newcastle broon Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 17 minutes ago, Ginaro said: So for three clubs who seem to have no intention of adding floodlights the SFA thinks it's ok for them to keep their licence but not for any new applicants... Don't think the LL can do much as the rules require clubs to be a licensed SFA member on June 30th, it's too late to be changing them. How do you know these clubs have no intention of installing floodlights ? Can you back this up ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 Thinking out loud. The LL required a Licence for entry and at the start of this season that did not include floodlights. The LL do not have an additional floodlight rule to cover this (unlike the HL who do) Could they say that as the league rules stood at the start of the season, no floodlights were required for promotion and that as Bonnyrigg meet all other Licence requirements apart from floodlights they would add them as a 17th club (or 16th if Berwick don’t come down) as a one season exception given they would have lights in place for the start of the season anyway? Would be good for PR for the LL to be flexible on this (if they can), and rewards Bonnyrigg's achievement. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason King Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 To be the Darcus Howe though - shouldnt a club with ambition like Bonnyrigg have installed floodlights years ago? -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 7 minutes ago, Burnie_man said: Thinking out loud. The LL required a Licence for entry and at the start of this season that did not include floodlights. It's not just the license, it's the SFA membership that goes with it as I recall. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted May 7, 2019 Author Share Posted May 7, 2019 1 minute ago, FairWeatherFan said: It's not just the license, it's the SFA membership that goes with it as I recall. Aye SFA Membership is based on meeting licence requirements, which Bonnyrigg did before it was changed. If I were Bonnyrigg (and others) I'd be getting a lawyer to pore over the 2018 and 2019 Club Licence manual, and the options for appeal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, newcastle broon said: How do you know these clubs have no intention of installing floodlights ? Can you back this up ? I don't think he does. CSS, VoL and WW aren't clubs that just rented an SPFL ground and walked in. They're clubs that have made the gradual improvements that have gone with licensing as it has evolved over the last 6+ years. I'm sure all 3 are all looking at the floodlight issue since it became a requirement. And unfortunately may have looked already and there's a reason why they have gotten them so far. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 Just now, Burnie_man said: Aye SFA Membership is based on meeting licence requirements, which Bonnyrigg did before it was changed. If I were Bonnyrigg (and others) I'd be getting a lawyer to pore over the 2018 and 2019 Club Licence manual, and the options for appeal. I would, and the moratorium and things like that. The whole reason for the moratorium was supposedly to sort the pyramid issue and they never did anything. Wasting 6 months where clubs could of been licensed in 2018 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz5 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 For already licensed teams without lights, I believe the mechanism for removing licenses is through the annual re-audit. Don't think you can just take them away. So in theory any club without them has until they are re-audited this year to get them in, at which point of they don't they would lose their licence? I'm sure I saw someone say that Whitehill weren't due an audit till September time? So they would have the licence to start the season, but not shortly after (as well as CSS, Vale). It's all a bit messy. Could mean zero promotion places this season, but 3 (or 4 if someone other than the 3 teams finished bottom) next season. Feel for the clubs who have been refused on the basis of floodlights only. Poor show. ETA: We've not heard anything about our application. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld Heid Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 How do you know these clubs have no intention of installing floodlights ? Can you back this up ?I think if there was an intention these teams would have done so by now. The LL is hardly a new concept - didn't these teams notice others playing whilst they were watching eastenders? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
db11 Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, gogsy said: You mean sometime after they got a big windfall like a cup tie against one of the biggest supported teams in the country? The ground improvements at ndp in the last few years have been very impressive. A new changing facility, corporate lounge, terracing amongst many others. Well in excess of 100k spent, if floodlights had been a requirement before application had started, they would have been installed by now. I also look at list of teams who have floodlights and notice most have had them paid for by local authority (wee rose an obvious exception) unfortunately as Rose own the ground, this isnt an option Edited May 7, 2019 by db11 Spelling 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 28 minutes ago, Gimme said: 44 minutes ago, Ginaro said: You could also use Penicuik Park. The sad part is that Whitehill played a grand total of two midweek games at home, one on 31st July and the other in April at Pennypit Park (same with Vale who played once at Pennypit in April). So for three clubs who seem to have no intention of adding floodlights the SFA thinks it's ok for them to keep their licence but not for any new applicants... Don't think the LL can do much as the rules require clubs to be a licensed SFA member on June 30th, it's too late to be changing them. Is the rule, in the LL constitution not that clubs must be in possession of an SFA licence at 30 June following the conclusion of the season, not prior to the commencement? You might be right, it says "B1 All clubs must, on the Completion Date [30th June], be licensed, full members of the Scottish FA.." so maybe it only applied to current clubs. New clubs come via the lower play-off (31st March but extended to when?) or applications (15th May). 25 minutes ago, newcastle broon said: How do you know these clubs have no intention of installing floodlights ? Can you back this up ? I can't, just assuming given they've been in the league for years and not done anything about it, and also some grumbling from CSS about the new requirement. Though maybe you could tell us if WW intend to install floodlights? 6 minutes ago, gaz5 said: I'm sure I saw someone say that Whitehill weren't due an audit till September time? So they would have the licence to start the season, but not shortly after (as well as CSS, Vale). Last licensing committee review for WW in October 2018, December for CSS/VOL so assuming auditing before that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNU_Linux Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 As per a post on LL forum Civil Service have acquired devil lanterns 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 (edited) Tranent announcement. I thought the licensing committee only passed application onto the SFA board if clubs met all the requirements? If so what criteria were they judging Tranent and St Andrews on, when they were being audited just a few days after the 2019 criteria came out? Quote This requirement was a change to the original licensing criteria and was brought in 34 hours before our final assessment, which we would have passed otherwise. This is all the more galling considering the hundreds of hours spent on the regeneration of our ground and the amount of time completing paperwork. I am absolutely gutted and saddened to be telling our loyal fans this news. We are at an advanced stage to install floodlights after the upgrade of 3 phase power at a cost of over £15,000. https://www.facebook.com/groups/456143221238457/permalink/1150448251807947/ Edited May 7, 2019 by Ginaro 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newcastle broon Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 8 minutes ago, Ginaro said: I can't, just assuming given they've been in the league for years and not done anything about it, and also some grumbling from CSS about the new requirement. Though maybe you could tell us if WW intend to install floodlights? I wouldn't have a clue if ww intend to install floodlights they've tried before and been refused when there was no ruling so ye never know. Its hardly their fault Bonnyrigg were refused a license though. I've every sympathy for them. It's one total fcuk up by the authorities. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GNU_Linux Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 And this season is only Civils 3rd? season in Lowland league.Civil are arguebly the suprise package of the season finishing 5th. Be icing on the cake to have lights as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 10 minutes ago, Ginaro said: Tranent announcement. I thought the licensing committee only passed application onto the SFA board if clubs met all the requirements? If so what criteria were they judging Tranent and St Andrews on, when they were being audited just a few days after the 2019 criteria came out? https://www.facebook.com/groups/456143221238457/permalink/1150448251807947/ Supposedly there were 12 applications that went in front of the SFA Board 6 with floodlights and 6 without. The 6 without went in front of the board for them to decide if a derogation would be accepted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Macguire Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Whitburn Vale said: It's their league not the SFA's,they can waver their rules this season due to the SFA's incompetence. Next season everyone knows the rules so fair enough. Can they really? Considering the SFA blocked their attempts to change their own rules mid season, I suspect the SFA might have something to say about it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dev Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 Sadly, it appears that the likes of the SFA has a tendency to act out of a lack of knowledge/understanding of the SFA rules, regulations, constitution etc let alone the Laws of the Land. Would it be a huge surprise if the SFA was taken to the cleaners over their perceived mis-handling of club licencing? Altering the criteria for club licencing has to be done in a reasonable manner e.g. providing all clubs in Scotland with the same information about club licencing at the same time (in case they wish to apply) and then to provide clubs which have ALREADY made an application to opportunity to gain a licence upon the terms and conditions which were in place at the time of the application (unless they have been excessively slow getting necessary works carried out). Otherwise it is surely a breach of contract? Any-one can breach a contract or fail to fulfil a contract but this risks being dragged through the legal system. Can the SFA really afford to take such a risk? If you check what other nations do you will see that they give clubs reasonable notice of changes to the Licencing criteria and they do NOT make those changes at short notice (December for the 1st January) and to take effect during the course of the current season. Again, sadly, it appears that the likes of the SFA has a tendency to act out of a lack of knowledge/understanding of the SFA rules, regulations, constitution etc let alone the Laws of the Land. This is a very hazardous way to operate. Wouldn't any Chief Exec/President etc of any reputable organisation make sure that such blatantly obvious pit-falls were avoided? Who would employ one who didn't do that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanCamelonfan Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 1 minute ago, gogsy said: So from this list four out of the six with lights have given notice that they have become licenced, with Hill of Beath and Tynecastle still to say anything. Two clubs out of the six without have indicated they would get licence if they had/will get floodlights( Tranent and Bonnyrigg) In their case is the process on going or do they have to start application from scratch? Camelon would have aswell it was only the lights 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanley Posted May 7, 2019 Share Posted May 7, 2019 Really don't like that you have clubs with no ground of their own who are fine to be in the LL without ever having to invest in their own facilities and then you have clubs who are in the process of improving their ground beinf rejected. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.