Club Licencing

[Muzza81]

Good statement by Haddington Athletic as well - showing what an amateur organisation the SFA are. 

[Burnie_man]

Looked over the 2018 SFA Annual Report which is presented at the SFA AGM, Bonnyrigg were highlighted in it for their grassroots work....

[Guest Bonnyrigg Vid]

3 minutes ago, Muzza81 said:

Good statement by Haddington Athletic as well - showing what an amateur organisation the SFA are. 

Do you have a link pls

 

[Muzza81]

Just now, Bonnyrigg Vid said:

Do you have a link pls

 

It’s on their Facebook if you have access. 

[FairWeatherFan]

10 minutes ago, Bonnyrigg Vid said:

Do you have a link pls

Don't know how to link Facebook

Quote

We're very gravely disappointed, to say the least, at having received earlier today from SFA CEO Ian Maxwell the email below (in quotes). To say the news comes as a blow to our future aspirations is something of an understatement. Having been aware of the manner of the SFA's handling of pyramid affairs over recent times it could never have been said we were confident, as such, that the outcome would be as desired - we were however hopeful until today's news came through that our national body would follow a course of action borne of appreciation of clubs' individual realities.

Haddington Athletic first contacted the SFA as far back as season 2014/15 in connection with the possibility of gaining membership, and paid the requisite £2000 fee. Subsequently plans were put on the back burner while we considered our position on several fronts and it was only last March, as the topic of clubs leaving Junior football began to be widely discussed, that we began seriously to reconsider our position.

In June of last year we officially transferred our operation from the East Region of the Scottish Junior Football Association to the East Of Scotland Football Association, and pursued our SFA membership application by taking steps to bring Millfield into line with their Entry Level licensing standards - this included an outlay of £30,000 of the club's money to build the toilet block now in place, incorporating the required first aid room. We were extremely concerned to receive SFA communication on 11 December, without consultation or any kind of warning, to the effect licensing criteria - clubs would now be required to have floodlights in place to qualify for Entry Level licensing. Clearly this changed things greatly - there was though some suggestion clubs would be granted "derogation" if they'd applied under the criteria as it existed previously, ie, an extension to allow clubs time to address floodlighting matters. Now though, after several months of lack of clarity, delay, and misleading communications, we've reached the severely frustrating position in which we find ourselves today.

More will be said on the subject in due course. Meanwhile, some might think it speaks volumes of the SFA's level of professionalism that they couldn't even take the time to ensure their correspondence was composed correctly. "I am write", "not complaint", etc, The second paragraph in particular stands up to little scrutiny, given everything.

"Regarding the above, I am write to confirm that following consideration by the Board, your application for membership of the Scottish Football Association has been rejected as your club is not complaint with current Entry Level criteria – specifically provision of floodlighting.

I appreciate this is disappointing news however I’m sure you can understand the Scottish FA’s desire to continue to improve standards within our game.

 

Regards

Ian Maxwell
Chief Executive

Scottish Football Association"

EDIT:

Is this really all the rejected clubs got in their emails?

"Regarding the above, I am write to confirm that following consideration by the Board, your application for membership of the Scottish Football Association has been rejected as your club is not complaint with current Entry Level criteria – specifically provision of floodlighting.

I appreciate this is disappointing news however I’m sure you can understand the Scottish FA’s desire to continue to improve standards within our game.

 

Regards

Ian Maxwell
Chief Executive

Scottish Football Association"

Edited May 7, 2019 by FairWeatherFan

[ForzaDundee]

Quote

 

"Regarding the above, I am write to confirm that following consideration by the Board, your application for membership of the Scottish Football Association has been rejected as your club is not complaint with current Entry Level criteria – specifically provision of floodlighting.

I appreciate this is disappointing news however I’m sure you can understand the Scottish FA’s desire to continue to improve standards within our game.

 

Regards

Ian Maxwell
Chief Executive

Scottish Football Association"

 

"I am write" 

FFS

[Marten]

It's a complete and utter farce, but I'm sure Bonnyrigg will have a good case. They've probably already worked on the next steps as they will have realised this was a likely possibility.

On a more positive note, well done to all clubs who did get a license. I've visited 2 of them in the past year: Blackburn & Hill of Beath. Both impressed me as very well run community clubs with some fantastic volunteers who do a lot for the club, both have a great set-up. They have rightfully been rewarded for their hard work.

[Marshmallo]

"I am write" sums it up. An 8 year old wouldn't get away with that, and it's the CEO of the national governing body.

[Chris_the_rover]

Is there a list of the clubs who applied and who have been sucsessful and not?

I feel for bonnyrigg but are the SFA looking at the fact as quick as they could get the lights up, they havnt yet been granted planning permission?

Hopefully its sorted soon, I would like all EOS and SOS teams in Scottish cup every year

[LongTimeLurker]

got it: Blackburn, Penicuik, Broxburn, Hill of Beath, Easthouses (?), Tynecastle (?)

didnae: St Andrews, Haddington, Bonnyrigg, Camelon, Tranent, Dundonald

[AlanCamelonfan]

5 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

got it: Blackburn, Penicuik, Broxburn, Hill of Beath, Easthouses (?), Tynecastle (?)

didnae: St Andrews, Haddington, Bonnyrigg, Camelon, Tranent, Dundonald

Someone on fb said Easthouses did

[Ginaro]

Tynecastle have been quiet on social media since the end of the season, only other one with lights on the first page (apart from Dalkeith) is Newtongrange who have tweeted but not said anything about a licence so I assume they haven't been awarded one.

[Jason King]

Easthouses announced it hours ago,

 

Easthouses Lily‏ @EasthousesLily 6h6 hours ago

More

We are delighted to announce that the SFA have approved our application and are now full members of the Scottish Football Association.

Tremendous news for the club.

[newcastle broon]

6 minutes ago, Jason King said:

Easthouses announced it hours ago,

 

Easthouses Lily‏ @EasthousesLily 6h6 hours ago

More

We are delighted to announce that the SFA have approved our application and are now full members of the Scottish Football Association.

Tremendous news for the club.

No bad for a side that did nae want to play EOSFL a few seasons ago. The changes up their have to be applauded. 

15 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Tynecastle have been quiet on social media since the end of the season, only other one with lights on the first page (apart from Dalkeith) is Newtongrange who have tweeted but not said anything about a licence so I assume they haven't been awarded one.

Canny believe Nitten would miss oot. Is there anything blatantly wrong up there license wise  ? 

[Gimme]

Canny believe Nitten would miss oot. Is there anything blatantly wrong up there license wise  ? 

They are skint

[newcastle broon]

2 minutes ago, leftbehind said:

Have they changed the Criteria again to now include a healthy bank balance ? Many current licensed clubs would fail that one I think  but then I am sure some poster will ask what constitutes HEALTHY.

Showing books is part of the process which makes selkirk s demise even more bizarre  ?

[GordonS]

4 hours ago, Connor7 said:

 

 

Wtf is this, he can’t be serious?

 

The Juniors is the biggest shambles of an organisation I have ever seen.

The Juniors are laughing at us.

That's how bad the SFA are.

3 hours ago, ForzaDundee said:

"I am write" 

FFS

No, he is wrong. Clearly.

That email is an insult. No professional organisation would send something so short, badly written and unhelpful.

[HibeeJibee]

Some reflections on points about the "floodlight clause" and grace periods/flexibility/etc.

Back in 2013 the criteria was altered with the addition of a "commitment clause" which in practice required clubs to join the pyramid in order to get licensed. This did not apply the Linlithgow or Banks o'Dee as it was altered while they were in the process. Indeed it never did... Linlithgow were still outside the pyramid 4 years later. Grace was given when an alteration was made but some clubs were already in the process.

Back in 2015 all clubs in HL/LL were supposed to be licensed by June. Two clubs missed the deadline (Vale of Leithen and Cove). Indeed in the case of Cove it proved very long-term... they ultimately registered out at Inverurie on paper but played games at all manner of venues for the next 2 seasons, including BoD, often altering on a weekly basis. Grace was given when a circumstance was seen as exceptional or liable to be resolved imminently.

Bonnyrigg are unable to go up as they don't have floodlights. This means Whitehill will not go down. It so happens Whitehill don't have lights - this is not to single them out as several LL clubs are in this position, together with a number of other SFA members. Those clubs have time to comply, but Bonnyrigg and others do not; even though they were equally compliant under the old criteria when floodlights weren't demanded, and are equally incompliant now they are. Indeed it sounds like some applicant clubs will have lights up imminently but some existing clubs won't.

People unsurprisingly consider this illogical and unfair - before even considering broader questions of why, how and when the criteria altered.

Edited May 7, 2019 by HibeeJibee

[GordonS]

3 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Some reflections on points about the "floodlight clause" and grace periods/flexibility/etc.

Back in 2013 the criteria was altered with the addition of a "commitment clause" which in practice required clubs to join the pyramid in order to get licensed. This did not apply the Linlithgow or Banks o'Dee as it was altered while they were in the process. Indeed it never did... Linlithgow were still outside the pyramid 4 years later. Grace was given when an alteration was made but some clubs were already in the process.

Back in 2015 all clubs in HL/LL were supposed to be licensed by June. Two clubs missed the deadline (Vale of Leithen and Cove). Indeed in the case of Cove it proved very long-term... they ultimately register out at Inverurie on paper but played games at all manner of venues for the next 2 seasons, including BoD, often altering on a weekly basis. Grace was given when a circumstance was seen as exceptional or liable to be resolved imminently.

Bonnyrigg are unable to go up as they don't have floodlights. This means Whitehill will not go down. It so happens Whitehill don't have lights - this is not to single them out as several LL clubs are in this position, together with a number of other SFA members. Those clubs have time to comply, but Bonnyrigg and others do not; even though they were equally compliant under the old criteria when floodlights weren't demanded, and are equally incompliant now they are. Indeed it sounds like some applicant clubs will have lights up imminently but some existing clubs won't.

People unsurprisingly consider this illogical and unfair - before even considering broader questions of why, how and when the criteria altered.

Precedents like that would likely be genuinely helpful to any appeal Bonnyrigg makes. I don't know anyone with more knowledge of this stuff, you might want to put that and anything else you can think of that would be useful directly to the club.

[Robert James]

10 hours ago, falkirktv said:

Camelon rejected on grounds of not having floodlights. Very very disappointed. Despite meeting the criteria at the time we applied and having works underway to install lights.

SFA moved the goalposts !    Did Camelon seek a derogation on the basis that their application met the criteria on the date they applied for a licence ?

Has Bonnyrigg lodged an appeal  accordance with the SFA's procedure, following the rejection of their licence application ?

Grounds :

* Whitehill allegedly will be saved from relegation, even though they don't have lights, whilst denying Bonnyrigg from being promoted, solely on the grounds that they don't have floodlights.  So the champion  Lowland club is denied promotion, whilst the existing  member club gets protection,  even though they are both in breach of the 2019 SFA rule

* Bonnyrigg presumably applied under the pre-January 2019 Licensing Rules. Arguably a breach of contract by the SFA, if they paid their fee, which was accepted (cashed) by the SFA, before the Rules were changed. Also Bonnyrigg may have incurred higher costs whilst seeking (in good faith) to become EoSL champions and gain automatic promotion for 2019/20,  

* the SFA has mishandled the entire Licensing process, since its AGM last year : first suspending the Licensing process (why ?), then lifting the moratorium (reason not explained), then accepting applications submitted under the old rules, then delaying auditing and approval,  then changing the Rules from 1st January 2019, then applying them retrospectively, and then delaying considering the 2018 applications for over 4 months

* by comparison, the SFA didn't backdate the rule change that clubs cannot be licensed if they are not part of the pyramid, although they allowed 'historic' rights of membership, to be retained by some junior clubs (eg Banks O'Dee, Girvan), whilst closing the door on any other club seeking a licence' thereafter,unless they joined a pyramid league.

You couldn't make it up !

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Robert James