Club Licencing

[Guest]

The one question I keep asking myself is why would the sfa (who seem intent on having a fully functioning pyramid) curtail the licence assignments? This would effectively mean their actions serve to stop the thing they appear to desire the most.(rumour and conjecture right now.... Nothing officially announced) 

In a bizarre twist we are now suggesting the spfl clubs are influencing this, most of whom do not rely on licence payments to run their club. It will form part of their budgeting but as it changes each year (success dependant) they can only really budget on the lowest payment available.

I can't see the merit in stopping licences for associate membership and would be astounded if the sfa took this decision. (but then again I was astounded to hear medals getting handed over in a carrier bag, then a newspaper quoting a secretary stating someone would be dealt with for putting it on twitter) 

Again only in Scotland.....its like a certain guy (with a great spray tan and wavy white hair, set in the worst combover ever seen - fake news) has globally influenced people into saying downright stupid things and making ridiculous decisions. 

[FairWeatherFan]

4 minutes ago, Wee Fifer said:

Personally I don’t think they fear them at all I think they are protecting them.  Don’t you think you are expecting far too much too quickly? The juniors have made great progress over the last couple of seasons but Rome wasn’t built in a day.  I welcome the day former junior clubs visit New Bayview on a regular basis but this can only be achieved by hard working committees as is being shown by Kelty.  The pyramid as is stands is not perfect but progress has been made and through time will start to work. I think it’s unfortunate that Bonnyrigg have lost out this season but also reckon their disappointment  is partly due to over exuberance. 

Over exuberance? They applied and were audited in 2018 and met all the 2018 licensing criteria. They were told to get floodlights and will potentially have them installed within less than 9 months and the only reason they were denied a license is because the SFA intentionally sat on all applications from February to May making sure clubs couldn't make any arrangements in time for 2019-20.

 

[gaz5]

Personally I don’t think they fear them at all I think they are protecting them.  Don’t you think you are expecting far too much too quickly? The juniors have made great progress over the last couple of seasons but Rome wasn’t built in a day.  I welcome the day former junior clubs visit New Bayview on a regular basis but this can only be achieved by hard working committees as is being shown by Kelty.  The pyramid as is stands is not perfect but progress has been made and through time will start to work. I think it’s unfortunate that Bonnyrigg have lost out this season but also reckon their disappointment  is partly due to over exuberance. 

I'm not sure how you figure winning a league, then winning a league playoff, while meeting the requirements of licensing at the time you applied (having had to wait an additional 6 months due to an SFA ban on new applications), is over exuberance.

Particularly when the only thing that has stopped them from getting the licence required and being promoted, on merit, is floodlights and the team that has been reprieved relegation as a result have no floodlights.

Bonnyrigg earned their Lowland League spot, just like Kelty who you give as a "good" example. The only difference between the two clubs is the SFA delayed Bonnyriggs application then shifted the goalposts mid process on them. Had the SFA treated Bonnyrigg like Kelty, they would have been licenced long before the Lowland League deadline and requirement for floodlights coming in.

Bottom line is these mooted changes, if they are in any way accurate in the end up, are nothing more than protectionism and the SFA showing a lack of backbone when it comes to dealing with the SPFL and standing up for their own documented goal of supporting and developing football at all levels of the game.

It's easy to understand why the SPFL clubs don't want any more mouths to feed, but you'd think a governing body who are supposed to preside over all things football in Scotland, of which the SPFL is just one part, would at least be able to deliver against their own articles of association. Clearly they thought 200 members was ok when they put that in there, now less than half of that is enough?

[craigkillie]

I'm not sure how you figure winning a league, then winning a league playoff, while meeting the requirements of licensing at the time you applied (having had to wait an additional 6 months due to an SFA ban on new applications), is over exuberance.

Particularly when the only thing that has stopped them from getting the licence required and being promoted, on merit, is floodlights and the team that has been reprieved relegation as a result have no floodlights.

Bonnyrigg earned their Lowland League spot, just like Kelty who you give as a "good" example. The only difference between the two clubs is the SFA delayed Bonnyriggs application then shifted the goalposts mid process on them. Had the SFA treated Bonnyrigg like Kelty, they would have been licenced long before the Lowland League deadline and requirement for floodlights coming in.

Bottom line is these mooted changes, if they are in any way accurate in the end up, are nothing more than protectionism and the SFA showing a lack of backbone when it comes to dealing with the SPFL and standing up for their own documented goal of supporting and developing football at all levels of the game.

It's easy to understand why the SPFL clubs don't want any more mouths to feed, but you'd think a governing body who are supposed to preside over all things football in Scotland, of which the SPFL is just one part, would at least be able to deliver against their own articles of association. Clearly they thought 200 members was ok when they put that in there, now less than half of that is enough?

The SFA are the clubs, just like the SPFL are the clubs. The board and even the CEO are just doing what the clubs tell them to do.

[FairWeatherFan]

1 hour ago, Wee Fifer said:

I fully understand all of that and like I say have sympathy but the point I’m trying to make is that expecting too much too quickly was always going to lead to sacrifices. Had there only been a handful of clubs followed Keltys lead last season I’ve no doubt they would be in the Lowland league next season. 

The SFA forced a moratorium on applications from May 2018-October 2018 that was 6 months to resolve the issue relating to an unexpected number of applicants. This included hiring an additional licensing officer and would lead to the introduction of floodlights to the licensing criteria.

That 6 months was meant to take into account the new EoS members but also the expectation that the entire SJFA was due to be enter the pyramid in 2019-20. When the SFA lifted the moratorium it was meant to have resolved all the perceived issues with so many new applicants. So when 17 clubs applied, plus another 3 trying trying to apply, the SFA realised they hadn't put in a big enough road block and would sit on applications for 3 months. They've still not had the decency to tell Dunipace they can begin the application process as far as i'm aware.

Trying to put any of the blame on the clubs for being over exuberant or expecting too much is a nonsense. It has been the SFA consistently failing to lead and making up their rules as they go along.

Edited May 26, 2019 by FairWeatherFan

[Golum]

Any News

 

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

[FairWeatherFan]

3 minutes ago, Golum said:

Any News

 

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

Last year's LL agm was the end of May. Chances are this year's will be this week.

[FairWeatherFan]

Had it confirmed that the Lowland League AGM is on Monday.

[Burnie_man]

47 minutes ago, leftbehind said:

Gossip in the Lithgae Shed last night.          Bonnyrigg   getting re-assessed for license before next SFA meeting next week.  *Political Pressure* is the reason being given.       

 

[edinabear]

Good,  some common sense at last

[stingyjag]

should never have got this far,, they will look even more inept by letting bonnyrigg in now than they did by refusing them ,,,if thats possible

 

 

[Burnie_man]

4 minutes ago, edinabear said:

Good,  some common sense at last

* if true

[FairWeatherFan]

Anyone the dates of the EoS & SFA agms?

With LL's on Monday I had expected them to come out with Whitehill aren't relegated and Bonnyrigg didn't get their license in time.

With the Bonnyrigg chat I'm now wondering if there will be any sort of further extension

[Burnie_man]

EoS is 6th June, SFA is 12th June.

[Ginaro]

4 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Anyone the dates of the EoS & SFA agms?

With LL's on Monday I had expected them to come out with Whitehill aren't relegated and Bonnyrigg didn't get their license in time.

With the Bonnyrigg chat I'm now wondering if there will be any sort of further extension

Suppose the LL have two options, either confirm WW at the AGM or announce WW/Bonnyrigg will swap if the latter gets their licence at the June SFA board meeting or AGM. Waiting another two weeks probably won't hurt anyone, given the fixtures didn't get announced last year until 25th June (10 days after the SPFL) - presumably they'll need to wait until SPFL fixtures are announced on 21st June due to groundsharing?

[BS7]

26 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Suppose the LL have two options, either confirm WW at the AGM or announce WW/Bonnyrigg will swap if the latter gets their licence at the June SFA board meeting or AGM. Waiting another two weeks probably won't hurt anyone, given the fixtures didn't get announced last year until 25th June (10 days after the SPFL) - presumably they'll need to wait until SPFL fixtures are announced on 21st June due to groundsharing?

I can’t see WW wearing that - why should they?

[FairWeatherFan]

9 minutes ago, BS7 said:

I can’t see WW wearing that - why should they?

I wouldn't personally.

[newcastle broon]

48 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Suppose the LL have two options, either confirm WW at the AGM or announce WW/Bonnyrigg will swap if the latter gets their licence at the June SFA board meeting or AGM. Waiting another two weeks probably won't hurt anyone, given the fixtures didn't get announced last year until 25th June (10 days after the SPFL) - presumably they'll need to wait until SPFL fixtures are announced on 21st June due to groundsharing?

Aye fcuk whitehill just gie us a shout and we'll bow to our superiors 

[Ginaro]

26 minutes ago, BS7 said:

I can’t see WW wearing that - why should they?

Well indeed, though it is a possibility given they've not come out and said anything since the play-off - it's two months past the original deadline so just a question of how long does the LL give Bonnyrigg to get licensed, they might think another 12 days isn't going to cause further issues.

1 minute ago, newcastle broon said:

Aye fcuk whitehill just gie us a shout and we'll bow to our superiors 

Suppose you kept your half of the bargain by finishing 15th. 

[newcastle broon]

25 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Well indeed, though it is a possibility given they've not come out and said anything since the play-off - it's two months past the original deadline so just a question of how long does the LL give Bonnyrigg to get licensed, they might think another 12 days isn't going to cause further issues.

Suppose you kept your half of the bargain by finishing 15th. 

Just letting you ken it's no just Bonnyrigg that's getting fcuked aboot here likes