Club Licencing

[Pyramidic]

How much work would Sauchie have to undertake to submit a Licence application and successfully complete the application process?  They have a covered stand (accommodating around 200) and floodlights according to Non League Scotland.

[lithgierose]

4 hours ago, gogsy said:

If by staying ahead of the game you mean haven't won a league title since 2013 and any cup since 2014 and had to rely on outside funding for their disabled area then fair enough.

Linlithgow as a club and their supporters have  been in a permanent meltdown since the  game mentioned on this link https://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php?/topic/214054-linlithgow-rose-2014-15/&page=68. Blood and snotters and toys out the pram from the wee rose collective.

 

Were you hunted out of kelty.

[LongTimeLurker]

Maybe Sauchie have a problem on meeting the dressing rooms and toilet block specs?

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Pyramidic said:

How much work would Sauchie have to undertake to submit a Licence application and successfully complete the application process?  They have a covered stand (accommodating around 200) and floodlights according to Non League Scotland.

I would suspect that Sauchie will have most of the ground requirements in terms of toilets and changing room stuff but I would suspect the floodlights they currently have would fall under the required standard of lux for a licence. Not sure about the off field constitutional stuff either. 

Not being sure how floodlights work or how expensive it would be to increase the power of the lights on terms of lux but the lights themselves are already in place so I would assume not as much investment required if they wanted to. 

[Burnie_man]

I would suspect that Sauchie will have most of the ground requirements in terms of toilets and changing room stuff but I would suspect the floodlights they currently have would fall under the required standard of lux for a licence. Not sure about the off field constitutional stuff either. 
Not being sure how floodlights work or how expensive it would be to increase the power of the lights on terms of lux but the lights themselves are already in place so I would assume not as much investment required if they wanted to. 

I don't think there is a minimum lux requirement at entry level, just recommended.

[Scapegoat]

16 hours ago, gogsy said:

If by staying ahead of the game you mean haven't won a league title since 2013 and any cup since 2014 and had to rely on outside funding for their disabled area then fair enough.

Linlithgow as a club and their supporters have  been in a permanent meltdown since the  game mentioned on this link https://www.pieandbovril.com/forum/index.php?/topic/214054-linlithgow-rose-2014-15/&page=68. Blood and snotters and toys out the pram from the wee rose collective.

 

Still bitter from 2007. Let it go man!

[JBAFC]

You would assume Sauchie wouldn’t have that much to do to gain a license but do they really want to push for one? 

Were they even keen on the whole EOS set-up in the first place?

[FairWeatherFan]

18 minutes ago, JBAFC said:

You would assume Sauchie wouldn’t have that much to do to gain a license but do they really want to push for one? 

Were they even keen on the whole EOS set-up in the first place?

I think they'll go for it. They've probably just got some things to sort. So those works plus 2k application fee was maybe a bit much right now.

Of all the clubs likely to make up the EOS Premier, the only club I have doubts pursuing licensing in the next year would be Crossgates.

[bluedragon]

On 13/05/2019 at 19:33, Burnie_man said:

On 13/05/2019 at 19:09, bluedragon said:

If the application for a floodlight derogation was rejected it would have been the Licencing Committee that would have made that decision. The appeal would be against their decision. The SFA Board’s decision not to give Full membership would have been made on the back of the Licencing Committee refusing a licence.
“Clubs may submit applications to the Licencing Committee for derogation where there are variances with the criteria at the level of award applied for. It will be a matter for the Licencing 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.”
It appears clear that the early mention of specific derogations shows the SFA understood the impact of the introduction of a requirement for floodlights at Entry Level.  By drawing specific attention to derogations all clubs affected (current Entry Level members and new applicants) could have an expectation of a derogation being favourably considered and that they quickly have understood that their chances would increase significantly if they could demonstrate to the Licencing Committee that they had applied for planning permission, started fund raising and making grant applications as soon as possible.
It is difficult to understand what argument there is for not granting a floodlight derogation and for different treatment for different classes of SFA member.  A short-time derogation to allow a club to remain in a higher league without floodlights should be mirrored to allow a club that has won promotion to that league to have an identical derogation.
I remain hopeful that common sense will prevail.

No, the Licence Committee referred the decision to the SFA Board, it was not made by the LC, they said they did not think they could make the decision on derogation.

Thank you for explaining that part of the process. I had not appreciated that had happened.

I realise this question has probably been asked and answered earlier in this thread but what happens now to the clubs who were refused a club Licence solely due to the lack of floodlights? Are they required to make a new application together with another £2,000 application fee?

[Marten]

21 minutes ago, bluedragon said:

Thank you for explaining that part of the process. I had not appreciated that had happened.

I realise this question has probably been asked and answered earlier in this thread but what happens now to the clubs who were refused a club Licence solely due to the lack of floodlights? Are they required to make a new application together with another £2,000 application fee?

No, they can re-apply without having to pay the fee again.

[Burnie_man]

21 minutes ago, bluedragon said:

Thank you for explaining that part of the process. I had not appreciated that had happened.

I realise this question has probably been asked and answered earlier in this thread but what happens now to the clubs who were refused a club Licence solely due to the lack of floodlights? Are they required to make a new application together with another £2,000 application fee?

It's not really part of the process as you have found, it really should have been an LC decision to make, which then would have made it easier for clubs to appeal.  I'm not entirely sure you can appeal SFA Board decisions.

I don't think the £2k is payable each time, just request a further audit once lights are installed.

 

[parsforlife]

12 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

It's not really part of the process as you have found, it really should have been an LC decision to make, which then would have made it easier for clubs to appeal.  I'm not entirely sure you can appeal SFA Board decisions.

 

 

Could it still be considered a LC decision? The LC has audited etc and then asked SFA board re derogation when the board haven't approved(recommended?) derogation the LC has  made the decision to not award a licence.  

Appeal based on the derogation not being approved with an element of the appeal based on the LC not following normal process and involving another body in that decision.  

[Burnie_man]

2 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Could it still be considered a LC decision? The LC has audited etc and then asked SFA board re derogation when the board haven't approved(recommended?) derogation the LC has  made the decision to not award a licence.  

Appeal based on the derogation not being approved with an element of the appeal based on the LC not following normal process and involving another body in that decision.  

The Licence Committee receive a report from the Licence Dept to say whether a club meets all requirements after their audit has taken place. Presumably they then review the Licence Dept report and then confirm to the SFA Board that a club has met all requirements.  They should also hear all derogation cases, if they approve derogation then this goes to SFA Board, if they reject you can appeal that rejection to an independent panel.

Remember that the SFA Board are only there to approve SFA Membership, based on whether clubs meet all Licencing requirements, this should be a rubber stamping exercise (as it the case of the 6 clubs who met all requirements) and then passed back to the Licence Dept to issue the licence.  That is my understanding of the process. 

I get the impression that the LC have never dealt with a derogation application from a new applicant club because in theory new applicants are supposed to tick all the boxes before it is passed to the LC in the first place, and therefore they passed it to the board to deal with. They probably believe that derogation only applies to clubs who are already licenced and requesting derogation in order to meet new criteria.

This action of effectively passing the buck is not covered in the licence manual and that’s where the whole process becomes unclear, because there appears to be no mechanism to appeal SFA Board decisions.    The board have probably taken the view that (rightly or wrongly) floodlights is a criteria that must be met, therefore derogation applications should not be heard as you are supposed to tick all the boxes as a new applicant before it even goes to LC stage.

This is where you need a lawyer to review the process and advise on best course of action, based principally on the goalposts moving during the application process, and reasonable time (which is covered in the manual) not being given to meet the new criteria.

[bluedragon]

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

I get the impression that the LC have never dealt with a derogation application from a new applicant club because in theory new applicants are supposed to tick all the boxes before it is passed to the LC in the first place, and therefore they passed it to the board to deal with. They probably believe that derogation only applies to clubs who are already licenced and requesting derogation in order to meet new criteria.

 

That looks the likely scenario. However, even if that was the case it is difficult to understand why the Licensing Committee did not feel able to deal with this itself as it appears they had all the necessary authority to do so and had clearly indicated to clubs that floodlight derogations were likely.

The Licensing Manual applies to all clubs – Full or Registered – and should be treated equally and that applies to derogations.

During the audit process the confidential discussions between the club officials could not have avoided the elephant in the room - floodlights. The Licensing Administration would have a good indication how quickly each club who failed the floodlights criteria was likely to have floodlights upgraded/installed. Providing a derogation application was made by the club then it should have been dealt in the same way as a derogation application for any other non-conformance.

Derogations, I assume, will only be issued for non-conformances that are not considered as fundamental issues and can be quickly resolved. Well the lack of floodlights does not stop a club playing football outside the SPFL and the clubs affected appear to have quickly focussed on installation/upgrading.

I could perhaps understand the decision to refer it to the SFA Board if the Licensing Committee had no involvement in setting the licensing criteria. However, that is not the case. The LC has the responsibility to set and revise the criteria for approval by the SFA Board. So having presumably proposed the floodlight criteria, understood the significance of the change by early mention of possible derogations why not use the derogation power open to them?

Clubs who solely failed on floodlights should have been given one-off, time-limited derogations recognising the significance and the short notice of the change in requirements and to ensure that Bonnyrigg Rose are not prevented from taking a promotion won on merit.

For future applications they could,  if they want, make it clear that no derogations will be issued if floodlights are not installed but they might be possible if upgrading is the issue.

[Burnie_man]

2 hours ago, bluedragon said:

That looks the likely scenario. However, even if that was the case it is difficult to understand why the Licensing Committee did not feel able to deal with this itself as it appears they had all the necessary authority to do so and had clearly indicated to clubs that floodlight derogations were likely.

The Licensing Manual applies to all clubs – Full or Registered – and should be treated equally and that applies to derogations.

During the audit process the confidential discussions between the club officials could not have avoided the elephant in the room - floodlights. The Licensing Administration would have a good indication how quickly each club who failed the floodlights criteria was likely to have floodlights upgraded/installed. Providing a derogation application was made by the club then it should have been dealt in the same way as a derogation application for any other non-conformance.

Derogations, I assume, will only be issued for non-conformances that are not considered as fundamental issues and can be quickly resolved. Well the lack of floodlights does not stop a club playing football outside the SPFL and the clubs affected appear to have quickly focussed on installation/upgrading.

I could perhaps understand the decision to refer it to the SFA Board if the Licensing Committee had no involvement in setting the licensing criteria. However, that is not the case. The LC has the responsibility to set and revise the criteria for approval by the SFA Board. So having presumably proposed the floodlight criteria, understood the significance of the change by early mention of possible derogations why not use the derogation power open to them?

Clubs who solely failed on floodlights should have been given one-off, time-limited derogations recognising the significance and the short notice of the change in requirements and to ensure that Bonnyrigg Rose are not prevented from taking a promotion won on merit.

For future applications they could,  if they want, make it clear that no derogations will be issued if floodlights are not installed but they might be possible if upgrading is the issue.

Don't disagree with most of that.  We all know that what the SFA have done is reprehensible and completely at odds with a functioning Pyramid.

The problem is what next. Time is short with regards to promotion to the Lowland League, any move to appeal needs to be happening now.  Let's not forget either there are a further 5 clubs affected who will not take their place in next seasons Scottish Cup as a result of this decision.

[bluedragon]

19 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

Don't disagree with most of that.  We all know that what the SFA have done is reprehensible and completely at odds with a functioning Pyramid.

The problem is what next. Time is short with regards to promotion to the Lowland League, any move to appeal needs to be happening now.  Let's not forget either there are a further 5 clubs affected who will not take their place in next seasons Scottish Cup as a result of this decision.

Thanks for all your answers and views that have certainly clarified this issue for me.

In an earlier post you questioned how a club could appeal a decision made by the SFA Board. However, in this case and despite what has happened is the appeal still against the Licensing Committee?  

Only the club and SFA officials will know what has happened. It is certainly not transparent to outsiders who are followers of the game what process was followed from the time of the licensing visits until the SFA Board decision.

Under the SFA’s own procedures there are only two decision-making bodies for licensing (Licensing Committee and the Appellate Tribunal (Licensing)) who are independent of each other.  Unless they have been told otherwise, clubs can only deal with what they know and a rejection of a club licence application gives a right of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal (Licensing).

One interpretation of what has been reported is that that the SFA Board could have inadvertently made a licensing decision and a full membership decision at the same time. In doing such has it prevented a club making an appeal?  That should be fairly quickly determined by the Judicial Panel.

[The Informer]

1 hour ago, bluedragon said:

Thanks for all your answers and views that have certainly clarified this issue for me.

In an earlier post you questioned how a club could appeal a decision made by the SFA Board. However, in this case and despite what has happened is the appeal still against the Licensing Committee?  

Only the club and SFA officials will know what has happened. It is certainly not transparent to outsiders who are followers of the game what process was followed from the time of the licensing visits until the SFA Board decision.

Under the SFA’s own procedures there are only two decision-making bodies for licensing (Licensing Committee and the Appellate Tribunal (Licensing)) who are independent of each other.  Unless they have been told otherwise, clubs can only deal with what they know and a rejection of a club licence application gives a right of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal (Licensing).

One interpretation of what has been reported is that that the SFA Board could have inadvertently made a licensing decision and a full membership decision at the same time. In doing such has it prevented a club making an appeal?  That should be fairly quickly determined by the Judicial Panel.

It was a SFA board decision, therefore cannot be appealed to the governing body. There is an option to go for independent arbitration, that would be Bonnyrigg’s best option.

[BS7]

I wonder if the sfa decision was linked to the progress of the east junior pyramid. I’m not a conspiracy theorist but you know 

[Pyramidic]

23 hours ago, The Informer said:

It was a SFA board decision, therefore cannot be appealed to the governing body. There is an option to go for independent arbitration, that would be Bonnyrigg’s best option.

At least there is the planning consent approval that Bonnyrigg can now raise:

When can work start on the erection of the pylons?

 

[Gimme]

At least there is the planning consent approval that Bonnyrigg can now raise:

When can work start on the erection of the pylons?

 

Our last home game is tomorrow so as long as the contractor is lined up it could start anytime.