Jump to content

Club Licencing


Recommended Posts

Just now, gogsy said:

Thanks do you know if Camelon are in the process of getting floodlights installed?

We were working on getting them. Apparently we would have been able to get them in by the end of next season. We are in the Scottish Cup next season anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jerry Macguire said:

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. 

They know best though Jerry.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Switching back to the positives, a tremendous achievement for Blackburn United.
What a boost for the village.
If ever there was a reward for investing in your community, your facilities and showing ambition above what most would have thought possible a few years ago, then this it.

Congratulations to all involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Tynierose said:

I can see their next trick being to include  criteria for a having x amounts of seats.

That should put those pesky clubs that want too progress in their place.

Scottish football eh.


Tbh I think that would be fair enough, provided there's a decent lead-in time and the requirement isn't too strict. I think it's fair enough that people should have a chance to sit, especially older folk and those with kids. IMO it's more important than floodlights.

Most grounds have a few benches or plastic chairs or whatever knocking about, that's all that's needed in most places. But don't tell the SFA, they would probably ban these as a hazard...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I write this post just to let you all know my experiences of the SFA Club Licensing process and why, (without knowing all the details) it may not be the end of the road for Bonnyrigg just yet. (Unless of course they have officially been told different???)

When either applying to get a license for the first time, or in renewing an existing one, there are virtually no grey areas in the process at all. It is very black and white.

If , at the time of your SFA visit, a club has not complied with one of the stipulations within a set timescale, then it is very unlikely that any club would be granted a license in the first instance. However, you may be granted one later if you can prove that the work is complete and compliant.

As an example, say a club needed to install toilets and plumbing works into dressing rooms.

On the day of your visit, if the required work is not complete then the SFA are not interested if the plumbing company has been delayed, or if you are waiting on a part arriving in the post, or that it will be finished in the next few weeks or whatever.

At the time of the visit if the club is not compliant then a license would not granted. (Unless the works were literally completed within a few days.)

However, the club may be given a set timescale to complete the work and the licensing committee may confirm the award at a later date.  

I cannot imagine a circumstance where the SFA would have awarded Bonnyrigg a license today if they stipulated in advance that floodlights were a requirement for new applicants and the lights were not fully installed and signed off as being compliant.

So today they fail their application because they are not compliant as the floodlights are not operational on the day the committee makes its decision.

However the bigger question I suppose is have the club been told that they have a deadline to complete the works and the licensing committee will revisit the application?

Or have they been told that the process is now complete and they cannot be granted a license prior to the commencement of the new season?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now a certain Mr Johnston is phoning round the big Junior clubs saying "see, see what they're like, surely you're better sticking with us." And the worst of it is, he's not wrong.

If the governing body are going to put arbitrary and obviously capricious barriers in the way of clubs trying to progress, having fleeced them of thousands first it makes you wonder, what was the point of this season?

Maybe we should all groundshare at Ainslie Park, 8 matches a weekend, the SFA would be happy then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You apply and pay your money based on existing published criteria. Criteria is changed, your application is rejected and you lose your money. Surely apart from anything else the SFA are obligated to pay back the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gogsy said:

Governing body has probably just accepted more clubs today than it has last five? years

It's the ones it rejected, and why, that are causing the anger and mistrust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Right now a certain Mr Johnston is phoning round the big Junior clubs saying "see, see what they're like, surely you're better sticking with us." And the worst of it is, he's not wrong.

As I was saying...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bonnyrigg Vid
22 minutes ago, Soor Plooms said:

I write this post just to let you all know my experiences of the SFA Club Licensing process and why, (without knowing all the details) it may not be the end of the road for Bonnyrigg just yet. (Unless of course they have officially been told different???)

When either applying to get a license for the first time, or in renewing an existing one, there are virtually no grey areas in the process at all. It is very black and white.

If , at the time of your SFA visit, a club has not complied with one of the stipulations within a set timescale, then it is very unlikely that any club would be granted a license in the first instance. However, you may be granted one later if you can prove that the work is complete and compliant.

As an example, say a club needed to install toilets and plumbing works into dressing rooms.

On the day of your visit, if the required work is not complete then the SFA are not interested if the plumbing company has been delayed, or if you are waiting on a part arriving in the post, or that it will be finished in the next few weeks or whatever.

At the time of the visit if the club is not compliant then a license would not granted. (Unless the works were literally completed within a few days.)

However, the club may be given a set timescale to complete the work and the licensing committee may confirm the award at a later date.  

I cannot imagine a circumstance where the SFA would have awarded Bonnyrigg a license today if they stipulated in advance that floodlights were a requirement for new applicants and the lights were not fully installed and signed off as being compliant.

So today they fail their application because they are not compliant as the floodlights are not operational on the day the committee makes its decision.

However the bigger question I suppose is have the club been told that they have a deadline to complete the works and the licensing committee will revisit the application?

Or have they been told that the process is now complete and they cannot be granted a license prior to the commencement of the new season?

 

 

 

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/bonnyrigg-rose-denied-promotion-to-lowland-league-as-bid-for-sfa-licence-is-rejected-1-4922594

According to the evening news: With an ongoing campaign to raise funds for the installation of floodlights, Rose harboured hopes of being granted a conditional licence in order for them to compete in next season’s Lowland League. However, they have failed to secure such an arrangement and will be denied promotion next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Jerry Macguire said:

Some of the comments on here are completely ridiculous. The SFA are the governing body. Put simply their baw, their rules. 

It's not quite as black and white as that when payment is involved, and at the point of accepting the payment the rules were different to what they are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Burnie_man said:

What? FFS :lol:

It's bollocks obviously, they don't even know if they'll have a regionalised league or tiers next season, but the perception matters. And the perception in the Junior world will be that the pyramid is a scam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Soor Plooms said:

I write this post just to let you all know my experiences of the SFA Club Licensing process and why, (without knowing all the details) it may not be the end of the road for Bonnyrigg just yet. (Unless of course they have officially been told different???)

When either applying to get a license for the first time, or in renewing an existing one, there are virtually no grey areas in the process at all. It is very black and white.

If , at the time of your SFA visit, a club has not complied with one of the stipulations within a set timescale, then it is very unlikely that any club would be granted a license in the first instance. However, you may be granted one later if you can prove that the work is complete and compliant.

As an example, say a club needed to install toilets and plumbing works into dressing rooms.

On the day of your visit, if the required work is not complete then the SFA are not interested if the plumbing company has been delayed, or if you are waiting on a part arriving in the post, or that it will be finished in the next few weeks or whatever.

At the time of the visit if the club is not compliant then a license would not granted. (Unless the works were literally completed within a few days.)

However, the club may be given a set timescale to complete the work and the licensing committee may confirm the award at a later date.  

I cannot imagine a circumstance where the SFA would have awarded Bonnyrigg a license today if they stipulated in advance that floodlights were a requirement for new applicants and the lights were not fully installed and signed off as being compliant.

So today they fail their application because they are not compliant as the floodlights are not operational on the day the committee makes its decision.

However the bigger question I suppose is have the club been told that they have a deadline to complete the works and the licensing committee will revisit the application?

Or have they been told that the process is now complete and they cannot be granted a license prior to the commencement of the new season?

Interesting.  Where does the derogation process fit into all of this?

It's a process detailed in the Club Licencing Manual which on the face of it, doesn't appear to have been followed very closely.  If it is not there to give clubs 12 months grace to comply with a requirement which is already in the process of being met in time for the next scheduled audit then what is it there for?  I can understand derogation being refused if the club has no idea how it's going to comply, but in the case of Bonnyrigg and others, they know what they have to do, have a plan.

That's not even to mention the section covering "reasonable timescale" to comply with changes of this type.   A good lawyer could probably drive a bus through the holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

It's not quite as black and white as that when payment is involved, and at the point of accepting the payment the rules were different to what they are now.

It shouldn't be that black and white. Unfortunately i think the SFA will do what they want and everyone will just need to accept it and fall in line. It isn't right, it just is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the current (2019) Licensing manual

 

3.3 Meeting the requirements

Prior to an audit visit, clubs are required to review the criteria and agree the scope for the licensing assessment. The scope may differ between different aspects of the club’s operations. Each club may apply for an award at any of the levels. An assessment is then carried out by the Licensing Administration on the agreed scope and findings are reported to the club directly. Each club has the opportunity to apply for derogation where variances have been identified with the agreed scope. The Licensing Committee (“LC”) is responsible for determining the award.

3.4 Applications for Derogation

In accordance with the process map at 4.1 of Section 4 of this Manual, clubs may submit applications to the Licensing Committee for derogation where there are variances with the criteria at the level of award applied for. These applications shall be submitted by the club using a form prepared by the Scottish FA. It will be a matter for the Licensing Committee to determine whether to accept such an application on such terms as the LC specifies or to refuse the application, acting reasonably at all times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think people need to keep their eye fixed on the prize and not let one setback discourage them. Having a club like Blackburn accepted today shows that it should be possible for a significantly larger club like Bonnyrigg Rose to get in as well once the floodlights box is ticked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...