Club Licencing

[Ian McG]

39 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

Filling out forms is hardly blood sweat and tears.

Grants being obtained not because of football prowess but purely because clubs tick the right boxes in a modern Snowflake Society.  You have to wonder where these clubs would actually be without artificial funding (not self generated)

This type of thing is always a disappointment to read, although I really should be inured to it by now as it seems it has always been difficult to obtain a degree of respect for Blackburn United’s off field achievements from many within and without the game. All too often these achievements are summarily dismissed in just such an offhand and dismissive way.

 

I don’t wish to list on a public forum all that has gone into taking Blackburn United from a one team Junior side playing out of a dilapidated and unfit for purpose old ground to the multi-team, all-inclusive Club that it is today, playing in what I hope might be thought of as one of the best facilities in West Lothian and, perhaps, further afield too. What I will say is that it has taken a dozen plus years of a small core of peoples time to arrive at where we are today and there has been no little sweat spilled and there has been no little tears – tears of frustration and tears of sadness too. Fortunately there has been no blood spilled – as far as I’m aware!

 

My username isn’t a pseudonym and I’m contactable directly through the club website so please do so, if you wish, and I would be happy to arrange to meet you at New Murrayfield Park to give you just a flavour of the efforts that small core of people have put in and what that small core have had to sacrifice to achieve what we have at our club. If it was as simple as “filling out forms” then I might just have had a much less stressful time over the years.

[grinderbrokeyourhearts]

The 70k thing seems strange to me, what with Linlithgow Rose already licensed and with floodlights. 
Are you trying to say you're still paying off borrowing that money? Otherwise how would you be disadvantaged financially this season on the field?

We've spent £70k on floodlights. Completely paid off. We could have spent it on players as we were already licensed.

A long term outflow which looks to have been a good call if we go up in the next year or two. If we'd invested that sort of money in the playing squad instead of lights we'd be in Bonnyriggs position.

[Auld Heid]

24 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

You just expose your own utter ignorance of the subject.

No I expose my knowledge on the subject and talk from experience beyond football.  I know exactly the requirements of grants and it's nothing to do with achievements more of inclusion across the various characteristics.  

The point I make is to often clubs become  heavily reliant on grant funding often wouldn't survive left to their own devices and are therefore artificially thriving.   

4 minutes ago, Burnieclub78 said:

Not to mention the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of pounds said clubs have to raise over future years to maintain and replace. The hard work never stops. 

My original post was a generic post and not aimed at any particular club.   I know exactly how much work it takes to run a club and make it successful when others around you are failing (not football).   

[Burnie_man]

3 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

No I expose my knowledge on the subject and talk from experience beyond football.  I know exactly the requirements of grants and it's nothing to do with achievements more of inclusion across the various characteristics.  

The point I make is to often clubs become  heavily reliant on grant funding often wouldn't survive left to their own devices and are therefore artificially thriving.   

You appear obsessed by achievements, what has that got to do to trying to obtain grant funding in football? 

What clubs at our level are heavily reliant on grant funding to continue operating?  who are artificially thriving on grants? what grants are they applying for and getting? what process do they have to go through?  I'd love to know so we can fire in an application............

[Cyclizine]

11 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

The point I make is to often clubs become  heavily reliant on grant funding often wouldn't survive left to their own devices and are therefore artificially thriving.   

Examples, please. This is on a par with the old Isa Goudie and the "playing above their level" shite.

[Auld Heid]

Just now, Burnie_man said:

You appear obsessed by achievements, what has that got to do to trying to obtain grant funding in football? 

What clubs at our level are heavily reliant on grant funding to continue operating?  who are artificially thriving on grants? what grants are they applying for and getting? what process do they have to go through?  I'd love to know so we can fire in an application............

Sport is ultimately about winning (achievements) not just taking part.   As I said my comments on Grants go beyond football - not naming individual clubs - how they operate is ultimately up to them.  

 

 

[Burnie_man]

Just now, Auld Heid said:

Sport is ultimately about winning (achievements) not just taking part.   As I said my comments on Grants go beyond football - not naming individual clubs - how they operate is ultimately up to them.  

I asked you what has on-field performance got to do with the awarding of grants (and for that matter Licencing as you mentioned earlier)?

You then throw around a claim that some clubs are using grants to survive and thrive, who? you used that claim to make your point and are now reversing away from it.  If you don't want to name the clubs, name the grants, how much were they, do they get them every year? can anyone apply?  Jeezo 

[Marten]

From my experience, due to knowing people who deal with such issues at Dundee City Council, I know that over here grants are only provided to any sports club based on specific projects. One such example is an initiative to get youth from a vulnerable background to play rugby where they usually wouldn't be able to afford that, with the added aim to keep certain people occupied in the hope this prevents criminality. The rugby club gets a grant for co-operating with the Council on this initiative. However, they are only allowed to use the money on costs relating to the project (for example, coaching, kits etc. for these youth players). They have to justify what they spend the money on and can't just spend it on improving their ground or investing in their first team. There are similar rules around projects/grants in other sports.

Councils in Scotland are not exactly rich nowadays, they simply can't afford to just throw money around. Especially if for example the rugby club gets an unconditional grant, the local hockey & cricket clubs would expect the same. If then Lochee United (for example) also get money, Dundee North End, Broughty Athletic and so on would expect the same again. That's simply not possible, which is why any grants are tied to specific projects and nothing else. I know this is just Dundee I'm talking about and other councils could be different, but I highly doubt it's much different elsewhere in Scotland.

[Marshmallo]

1 hour ago, Auld Heid said:

Filling out forms is hardly blood sweat and tears.

Grants being obtained not because of football prowess but purely because clubs tick the right boxes in a modern Snowflake Society.  You have to wonder where these clubs would actually be without artificial funding (not self generated) 

Whilst other Clubs spend their own money to enhance their own park - built up through years of toil.  Days like yesterday must make them wonder why bother.  It's hardly a level playing field - and questionable if footballing ability actually matters anymore.

 

^^^ Daily Mail reading Rangers supporter

[surely not!]

Who spends 70k on players  ?

Based on paying 18 players an average of £75 a week without bonuses for a year, I’d hazard a guess that there are a hell of a lot of non spfl teams paying at least £ 70k a year in player wages.

[Che Dail]

1 hour ago, Auld Heid said:

Sport is ultimately about winning (achievements) not just taking part.   As I said my comments on Grants go beyond football - not naming individual clubs - how they operate is ultimately up to them.  

 

 

Football is about more than just winning. Not everyone wins every week. Some clubs rarely win. Most clubs in the SPL may never finish above Celtic.

Why do we do it?

The social impact is wide ranging, and grassroots clubs often apply for funding to  further their community aims.

And for projects, the work needs to be delivered, which usually relies on facilities and the input of people - it's not just about pocketing the money.

Last year, an article on the benefits to Scottish Society:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/report-football-benefits-scottish-society-by-around-1-2bn-1-4822125/amp

Edited May 8, 2019 by Che Dail

[Dunning1874]

3 hours ago, virginton said:

Erm the SFA just appointed a new chief executive with an extensive background in Scottish football: he's fucking useless though. 

Yep. The two SFA Chief Executives in modern times who have had long careers in football away from the administrative side of the game have been Gordon Smith and Ian Maxwell, with the media expressing delight at ‘proper football men’ being in the post on both of their appointments.

They’ve both been an utter shambles who very rapidly made themselves look far more incompetent than their predecessors.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Dunning1874

[FairWeatherFan]

3 hours ago, grinderbrokeyourhearts said:

If we'd invested that sort of money in the playing squad instead of lights we'd be in Bonnyriggs position.

Being existing members and audited in the 2nd half of 2018, you wouldn't actually have been in Bonnyrigg's position. Without floodlights you'd still be a fully licenced SFA member meeting the Lowland League and LL Play-off requirements.

[FairWeatherFan]

By the way, has it ever been confirmed when these applications were decided upon by the SFA Board? The idea has always been that there had to be a SFA Board meeting for them to sign off on the applications.

Which I believe would of meant they walked into the EoS meeting knowing clubs were not getting their licenses and fobbed off clubs when the issue arose.

Or

They hastily arranged something yesterday, which means they could of done the same thing at any point in the last 3 months

[calmac25]

Sky sports news even has a banner going across the screen about the decision to not award Bonnyrigg a licence. How often has EoS news made it on there?!

[Dunderheid]

3 hours ago, surely not! said:

 

Based on paying 18 players an average of £75 a week without bonuses for a year, I’d hazard a guess that there are a hell of a lot of non spfl teams paying at least £ 70k a year in player wages.

 

That's a pretty accurate figure I would say... the minimum cost to a club signing any player on a professional contract based on the NMW and NI & EC is £85 per week taking training, match time and traveling (if on the a club bus).

A squad of 20 players over a 40 week contract works out at £68k a year not including bonuses. 

Many clubs budget on another 12  players eligible to play at U21 and/or U18 level so its fair to work out that the most basic of wage bill for a club signing professional players is circa £100k a year.

Remember, this is the MINIMUM due to NMW legislation!

[Footballfirst]

Bonnyrigg, Tranent and the other rejected clubs should get together and seek out a legal firm that will offer a no win no fee deal, seeking compensation from the SFA for all their expenditure related to licensing which they incurred in good faith, when the SFA knew from the moment they announced the 2019 licensing criteria, it would automatically exclude several aspiring member clubs.

[SFRool]

Are Bonnyrigg and Tranent in place to install lights for next season ? 

[FairWeatherFan]

Thought of something else. I wonder when Civil Service Strollers and Vale of Leithen were audited. There last audit took place in December 2018 but would that have been before or after the licensing change? As it doesn't seem fair to turn up to CSS and Bonnyrigg on the same day and say you're audited by the 2018 criteria and your audited by the 2019 criteria.

[Cowden Cowboy]

That's a pretty accurate figure I would say... the minimum cost to a club signing any player on a professional contract based on the NMW and NI & EC is £85 per week taking training, match time and traveling (if on the a club bus). A squad of 20 players over a 40 week contract works out at £68k a year not including bonuses. 

Many clubs budget on another 12  players eligible to play at U21 and/or U18 level so its fair to work out that the most basic of wage bill for a club signing professional players is circa £100k a year.

Remember, this is the MINIMUM due to NMW legislation!

 

Does a 40 week only contract allow for players to have enough paid holiday leave? Minimum wage rates are lower for under 25 players so the mix of your squad has an impact as well as does the time spent travelling on a team bus on long journeys which can be much greater in a national league than some regional leagues.