Club Licencing

[GNU_Linux]

I've written dozens, maybe hundreds of letters with other people's names on them in the past 20 years. Many times my draft has been sent back for revision, sometimes more than once. The person signing it is  100% responsible for what goes out in their name. For those letters not important enough to get a reply from a senior person, they go out in my name.
Maxwell's letter is probably not legally inaccurate (though giving away the motive would leave them wide open to challenge in other circumstances), but any football person reading that would know it's the wrong thing to say. There's no reason to let him off the hook on this.

Clearly proof read as nae 'I am write' this time.

[paulc]

36 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

In theory they could groundshare with a licensed club which has lights (Easthouses or Penicuik), like other clubs in the LL do. Whether or not they could agree this and get it approved by the SFA to obtain a licence in the next few weeks is another matter. Plus they'd need to get approval from the LL board to switch their ground back to New Dundas Park.

The Scottish Cup excuse from Maxwell doesn't wash as Bonnyrigg are already in the cup without lights. Plus at least 26 out of 36 clubs in the first round will have lights so it won't be hard for the BBC to choose a match at a ground with lights.

This is outrageous.

The SFA gives two grounds for rejecting Bonnyrigg.

 

1 They actually admit in writing that they changed the rules after applications had been submitted ...to keep numbers down.

 

2_They say they require lights in the Scottish Cup when they know that several teams ... including Bonnyrigg ... will be participating without lights next season.

 

I hope Bonnyrigg goes to the Court of Arbitration in Sport.

[LongTimeLurker]

If they can get floodlights installed ASAP hopefully there's still a solution given the letter potentially provides something that can be appealed against. Don't hold your breath though. 

[bluedragon]

Like everyone else I am struggling to understand the SFA Board’s position despite the explanation of the Chief Executive. Far from clarifying anything it confirms that the SFA has not followed its own agreed procedures and processes. Even if 12 applicant clubs and the floodlighting changes were seen as exceptional circumstances they could have been dealt with by the SFA’s existing procedures. Those procedures are in place to ensure the “transparency and integrity of the system”.

NO DEROGATIONS

The Licensing Manual makes no distinction between a Registered Member (e.g. Bonnyrigg Rose) making its first application for a club licence and a Full Member applying to go from say Entry to Bronze Levels. As such, derogations can be given to any club by the Licensing Committee and in doing so acting independently based on the merits of the case and cannot deny an application by virtue of the club’s membership status.

The SFA Board appears to have acted outside its own process by changing the licencing criteria after an audit is underway. It can make changes up to the day of the audit itself (floodlights) but not after it (no derogations).

I think the Licensing Committee would have been quite right in discussing the question as to whether in future first-time applicants should meet all requirements i.e. no derogations, to be awarded an Entry Level licence. However, if they thought derogations should not be given in these circumstances then that would form a formal proposal to the SFA Board to change the criteria and, if approved, would be included in the 2020 revision. That is the process.

UEFA

The Licensing Manual says: “Scottish FA activities with regard to licensing are subject to third party scrutiny by UEFA in order to guarantee the transparency and integrity of the system.” It also says:

“1.2 Approval of the Scottish FA Club Licensing Manual

The Scottish FA Board approves the terms of this manual. This is reviewed annually and cannot change during the licensing process, unless duly approved by UEFA. The manual conforms to UK Law.”

It is clear from my reading that this UEFA scrutiny/approval refers to the complete manual and not just Parts 1, 2 & 4 that refer to UEFA club licensing. I did wonder about the reason for the extent of UEFA’s oversight. However, in the circumstances of a club outside the Premiership winning the Scottish Cup then a special application to UEFA can be made to play in the Europa League. In making its decision UEFA would want to be sure that it can rely on the robustness of the National Club Licensing process and the level it has assigned to the applicant club.  It was not lost on me that UEFA exercises some discretion when clubs have sportingly qualified for the Europa League but do not have a UEFA Club Licence.

It might be useful for the SFA to consider how it would react if the boot was on the other foot. Let’s say UEFA changed the floodlighting requirements for Category Four stadia, e.g. Hampden Park, and the scale of the change meant the work could only be done in the close season. However, in the meantime non-compliant grounds would come off the list for staging Europa League Finals, etc. I am sure that the SFA would seek a derogation from UEFA to retain Hampden Park's status in exchange for a commitment to make the changes.  

Edited May 19, 2019 by bluedragon

[Burnie_man]

SCOTLAND UNITED: A 2020 VISION. The Scottish FA is trusted to lead the country's national sport with integrity and innovation, fostering a culture of performance, unity and trust.

 

I do wonder what damage the SFA have done to their integrity and trust with their on-going handling of the pyramid and licence process.

 

Also, Neil Findlay MSP raised a motion which drew cross party support for Bonnyrigg's situation.  Not being an expert in political process, what happens next, is it just a worthless gesture or can it lead to Parliament investigating?

[Ginaro]

3 minutes ago, leftbehind said:

Neil Findlay doesn't even represent Bonnyrigg in our Parliament

Yes he does, he is a list MSP for the Lothian region.

[Burnie_man]

13 minutes ago, leftbehind said:

Dozens each year in Holyrood and Westminster   Like Petitions  99.5 % are re-cycling material    Neil Findlay doesn't even represent Bonnyrigg in our Parliament     opportunisim from the Midlothian council leader who is a friend.  

He does represent Bonnyrigg as part of the Lothians, but disappointing to note nothing will come of it.

[Gimme]

The elected MSP BY VOTES CAST is  Colin Beattie   but he is obviously not off  the particular political persuasion as the council Leader but by courtesy should have been asked to do the same thing  and like most politicians nowadays would have milked the opportunity dry       he likes these causes.  but with the same result.     The club has appealed and lost and are now preparing to get on with the job of erecting the lights they obtained courtesy of the local council.

Purchased from the local council.

[Pyramidic]

Edinburgh Sports Conference:

https://edinsportsconf.co.uk/

Thinking outside of the box I think that some of these speakers ought to know what the SFA have been up to re the Club Licensing fiasco.

The event is supported by Football Legal who have been informed about the Bonnyrigg Rose Licensing affair.

Scroll your mouse over the delegates that will be speaking at the event.

https://www.football-legal.com/
 

NB: I have no connection with Bonnyrigg Rose but in the football world word gets around.

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, leftbehind said:

The elected MSP BY VOTES CAST is ...

Every constituency in Scotland has 8 MSPs, and none are more important or local than others. 

 

As for parly motions, no, they don't mean anything and there's absolutely no chance of the Scottish Government getting involved. Members of a relevant committee could raise it if they want, but nobody has any power here, the SFA are a private organisation. Motions are a way of raising the profile of an issue and if they get enough support they generally lead to a members' debate. 

[FairWeatherFan]

I'm maybe misremembering this, but was there some suggestion of Edinburgh United getting a set of floodlights?

[Ginaro]

Update from Dalkeith, not as close as we thought they were to being licensed: http://www.dalkeiththistle.co.uk/news/season-201920-the-jags-going-forward-2428622.html

Quote

SFA Club Licensing
The club was unsuccessful in the most recent assessment, but we have known this would be the case for some time.

Looking back over the previous 12 months, we erected a new hospitality cabin, new boundary screening and fencing, a new main entrance and turnstiles, plus additional storage for equipment which has allowed us to complete various other improvements at the ground.

This close-season we hope to build on that progress, but in order to meet the licensing requirements we must undertake the following work:

- Pavilion extension to accommodate toilet facilities in both changing rooms
- Erect an additional toilet for female spectators
- Install a WC in the referees room
- Fit a new pitch barrier as the metal rope currently in place is inadequate
- Form new steps under the covered enclosure
- Erect a shelter for disabled spectators

The club is looking into ways to fund this essential work as we plan to develop and improve the ground further over the next few years.

 

[Golum]

When will the debacle of  what leagues the  Welfare/Bonnyrigg  be in be  officially ratified ?

[Hertz1874]

Bonnyrigg will not be in the Lowland, unfortunately.

Whitehill will remain in the Lowland.

[Crossbar]

On 18/05/2019 at 09:32, Gimme said:

Here's hoping Whitehill have to borrow Bonnyriggs ground to play their Scottish Cup 1st round tie that the BBC want to show on a Friday night!

 

Exactly.  "Live on the BBC from floodlit Dundas Park in Bonnyrigg this Friday, it's full members Whitehill Welfare at home to qualifiers Bonnyrigg Rose in the first round of the Scottish Cup” 

 

Maxwell making a fool of himself. Let's be honest, how many Scottish Cup ties from the early rounds do the BBC want to broadcast live? Using that to justify his argument is a nonsense. 

Other than Auchinleck  v Ayr last year (and remember Auchinleck were qualifiers, not full members so floodlights were not needed under the current rules), can anyone remember a cup tie involving any non-SPFL full-member club being broadcast live by the BBC?

Even in the unlikely event that they did want to broadcast a tie involving one of the these non-SPFL full-member clubs who don't have lights, it could be a Saturday lunchtime or Sunday afternoon kick-off. If had to be a Friday or Monday night then they wouldn't chose to broadcast a tie at a venue without lights. 

[Crossbar]

On 18/05/2019 at 12:13, pie n beans said:

Is it to late for Bonnyrigg to use another stadium regarding the lights issue so they can still go up to the LL 

They could have asked to ground-share at Whitehill's licensed  ground to get their own license (like a few other LL clubs do)

Edited May 23, 2019 by Crossbar

[Burnie_man]

5 minutes ago, Crossbar said:

Exactly.  "Live on the BBC from floodlit Dundas Park in Bonnyrigg this Friday, it's full members Whitehill Welfare at home to qualifiers Bonnyrigg Rose in the first round of the Scottish Cup” 

 

Maxwell making a fool of himself. Let's be honest, how many Scottish Cup ties from the early rounds do the BBC want to broadcast live? Using that to justify his argument is a nonsense. 

Other than Auchinleck  v Ayr last year (and remember Auchinleck were qualifiers, not full members so floodlights were not needed under the current rules), can anyone remember a cup tie involving any non-SPFL full-member club being broadcast live by the BBC?

Even in the unlikely event that they did want to broadcast a tie involving one of the these non-SPFL full-member clubs who don't have lights, it could be a Saturday lunchtime or Sunday afternoon kick-off. If had to be a Friday or Monday night then they wouldn't chose to broadcast a tie at a venue without lights. 

One game will be broadcast live in each of the first three rounds from next season onwards.

[Crossbar]

Just now, Burnie_man said:

One game will be broadcast live in each of the first three rounds from next season onwards.

So, BBC would either choose a tie involving a home team with lights or a Saturday lunchtime / Sunday afternoon kick-off time.  That doesn't justify the SFA's decision or Maxwell's explanation.

I actually think adding lights as a licensing criteria is a good thing. But totally unfair to move the goalposts and add it after clubs had already applied and then use BBC live games as a justification for rejecting the application

[Burnie_man]

10 minutes ago, Crossbar said:

So, BBC would either choose a tie involving a home team with lights or a Saturday lunchtime / Sunday afternoon kick-off time.  That doesn't justify the SFA's decision or Maxwell's explanation.

I actually think adding lights as a licensing criteria is a good thing. But totally unfair to move the goalposts and add it after clubs had already applied and then use BBC live games as a justification for rejecting the application

Aye I know, I was just pointing out that from next season games will be shown live from round 1.

[BS7]

3 hours ago, Hertz1874 said:

Bonnyrigg will not be in the Lowland, unfortunately.

Whitehill will remain in the Lowland.

The league set up released by the eosfl suggests it’s not finalized