process would be licensed in time for the 2019/20 Scottish Cup.

[Burnie_man]

I believe you once rubbished the pyramid and the east of scotland league .the pyramid was in place by simply bolting the junior leagues onto the system in place . The east region junior in particular was full of self intrested parties protecting there own intrests . One day clubs need to travel more to be seen as superior .then travel was killing the game . Junior fans want to see clubs beating local rivals with cup games at further grounds to break up the local rivalry . Whoever thought junior fans would lap up travelling all over the country sadly got it wrong .most clubs left the east region last season because they wanted to play there neighbours .the eos is now a junior league in all but name filled with junior clubs who wont move skyward any decade soon . 

I never rubbished the Pyramid at all. I did criticise the EoS at one point but they proved me absolutely wrong. At one point it looked as though the EoS clubs should join ERJFA and, like the west just now, move entirely below the LL. But they survuved as a league and proved that it was a better place to be. Armadale joining?

[Bella La ghostie]

12 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

True, not good.

No matter how contentious or controversial a private message is, it should remain private. Why is a moderator on P&B making public  PM? 

[Aubrey Maturin]

1 minute ago, Bella La ghostie said:

No matter how contentious or controversial a private message is, it should remain private. Why is a moderator on P&B making public  PM? 

Because the site owner, yes the site owner put it on twitter for all the world to see Isa.

[Bella La ghostie]

18 minutes ago, Tynierose said:

Because the site owner, yes the site owner put it on twitter for all the world to see Isa.

Therefore private messages, on this forum, are not private? Anne! 

[Bella La ghostie]

1 minute ago, Tynierose said:

Not when you make a rip roaring c**t of yourself like you did Isa. 

The GDPR, why why why.

Incidentally if you were so incandescent about being banned, why come back?

No matter what is sent in a private message on a national  forum, or what the moderators, or the owner think of it, it now is apparent that no one can send a PM to P&B and expect it to be kept private. Integrity? Wow, some admission. 

[The real Dembele]

I'd be for it if it was a wholesale change over to one single administration and all the clubs were involved.

I honestly don't know too much about the structure of the proposals but if it's a case of teams joining a pyramid structure on an individual basis then I'd say at present we'd be better off in the juniors. I can see the juniors being split off into two levels where the top teams like Talbot, Pollok etc who have a big following and some money behind them would be OK in the pyramid but the bottom two leagues at least would be crippled by ground criteria requirements and the extra travel that would no doubt be needed.

I don't really think it matters much for teams like ours, as long as we can survive and we have teams to play against in whatever structure exists then that's all most of us want. Sometimes we''ll have good seasons and sometimes bad, the other teams left will be in the same boat and it might make it more competitive and give us all a chance of actually winning something. That might sound defeatist or lacking ambition but the reality is that we're scratching about for pennies and only money can bring any real success.

 

[GNU_Linux]

I'd be for it if it was a wholesale change over to one single administration and all the clubs were involved.
I honestly don't know too much about the structure of the proposals but if it's a case of teams joining a pyramid structure on an individual basis then I'd say at present we'd be better off in the juniors. I can see the juniors being split off into two levels where the top teams like Talbot, Pollok etc who have a big following and some money behind them would be OK in the pyramid but the bottom two leagues at least would be crippled by ground criteria requirements and the extra travel that would no doubt be needed.
I don't really think it matters much for teams like ours, as long as we can survive and we have teams to play against in whatever structure exists then that's all most of us want. Sometimes we''ll have good seasons and sometimes bad, the other teams left will be in the same boat and it might make it more competitive and give us all a chance of actually winning something. That might sound defeatist or lacking ambition but the reality is that we're scratching about for pennies and only money can bring any real success.
 

Ground criteria wouldnt be much different besides for those pursuing licensing. Some EOS/SOS grounds are very basic. If clubs move over to a theoretical senior WOSL they'd be playing at the same type of level as they are currently in terms of geography & playing quality. The biggest benefit besides licensing thus Scottish Cup entry would be oppertunities are opened up in terms of grants/funding & youth pathways not available as a member of an affiliate association. Ultimatly theres more to the pyramid than reaching the SPFL and the system can benefit all clubs no matter where they find their level within the pyramid.

[AlanCamelonfan]

7 hours ago, The real Dembele said:

I'd be for it if it was a wholesale change over to one single administration and all the clubs were involved.

I honestly don't know too much about the structure of the proposals but if it's a case of teams joining a pyramid structure on an individual basis then I'd say at present we'd be better off in the juniors. I can see the juniors being split off into two levels where the top teams like Talbot, Pollok etc who have a big following and some money behind them would be OK in the pyramid but the bottom two leagues at least would be crippled by ground criteria requirements and the extra travel that would no doubt be needed.

I don't really think it matters much for teams like ours, as long as we can survive and we have teams to play against in whatever structure exists then that's all most of us want. Sometimes we''ll have good seasons and sometimes bad, the other teams left will be in the same boat and it might make it more competitive and give us all a chance of actually winning something. That might sound defeatist or lacking ambition but the reality is that we're scratching about for pennies and only money can bring any real success.

 

We travel less in the pyramid and the way it's looking for next season could be travelling less again.

 

150k toilet blocks got you

[FairWeatherFan]

7 hours ago, The real Dembele said:

but the bottom two leagues at least would be crippled by ground criteria requirements and the extra travel that would no doubt be needed.

The West Region is already region wide across all of its divisions. Unless there was some form of integration between West Juniors & SoS (which doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon), travel would be the same.

Ground criteria would be the same as well. Its only for those going for a SFA License that have that concern.

[Guest]

The travelling for almost every club who joined the eosfl has worked out to be less when averaged out across a season. People will try and use the one off 2 hour journey to say it has more travel involved but in practice teams would actually travel the same or less, barring a couple of longer journeys. 

In terms of money for licencing, floodlights will be the single biggest outlay for clubs, but money generated by being licensed should cover this off over a period and would maybe involve a slight reduction in playing budget to support for some clubs. 150k toilets....... A toilet block can be hired, if you don't have it, for between 70 and 100 quid a week. Again able to be covered off by income from being licensed. A covered seated stand again will cost money, but is also a benefit when looking to attract more supporters. 

It's a clubs individual choice, but being licensed and being forced to upkeep a specified standard of ground (some clubs already do this to be fair) is surely the way forward, if grounds are accessible, functional and kept to a good standard I'm sure more people would come to watch, whatever the level. Particularly if there was cover for spectators, evening games and good toilet and hospitality facilities. 

[The real Dembele]

2 hours ago, G4Mac said:

The travelling for almost every club who joined the eosfl has worked out to be less when averaged out across a season. People will try and use the one off 2 hour journey to say it has more travel involved but in practice teams would actually travel the same or less, barring a couple of longer journeys. 

In terms of money for licencing, floodlights will be the single biggest outlay for clubs, but money generated by being licensed should cover this off over a period and would maybe involve a slight reduction in playing budget to support for some clubs. 150k toilets....... A toilet block can be hired, if you don't have it, for between 70 and 100 quid a week. Again able to be covered off by income from being licensed. A covered seated stand again will cost money, but is also a benefit when looking to attract more supporters. 

It's a clubs individual choice, but being licensed and being forced to upkeep a specified standard of ground (some clubs already do this to be fair) is surely the way forward, if grounds are accessible, functional and kept to a good standard I'm sure more people would come to watch, whatever the level. Particularly if there was cover for spectators, evening games and good toilet and hospitality facilities. 

Couple of points on the above.

If there is a requirement for floodlights and covered seated stand to be put in it is a deal breaker for the smaller clubs, there is absolutely no way most if not all of the teams in League One and Two could or would pay for them. There is just not enough money in the game and teams are struggling badly as it is just to stay in existence. Also where would teams like Rossvale for example stand who don't own their facility, would they have to go out and buy a brand new ground?

The idea of build it and they will come and there will somehow be a upsurge in attendances just isn't reality. If you look at England's pyramid system as a comparison, all of the clubs down to at least Step 6 have floodlights. The standard at Step 6 is roughly equivalent to West Region League One (Step 1 is the National League which promotes into EFL League Two) so it is the 10th tier in the English pyramid. All of the clubs also have covered seated stands and bars and you can get a pint and take it out and watch the game. Most if not all have decent car parks that can accommodate all the cars on most match days. And yet even with all this in place, most of the teams in the NWC league (14/20) have average attendances of less than 100 (https://www.nonleaguematters.co.uk/divisions/35/)

 

[Cyclizine]

20 minutes ago, The real Dembele said:

Couple of points on the above.

If there is a requirement for floodlights and covered seated stand to be put in it is a deal breaker for the smaller clubs, there is absolutely no way most if not all of the teams in League One and Two could or would pay for them. There is just not enough money in the game and teams are struggling badly as it is just to stay in existence. Also where would teams like Rossvale for example stand who don't own their facility, would they have to go out and buy a brand new ground?

The idea of build it and they will come and there will somehow be a upsurge in attendances just isn't reality. If you look at England's pyramid system as a comparison, all of the clubs down to at least Step 6 have floodlights. The standard at Step 6 is roughly equivalent to West Region League One (Step 1 is the National League which promotes into EFL League Two) so it is the 10th tier in the English pyramid. All of the clubs also have covered seated stands and bars and you can get a pint and take it out and watch the game. Most if not all have decent car parks that can accommodate all the cars on most match days. And yet even with all this in place, most of the teams in the league (14/20) have average attendances of less than 100.

But no-one is saying that all clubs in the pyramid must meet those requirements: only those who wish a club licence and automatic entry in the Scottish Cup. For other clubs without those ambitions, nothing would change, other than the potential to rise up (and down) the leagues. At some level, there has to be a requirement for cover, floodlights etc. I don't think the equivalent of the Central District Division 2 is where that'll be.

[Ginaro]

6 hours ago, The real Dembele said:

If there is a requirement for floodlights and covered seated stand to be put in it is a deal breaker for the smaller clubs, there is absolutely no way most if not all of the teams in League One and Two could or would pay for them. There is just not enough money in the game and teams are struggling badly as it is just to stay in existence. Also where would teams like Rossvale for example stand who don't own their facility, would they have to go out and buy a brand new ground?

The requirement for floodlights and cover for 100 only applies to clubs wishing to gain an SFA licence - which allows them to play at Lowland League level and gives automatic access to the Scottish Cup.

If the entire West Region joined the pyramid then licensing would only affect 1 out of the 63 clubs - the Premiership champions. Larkhall in the Championship - tier 7 - would not have to worry about it.

18 hours ago, The real Dembele said:

bottom two leagues at least would be crippled by ground criteria requirements and the extra travel that would no doubt be needed.

Which new places would clubs in the bottom two leagues be travelling to? If anything there could be less travel if the bottom tier split into north/south to integrate the South of Scotland League. Or if the clubs decided the current regionwide divisions aren't working.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, The real Dembele said:

Couple of points on the above.

If there is a requirement for floodlights and covered seated stand to be put in it is a deal breaker for the smaller clubs, there is absolutely no way most if not all of the teams in League One and Two could or would pay for them. There is just not enough money in the game and teams are struggling badly as it is just to stay in existence. Also where would teams like Rossvale for example stand who don't own their facility, would they have to go out and buy a brand new ground?

The idea of build it and they will come and there will somehow be a upsurge in attendances just isn't reality. If you look at England's pyramid system as a comparison, all of the clubs down to at least Step 6 have floodlights. The standard at Step 6 is roughly equivalent to West Region League One (Step 1 is the National League which promotes into EFL League Two) so it is the 10th tier in the English pyramid. All of the clubs also have covered seated stands and bars and you can get a pint and take it out and watch the game. Most if not all have decent car parks that can accommodate all the cars on most match days. And yet even with all this in place, most of the teams in the NWC league (14/20) have average attendances of less than 100 (https://www.nonleaguematters.co.uk/divisions/35/)

 

Think it has been pretty clearly stated, if a club wants to gain a licence and maintain it then it is their own choice. I Never said everyone should have it right away, although the better the standard becomes then I would suspect it would slowly creep down the tiers from 5 to 6 and 6 to 7 in time as standards increase. 

Clubs are free to ground share, there are clubs who do so across the country.... Clyde and Cumbernauld, Alloa and bsc Glasgow etc.... As long as the ground is licence compatible you are free to ground share and almost encouraged to do so. 

I can assure you, from the conversations I have been part of with fans in my locale they would rather visit clubs grounds with available amenities like covered shelter, hospitality and functioning toilets.... And would be more likely to return if these and the football on offer were worth what they had paid for entry. 

[WitsTheGoalieDain?]

Yes, only way forward. Every team/player wants to reach their full potential, regardless of the odds of actually making it to the top flight.

Ambition.

[Lokloyal]

Agree-got to push ahead and try to do better on all fronts 

[Nikos K]

As an outsider with no affiliation to any club I can’t for the life of me understand why any club would not want to join the pyramid. Surely you want to play at the highest possible level? The financial thing really only affects the top teams who will be moving up but wouldn’t you like to have at least one day like talbot against Ayr? Or are you quite happy playing local Derby’s in front of a 100 folk? 

The pyramid has got to happen but I would think as a wos senior league as opposed to the juniors joining at tier 6 .