Club Licencing

[Enigma]

Absolute c***s in charge here. Making it up as they go along. Hope Bonnyrigg take legal action and win.

[calmac25]

I'm sure there is a bit in the licencing manual that says clubs are given 6-7 weeks to correct variances.

The £2k fee is a one of and is held until the licence is eventually granted meaning it's a process rather than a cast iron decision.

I'm really disappointed for all the players and committee having put so much hard work in. I was looking forward to trips to Dalbeattie and Gretna and resuming the recent rivalry with Kelty.

[Auld Heid]

7 hours 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 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.

You are correct when Linlithgow applied to the Old Boys Network (SFA) there was no requirement to join the Pyramid (interestingly this was viewed as LL not EoS (I may be corrected).   Linlithgow successfully argued that as not a condition when we applied it shouldn't hinder the application.  Therefore the compromise was 'could be asked to join the LL (Pyramid)'

Our continued improvements to keep the licence have come at a substantial cost - floodlights and Disabled viewing.  Whilst we progress of the pitch -  with facilities beyond our current requirements - that has come at the expense of our squad and bank balance.   

In real terms the cost of a licence is becoming prohibitive to clubs who own their parks and don't have  facilities provided by a 3rd Party or Sugar Daddy or both.  

[FairWeatherFan]

21 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

You are correct when Linlithgow applied to the Old Boys Network (SFA) there was no requirement to join the Pyramid (interestingly this was viewed as LL not EoS (I may be corrected).   Linlithgow successfully argued that as not a condition when we applied it shouldn't hinder the application.  Therefore the compromise was 'could be asked to join the LL (Pyramid)'

Our continued improvements to keep the licence have come at a substantial cost - floodlights and Disabled viewing.  Whilst we progress of the pitch -  with facilities beyond our current requirements - that has come at the expense of our squad and bank balance.   

In real terms the cost of a licence is becoming prohibitive to clubs who own their parks and don't have  facilities provided by a 3rd Party or Sugar Daddy or both.  

Don't think EoS & SoS officially joined the pyramid until 2014/15. Which I think is after Linlithgow were licensed.

[Golum]

Just to Clarify,

 

its ok not to have a home pitch  or fans and basic/poor facilities by just sharing but if you have your pitch and ambition you cant get in ?

 

Also for Current LL teams 5 dont have a ground they avoid the rules and they share 

Team	Ground	Type	Pitch	Facilities	Fans
BSC Glasgow	No	Astro	Shared good Astro	n/a	Below Average
East Stirlingshire	no	Astro	Shared good Astro	n/a	above average
Cumbernauld Colts	no	Astro	decent  astro	n/a	average
Edusport Academy	no	Astro	shared average astro	n/a	none
University of Stirling	no	Grass	shared average grass	n/a	a couple
East Kilbride	Yes	Astro	Astro  very poor astro	Average	above average
Kelty Hearts	yes	Astro	excellent Astro	Excellent	the most
The Spartans	yes	Astro	excellent Astro	Good	above average
Civil Service Strollers	yes	Grass	decent Grass	Average	average
Gala Fairydean Rovers	yes	Astro	average astro	Average	average
Edinburgh University	yes	Grass	excellent grass	Good	a few
Gretna 2008	yes	Grass	poor grass	Good	average
Vale of Leithen	yes	Grass	dreadful grass	Below Average	Below Average
Dalbeattie Star	yes	Grass	average grass ( when playable)	Good	average
Whitehill Welfare	yes	Grass	decent grass	Good	average

 

 

[Hertz1874]

I see all these arguments in regards to Bonnyrigg yet Lothian/Hutchie won the league 3 years on the trot and same arguments can be made for them? Understand the frustrations, but the SFA couldn't make it anymore tinpot if they tried.

[craigkillie]

I see all these arguments in regards to Bonnyrigg yet Lothian/Hutchie won the league 3 years on the trot and same arguments can be made for them? Understand the frustrations, but the SFA couldn't make it anymore tinpot if they tried.

LTHV didn't apply for a license as far as I know.

[Auld Heid]

37 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Don't think EoS & SoS officially joined the pyramid until 2014/15. Which I think is after Linlithgow were licensed.

Interestingly - our caveat if applied was to join the LL.  If the SFA enforced it we could be promoted by default (Farcical)

25 minutes ago, Golum said:

Just to Clarify,

its ok not to have a home pitch  or fans and basic/poor facilities by just sharing but if you have your pitch and ambition you cant get in ?

Also for Current LL teams 5 dont have a ground they avoid the rules and they share 

Team	Ground	Type	Pitch	Facilities	Fans
BSC Glasgow	No	Astro	Shared good Astro	n/a	Below Average
East Stirlingshire	no	Astro	Shared good Astro	n/a	above average
Cumbernauld Colts	no	Astro	decent  astro	n/a	average
Edusport Academy	no	Astro	shared average astro	n/a	none
University of Stirling	no	Grass	shared average grass	n/a	a couple
East Kilbride	Yes	Astro	Astro  very poor astro	Average	above average
Kelty Hearts	yes	Astro	excellent Astro	Excellent	the most
The Spartans	yes	Astro	excellent Astro	Good	above average
Civil Service Strollers	yes	Grass	decent Grass	Average	average
Gala Fairydean Rovers	yes	Astro	average astro	Average	average
Edinburgh University	yes	Grass	excellent grass	Good	a few
Gretna 2008	yes	Grass	poor grass	Good	average
Vale of Leithen	yes	Grass	dreadful grass	Below Average	Below Average
Dalbeattie Star	yes	Grass	average grass ( when playable)	Good	average
Whitehill Welfare	yes	Grass	decent grass	Good	average

 

 

You could add that several of the above also rely on keeping their host club happy or they are homeless.

Realistically the LL is  becoming a Barrier - the majority of these teams would be bottom half of the EoS Premier next season

[Hertz1874]

Tynecastle FC granted full SFA Membership.

They currently groundshare with Boroughmuir rugby at Meggetland in Edinburgh. And I believe it was only this season they shared as previously had played at the Southside of Edinburgh and then shared Saughton Enclosure with LTHV.

As a young laddie, I'd now be asking myself do I want a pathway to bigger things domestically or lurk around at Hutchie and hope to be knit picked by a scout.

[Hertz1874]

8 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

Interestingly - our caveat if applied was to join the LL.  If the SFA enforced it we could be promoted by default (Farcical)

You could add that several of the above also rely on keeping their host club happy or they are homeless.

Realistically the LL is  becoming a Barrier - the majority of these teams would be bottom half of the EoS Premier next season

The difference for me between the junior and original EOS skillset was physicality. A few showed on the day they could match and if not beat the junior mobs who came calling Coldstream being one of those.

[GNU_Linux]

Tynecastle FC granted full SFA Membership.
They currently groundshare with Boroughmuir rugby at Meggetland in Edinburgh. And I believe it was only this season they shared as previously had played at the Southside of Edinburgh and then shared Saughton Enclosure with LTHV.
As a young laddie, I'd now be asking myself do I want a pathway to bigger things domestically or lurk around at Hutchie and hope to be knit picked by a scout.

Tynecastle's ground before Saughton was Fernside Recreation which had been used by Tollcross since 1971 (Tynecastle was formed in 2005 as a merger of Tollcross & Tynecastle Boys Club). No clue as to why the club left Fernieside.

[Ginaro]

41 minutes ago, Golum said:

Just to Clarify,

Also for Current LL teams 5 dont have a ground they avoid the rules and they share 

Team	Ground	Type	Pitch	Facilities	Fans
Cumbernauld Colts	no	Astro	decent  astro	n/a	average
Edusport Academy	no	Astro	shared average astro	n/a	none
University of Stirling	no	Grass	shared average grass	n/a	a couple

Just to point out that Cumbernauld Colts are the primary tenants at Broadwood so it's so Clyde who share with them. Edusport seem to be moving to Bothwellhaugh (astro with minimal facilities), and I would say Stirling Uni's pitch is better than "average" given it won the title for best pitch last year!  https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11781/11394456/stirling-albion-win-title-for-best-pitch-in-scotland

[Cyclizine]

2 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Just to point out that Cumbernauld Colts are the primary tenants at Broadwood so it's so Clyde who share with them. Edusport seem to be moving to Bothwellhaugh (astro with minimal facilities), and I would say Stirling Uni's pitch is better than "average" given it won the title for best pitch last year!  https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11781/11394456/stirling-albion-win-title-for-best-pitch-in-scotland

Forthbank is owned by the council. Both Stirling Albion and the Uni are tenants. Indeed, I think you'll find a lot of grounds both in the seniors and juniors are actually council or trust owned and clubs lease them. 

I'm really not sure what the issue of leasing a ground is here: we know football grounds are expensive to build and maintain, so if you're getting more use out of them, what's the issue? As long as there's security of tenure and clubs aren't taking the piss geographically, I think it makes sense to share. The clubs will be paying rent.

[cookieboy]

22 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:

28 minutes ago, Hertz1874 said:

Tynecastle FC granted full SFA Membership.
They currently groundshare with Boroughmuir rugby at Meggetland in Edinburgh. And I believe it was only this season they shared as previously had played at the Southside of Edinburgh and then shared Saughton Enclosure with LTHV.
As a young laddie, I'd now be asking myself do I want a pathway to bigger things domestically or lurk around at Hutchie and hope to be knit picked by a scout.

Tynecastle's ground before Saughton was Fernside Recreation which had been used by Tollcross since 1971 (Tynecastle was formed in 2005 as a merger of Tollcross & Tynecastle Boys Club). No clue as to why the club left Fernieside.

Probably dug shite

[ekok]

LOL best post in this thread, great start to the day.

[The Mantis]

Tbf he just beat everybody else to it 

[Dev]

9 hours ago, leftbehind said:

Have all these clubs been knocked back because they don't have lights or are there other deficiencies in the applications and audit.   just interested in case there could be a joint presentation to the Appeals Panel   sharing costs.  Any planning application needs approval from the Local Authority and major ones are scrutinised very carefully with usually several meetings between Officals/Architects/Agents to iron out any envisaged problems ie the route of a 3 phase power cable and the likes.    But all surmountable but it takes time because there are dozens of Applications up at each scheduled meeting.   a major housebuilding project will get attention first before our floodlights application    so it goes on  and on.

This is exactly why the approach used by the SFA is faulty. It takes resources i.e. including human, services in place, materials, planning, funds, etc etc to comply with any Licence criteria. Therefore any material changes must be brought in with appropriate and due consideration i.e. there must be a reasonable timetable before material changes to criteria are brought in. Certainly not less than 12 months and certainly NOT to take effect in mid season as this affects, directly, promotion and relegation.

It also seems likely to leave the SFA open to appropriate action against it, with the potential for significant costs which it, seemingly, would have to find from within its' existing budget. Which Peter would they rob in order to pay Paul? It has to come from somewhere if there is a significant legal challenge. That in turn would hurt those whose budgets are, consequently,  reduced/removed over-night.  

This is dead simple!  First amend club licencing to good practices. Second avoid wasting  good money. Third avoid offending clubs who are becoming your new masters (as more become licenced). Four get a decent management on board which complies with the SFA's own rules, regulations, constitution, etc' Five amend the rules, regulations and constitution so this debacle does not happen again.

[bendan]

Can't actually believe what I'm reading this morning. I'm not one to go overboard on criticism of the authorities when they sometimes face difficult decisions, but this is absolutely farcical. I'm old enough to have lived through a few SFA chiefs but Maxwell is somehow managing to out-cluster**** the lot.

Is there any possibility that Bonnyrigg could be be given dispensation to join the LL but not to get SFA membership until the floodlights are in?

[ShrimpLok]

38 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

Forthbank is owned by the council. Both Stirling Albion and the Uni are tenants. Indeed, I think you'll find a lot of grounds both in the seniors and juniors are actually council or trust owned and clubs lease them. 

I'm really not sure what the issue of leasing a ground is here: we know football grounds are expensive to build and maintain, so if you're getting more use out of them, what's the issue? As long as there's security of tenure and clubs aren't taking the piss geographically, I think it makes sense to share. The clubs will be paying rent.

This is a good point. In West Lothian for example my understanding is that the only clubs who fully own the land for their grounds are Linlithgow and Bathgate. The other ten ERJFA and EOS clubs all have leases of various types from the council. That's not to say that a lot of the facilities haven't been built by the clubs themselves though. 

[Ginaro]

As mentioned by someone earlier, looks like Jeanfield are getting lights.