Club Licencing

[Burnie_man]

3 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

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

Good news.

[lowenan]

The worst part is Bonnyrigg not getting a derogation, since they have plans in place. Floodlights as part of the license is a good idea, but stopping this promotion in this way, with only floodlights missing, is wrong. 

[Auld Heid]

59 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.

With no disrespect intended - another example of a team benefitting from hiring a park and at the mercy of their Landlords.  The cost of obtaining the licence would be not much more than the £2k.

Bonnyrigg (and others) have spent substantially more to bring their own park up to the required standards - only to have the goal posts moved at the last moment.

If the SFA were to add playing standards/achievements to the criteria - that would surely be more relevant to the application process

 

[Burnie_man]

7 minutes ago, leftbehind said:

Last paragraph really says it all and would certainly be easier to follow.  Regarding    *appropriate action*  would it come under  breach of implied contract between the club and the SFA on licencing criteria or would it be a straight forward claim for expenditure incurred unnecessarily after being rejected   or some thing else ?   ALL  expensive options for a club and you are right   the cost of defending it would have to come out of a fund that may decrease pay outs to other member clubs .  A difficult route to take and would just delay the licencing process further in my opinion   and the courts are working to capacity at the moment.. again a delay for clubs until the verdict is given.

Not sure this would ever get near a court, what needs to happen though - and quickly - is to obtain legal advice on SFA appeal processes and how to initiate this.  There is a process to appeal Licence Committee decisions, but the derogation decision was made by the SFA Board.  I'm sure Bonnyrigg and others are all over this.

[FairWeatherFan]

Think the moratorium and the like has been mentioned as things to reference to an appeal.

Another would be some clubs were physically audited in December. Which went before the licensing committee in February and was supposed to be heard by the sfa board in February.

If these decisions had been made then, clubs would have had 3 months to sort something.

[Ali_Wee_Jag]

Anyone think it’s a bit strange that the club I support, Dunbar United, didn’t apply for a license but strangely enough we do have floodlights. From what I’ve read on here and in other places, that is certainly one huge hurdle cleared that other clubs haven’t managed. Other than the obvious registration fee (£2000 I believe) and the floodlights- what else is required to get a license? Just wondering!!

[Burnie_man]

5 minutes ago, Ali_Wee_Jag said:

Anyone think it’s a bit strange that the club I support, Dunbar United, didn’t apply for a license but strangely enough we do have floodlights. From what I’ve read on here and in other places, that is certainly one huge hurdle cleared that other clubs haven’t managed. Other than the obvious registration fee (£2000 I believe) and the floodlights- what else is required to get a license? Just wondering!!

Ali, you'll need cover for 100, and 2 disabled covered places but otherwise I think you tick most of the major boxes. You need a medical room as well (converted physios room?), and referee changing for 4 officials.  Also  spectator toilets for male, female and disabled.  there are also a lot of policies and processes you'll need to write (or copy from other clubs!)

Edited May 8, 2019 by Burnie_man

[gaz5]

If the SFA were to add playing standards/achievements to the criteria - that would surely be more relevant to the application process
 

Would it though?

What about the clubs who have diverted all funds from the playing side to develop their club/grounds for the longer term future of the club who then want to apply for a licence once that work is up to licence standard?

Not everyone can afford to put an expensive first team on the park at the same time as developing their ground, for many smaller clubs limiting the achievement of the first team in order to progress off the park is a conscious choice.

More power to clubs who can do both, but you can't discount clubs who need to choose.

The issue here isn't the criteria, it's that the SFA have changed it, at zero notice, while people are in process.

[Jason King]

1 hour ago, Ginaro said:

 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

It wont win it this year, its an absolute mess this season - was there a couple of weeks ago.

I believe that Albion, Uni and a Premier League Reserve team use the pitch and it shows.

[Burnie_man]

27 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

If the SFA were to add playing standards/achievements to the criteria - that would surely be more relevant to the application process

No it wouldn't, sounds like something the SPFL clubs would support though to try and limit clubs applying. It would be used as a tool to refuse clubs who cant afford to put big money into the playing side as well as spend money on a licence. 

[parsforlife]

30 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

 

If the SFA were to add playing standards/achievements to the criteria - that would surely be more relevant to the application process

 

That kinda misses the entire point of licencing...

[Marten]

12 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

No it wouldn't, sounds like something the SPFL clubs would support though to try and limit clubs applying. It would be used as a tool to refuse clubs who cant afford to put big money into the playing side as well as spend money on a licence. 

Agreed, clubs of all standards should be able to get licensed. Last week I visited Coupar Angus, they have floodlights, enough cover and they'd probably also comply with the disabled spaces rules, referee dressing room etc. I don't know if anything else would stop them from getting a license, but if the Tayside juniors do enter the pyramid as a bloc eventually, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to get a license if they match all requirements. The fact that they are absolutely rubbish on the pitch (they got hammered 0-14 when I was there) shouldn't stop them. If anything, licensing could help improve such clubs.

[Burnie_man]

One aspect of this whole farce which is overlooked is that grant aid from the Scottish Football Partnership has also been cut dramatically.  Whereas before EoS clubs could apply for upto £10,000 for a major project like floodlights, this has been cut to £2,500.  I believe this was raised at the EoS meeting with Maxwell and Petrie, and many clubs didn’t know about the cut but checking the SFP website it is the case.

You’d need to ask SFP/SFA why there has been a 75% cut, and where the money is being diverted to.

[MDM]

The sad thing is the cabal that is the SFA hold all the aces.  Clubs could and should appeal the decisions and publicly embarrass the SFA - as some have done; but their cards will be marked and you can guarantee that any opportunity the SFA get to 'pay-back' will be taken.

 

What we really need is a root and branch review of the SFA and the appointment of fresh blood - the appointment of people who genuinely have the good of Scottish football at heart and as a priority.

 

If football at this level had any morals no club would take up any invite from the Lowland League to fill in space No.16 as a protest to the treatment of Bonnyrigg Rose.

[lowenan]

1 hour ago, Auld Heid said:

With no disrespect intended - another example of a team benefitting from hiring a park and at the mercy of their Landlords.  The cost of obtaining the licence would be not much more than the £2k.

Bonnyrigg (and others) have spent substantially more to bring their own park up to the required standards - only to have the goal posts moved at the last moment.

If the SFA were to add playing standards/achievements to the criteria - that would surely be more relevant to the application process

 

They would have gotten a license at their old ground as well. 

[Robert James]

1 hour ago, bendan said:

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?

The Lowland League's existing membership rules, require all of its clubs to be SFA Members (as does the Highland League, which additionally requires all clubs to have floodlights as well), but the current Lowland  rules do not include the necessity for floodlights.  Hence, VoL, CS Strollers and Whitehill are current SLL member clubs, albeit without lights.

Therefore the  2019 revision to the SFA's own membership rules, means that Bonnyrigg  have not been granted SFA Membership, and in consequence aren't now eligible under the the Lowland League's own entry requirements for new clubs.  

Could the Lowland League apply common sense, given the exceptional circumstances which have transpired over the last 12 months, and allow them to join for 2019/20 on a 'provisional' basis for, say, one season, to enable the club to install floodlights  ?   Very unlikely in my view, which is  unfortunate,  given the licensing' chaos' since  June 2018.  And even if the Lowland League was disposed to grant this 'conditional' membership, could/would the SFA overrule it ?  Also would this help the Rose, as the club's future Tier 5 planning, would be uncertain. 

However one thing is clear about floodlights, namely that the Lowland League is almost certain to change its requirements to the extent that the 3 existing clubs without lights, will have to install them, or lose their SFA Licence, which in consequence,  means losing their Lowland League membership, as well. 

 

   

[Robert James]

1 hour ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Think the moratorium and the like has been mentioned as things to reference to an appeal.

Another would be some clubs were physically audited in December. Which went before the licensing committee in February and was supposed to be heard by the sfa board in February.

If these decisions had been made then, clubs would have had 3 months to sort something.

Absolutely correct. Do we know if Bonnyrigg's audit took place BEFORE 1st January 2019 ?

[Fife Journeyman]

I Think the licensing criteria will change very quickly in the coming year or so, 

No disrespect to clubs like Edusport who grabbed a chance to enter the Lowland League when the big junior clubs didnt seem interested but at present they have no ground, no fan base and more importantly no engagement with a local community which most ambitious clubs are trying too achieve with creating pathways.

Clubs have spent thousands  on upgrading there facilities yet we have clubs  who can pay a 2k fee and do not contribute to any upgrade of any ground and can gain income from SFA payouts and Scottish Cup Entry. Thats not right and im sure will be addressed in the coming seasons.

[Cumbo]

Absolutely correct. Do we know if Bonnyrigg's audit took place BEFORE 1st January 2019 ?

Bonnyrigg were audited on 12 december, 16 hours after the 2019 criteria was released

[Robert James]

1 minute ago, Cumbo said:

7 minutes ago, Robert James said:

Absolutely correct. Do we know if Bonnyrigg's audit took place BEFORE 1st January 2019 ?

Bonnyrigg were audited on 12 december, 16 hours after the 2019 criteria was released

A coincidence ?

The new SFA rules are dated as applying from 2019, not mid December 2018.