Club Licencing

[Burnie_man]

2 minutes ago, Dev said:

The 7th March 2019 list of Licenced Clubs is now available.

No additions.

Aye there won't be until the SFA Board meet.

[Ginaro]

South Challenge Cup draw at Hampden on Monday (also PWG meeting, right?) so you'd hope the LL/EOS reps will bring up the subject in the corridors of power...

[AlanCamelonfan]

5 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

South Challenge Cup draw at Hampden on Monday (also PWG meeting, right?) so you'd hope the LL/EOS reps will bring up the subject in the corridors of power...

That's what I was thinking too

[Burnie_man]

4 hours ago, Ginaro said:

South Challenge Cup draw at Hampden on Monday (also PWG meeting, right?) so you'd hope the LL/EOS reps will bring up the subject in the corridors of power...

Maybe TJ will make the draw, hands across the water

[Burnie_man]

So, no confirmed date yet for SFA Board meeting,  mid-April was suggested but is that accurate does anyone know?

[Ginaro]

On 15/02/2019 at 22:29, Ginaro said:

Good stuff, a planning application means you're closer to meeting the requirements than the 3 LL teams without lights - if they get their licence renewed I don't see why you shouldn't be awarded one.

https://planning-applications.midlothian.gov.uk/OnlinePlanning/caseDetails.do?caseType=Application&keyVal=PL5WIKKVGOL00

Checked this the other day, the club has a requested an extension (11th April) to sort the application - due to discrepancies between the position of the lighting poles in different plans, and after comments on the light modelling from environmental health.

[12 Angry Men]

So, no confirmed date yet for SFA Board meeting,  mid-April was suggested but is that accurate does anyone know?

The fact that we are no further forward with this and that applicant clubs are left in limbo is just appalling on the part of the SFA.

The Licensing Committee, as I understand it, do all the assessment work with regard to policies, documentation, procedures etc and with regard to suitability of ground and facilities too. Any discrepancies are then highlighted with an opportunity for the club being assessed to put things right before a pass or fail ‘report’ is issued. This ‘report’ is then put to a meeting of the Licensing Committee with a recommendation to confirm a passing clubs application meets all necessary requirements. Once the application is confirmed it’s the task of the SFA board to merely rubber stamp the application and confirm membership. The Licensing Committee can then issue a license.

So, all the SFA Board are required to do, really, is rubber stamp all applications recommended to them by the Licensing Committee. This, surely, could easily be done by conference call with no need to wait for the next board meeting. The fact that this hasn’t happened is showing absolute contempt for the clubs involved. It’s just another example of the litany of failure and lack of understanding associated with the SFA and is why the current incumbents in positions of power are not fit for purpose.

[Black & Red Socks]

15 hours ago, stanley said:

The clubs have met all the deadlines.  It's the SFA who have messed up.  I hope they don't punish the EoS clubs for this.  Would be farcical if clubs moved to EoS from juniors to get licensed and try to get promoted to LL (although obviously not all clubs had this as a realistic aim) and then they were denied promotion because the SFA didn't get round to giving out licences.

The above was posted in the 'Lowland League Relegation' thread and is pertinent here too. For clubs pushing for their Conference titles and the opportunity to contest the promotion spot available to the Lowland League to then, potentially, be denied that promotion spot because they weren't licensed in the proper time frame despite their applications being received, reviewed and passed in good time by the Licensing Committee but consequently delayed due to the couldn't care less attitude of the SFA in rescheduling a postponed board meeting to deal with these applications is an absolutely absurd situation brought about by the complete unprofessionalism and sheer contempt of the SFA board and its CEO Ian Maxwell.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Black & Red Socks

[Kelheart]

Personally think the current members in the lower Spfl leagues are shitting themselves with what’s brewing below and have probably  been at sfa to take time with licensing as major changes afoot soon hopefully , just my opinion !! 

[Kilbowie Benches]

3 hours ago, Black & Red Socks said:

The above was posted in the 'Lowland League Relegation' thread and is pertinent here too. For clubs pushing for their Conference titles and the opportunity to contest the promotion spot available to the Lowland League to then, potentially, be denied that promotion spot because they weren't licensed in the proper time frame despite their applications being received, reviewed and passed in good time by the Licensing Committee but consequently delayed due to the couldn't care less attitude of the SFA in rescheduling a postponed board meeting to deal with these applications is an absolutely absurd situation brought about by the complete unprofessionalism and sheer contempt of the SFA board and its CEO Ian Maxwell.

Or it could be in retaliation for the EoSL blocking tactics regarding the Juniors.Just saying ......

[gaz5]

Or it could be in retaliation for the EoSL blocking tactics regarding the Juniors.Just saying ......

EoS: Accepted 26 former Juniors into their league in 2018 and in 2019 have made it clear they are happy to accept West Region at Teir 6, North region at Teir 6, support creation of Tayside league at Teir 6 for teams north of the LL line and to accept remaining East region junior teams South of the line into their structure.  

 

 

SJFA: We want East Juniors in system at the same level as EoS in a competing geographical area that would see teams single digit miles apart in a separate league structure, we want our own disciplinary process so we can collect fines, we want North of the Tay teams who can't play Lowland League included in the South of the Tay structure in the overlapping geographical area, competing with teams for a promotion spot they can't take and we don't give a f**k about the North juniors.

 

Yep, defo sounds like it's the EoS being unreasonable and employing blocking tactics with regards the juniors.

 

[emoji2] [emoji2]

 

Guid yin, what's your next line: "SNP turn down offer of Scottish Independence and £100 billion from Westminster".

 

 

 

 

 

[Kilbowie Benches]

30 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

EoS: Accepted 26 former Juniors into their league in 2018 and in 2019 have made it clear they are happy to accept West Region at Teir 6, North region at Teir 6, support creation of Tayside league at Teir 6 for teams north of the LL line and to accept remaining East region junior teams South of the line into their structure.  

 

 

SJFA: We want East Juniors in system at the same level as EoS in a competing geographical area that would see teams single digit miles apart in a separate league structure, we want our own disciplinary process so we can collect fines, we want North of the Tay teams who can't play Lowland League included in the South of the Tay structure in the overlapping geographical area, competing with teams for a promotion spot they can't take and we don't give a f**k about the North juniors.

 

Yep, defo sounds like it's the EoS being unreasonable and employing blocking tactics with regards the juniors.

 

 

Guid yin, what's your next line: "SNP turn down offer of Scottish Independence and £100 billion from Westminster".

 

 

 

 

 

Nice try but it’s the SFA’s plan to put the West/East Juniors in at tier 6.

Its an SFA board directive.

[FairWeatherFan]

Let's keep in mind the only reason the February SFA board meeting was only cancelled due to a close death in the family of one of the board. It was next meant to meet in June.

I've seen it now said from both senior & junior supporters that it has been rescheduled for April 18th ( if I remember that correctly)

The SFA board do have other things to discuss beyond licensing & it has been said often enough their are those that wouldn't even be aware of the importance of March 31st.

Can all the conspiracy theories give it a rest since its origins are based on someone's untimely death? This would of all been resolved in February if it wasn't for that.

 

[12 Angry Men]

3 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Let's keep in mind the only reason the February SFA board meeting was only cancelled due to a close death in the family of one of the board. It was next meant to meet in June.

I've seen it now said from both senior & junior supporters that it has been rescheduled for April 18th ( if I remember that correctly)

The SFA board do have other things to discuss beyond licensing & it has been said often enough their are those that wouldn't even be aware of the importance of March 31st.

Can all the conspiracy theories give it a rest since its origins are based on someone's untimely death? This would of all been resolved in February if it wasn't for that.

Agreed re a sad and untimely passing, I believe it was the daughter of the SFA President.

You are quite correct too that the next scheduled SFA Board meeting was to be in June and I think you're almost certainly correct that there were many, if not all, who sit on that board entirely unaware of the importance of the 31st March date for the prospective EoSFL Conference winners and the SoSL winners with regard to licensing. I understand, though, that Ian Maxwell has subsequently been made aware on more than one occasion of the significance of that date and he has still failed to react with any urgency whatsoever. As I said in my previous post, as it is merely a rubber stamping of a Licensing Committee decision that has to happen here a conference call between board members would have been the most straight forward and efficient of solutions. However, straight forward and efficient are words that do not seem to appear in the SFA vocabulary .

[gaz5]

Nice try but it’s the SFA’s plan to put the West/East Juniors in at tier 6.
Its an SFA board directive.

Ok, even though we all know that's not true (given the plan is the one the SJFA asked they're member clubs to vote on before the SFA board were even engaged) I'll play.

So, you're strive is that the EoS are blocking and movement of the juniors.

In reality, the EoS have agreed to put 3 of the 4 distinct sets of Juniors in at Teir 6, (West, North and Tayside) asking the Juniors to make a common sense concession for the small fourth subset for the good of the game because there's already a league in that geographical area.

The EoS then called and chaired a meeting with the SJFA, presumably to discuss this and by all accounts the SJFA and ERSJFA weren't interested in a compromise (hearsay based on yourself and others heading reports of the meeting)

So we are in a position where the "SFA board directive", which coincidentally happens to be the same as the option selected when the SJFA asked teams to vote on pyramid entry, had been 75% agreed by the EoS, but it can't be passed because the SJFA want 100%.

This is generally how proposals work. Someone has an initial stab, people yeah and agree what is actually most common sense, the plan is reviewed and agreed then implemented.

And you are trying to sell that as the EoS being the obstruction.

It's pure fantasy. As far as I can tell, the EoS are not only the only people trying to make it happen, they are they only people looking at it from a common sense perspective calling the batshit crazy as batshit crazy.

Tell us: what concessions have the SJFA made or solutions have they suggested to make the plan palatable?

Zero. It gets then scaly what they want, despite knowing it's nuts, for all the reasons listed, so their position comes across as "we're in, f**k you".

[Kilbowie Benches]

It is an SFA board directive,read the minutes of the PWG.

You’re getting angry at the wrong people!

 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Kilbowie Benches

[Burnie_man]

19 minutes ago, Kilbowie Benches said:

Nice try but it’s the SFA’s plan to put the West/East Juniors in at tier 6.

Its an SFA board directive.

The SJFA wrote to the SFA Board citing their members vote and asking for access to tier 6. The SFA Board passed the request to the PWG to progress. The SJFA paint this as a "directive" that must be implemented, which is way off the mark as they are finding out.

Let's not pretend this was all an SFA idea, until that point the SJFA were refusing to have anything to do with the Pyramid (and would have continued to do so were it not for the goings on in the east) so why would the SFA suddenly have suggested this? Nice try.

[Kilbowie Benches]

Just now, Burnie_man said:

The SJFA wrote to the SFA Board citing their members vote and asking for access to tier 6. The SFA Board passed the request to the PWG to progress. The SJFA paint this as a "directive" that must be implemented, which is way off the mark as they are finding out.

Let's not pretend this was all an SFA idea, until that point the SJFA were refusing to have anything to do with the Pyramid (and would have continued to do so were it not for the goings on in the east) so why would the SFA suddenly have suggested this? Nice try.

Because they had a board meeting and ratified it,hence Maxwells e mail in October.

All it’s been since then is the EoSL trying to come up with the same old tired points which have all been resolved with SFA staff.

If I was on the SFA board and there were a lot of licensing applications from EoS clubs I know where I’d be putting them!

[Burnie_man]

19 minutes ago, Kilbowie Benches said:

Because they had a board meeting and ratified it,hence Maxwells e mail in October.

All it’s been since then is the EoSL trying to come up with the same old tired points which have all been resolved with SFA staff.

If I was on the SFA board and there were a lot of licensing applications from EoS clubs I know where I’d be putting them!

What exactly did they ratify? all they did was say "Fine, you now want in, go and speak to the other leagues via the PWG".  This was before Maxwell's time. Is that what you call a "directive"? because as you have found out it's pretty meaningless, there has to be agreement and consensus at PWG, there isn't.

If the SFA Board were able to issue "directives" which carried weight, Rangers and Celtic Colts would be starting next season in League Two. They're not, because SPFL clubs rejected the plan.

You, as a Clydebank board member and deferred EoS applicant, need to be careful with your continual ridiculous criticisms of the EoS.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Burnie_man

[Kilbowie Benches]

You can’t even be a deferred applicant