Club Licencing

[San Starko Rover]

Really needs to be announced what’s happening one way or the other as it’s unfair on both Whitehill and Bonnyrigg as neither knows which level they’re at next season. SFA 100% to blame here Bonnyrigg should have been given their licence as the goalposts where moved which was unfair. Now it’s unfair on Whitehill as they’re left in limbo. SFA couldn’t run s bath, it’s no wonder our game is in such a mess.

[superbigal]

Have any of the 3 clubs in LL without lights indicated any plans yet ?

Also in my naivety on voting rights and being led to believe turkeys dont vote for Christmas etc. Presumably there was a majority vote taken at some point of all the members to add the lights requirement ?

[FairWeatherFan]

1 minute ago, superbigal said:

Have any of the 3 clubs in LL without lights indicated any plans yet ?

Also in my naivety on voting rights and being led to believe turkeys dont vote for Christmas etc. Presumably there was a majority vote taken at some point of all the members to add the lights requirement ?

CSS look to be sorted. VoL I'm not too sure on & WW are having to deal with a different kind of uncertainty so there hasn't been much positive news on the floodlights front.

All 3 are looking into it as they obviously don't want to lose their licenses.

[Burnie_man]

Have any of the 3 clubs in LL without lights indicated any plans yet ?

Also in my naivety on voting rights and being led to believe turkeys dont vote for Christmas etc. Presumably there was a majority vote taken at some point of all the members to add the lights requirement ?

The LL do not have a requirement for floodlights. It's a new Licence requirement and you need a Licence to play in the LL.

[pipedreamer]

1 hour ago, superbigal said:

Have any of the 3 clubs in LL without lights indicated any plans yet ?

Also in my naivety on voting rights and being led to believe turkeys dont vote for Christmas etc. Presumably there was a majority vote taken at some point of all the members to add the lights requirement ?

Licensing requirements changes aren’t voted on by members. They are set by the sfa and licensing committee.

[Marten]

I really hope Bonnyrigg still get a license, but imo the LL should decide (might have to be through an EGM to get it approved though), that WW are in the LL whatever happens and if Bonnyrigg get a license, the LL will just run with 17 clubs and add an extra relegation spot to go down to 16 for 2020/21.

[Ginaro]

St Andrews floodlighting planning permission, 200 lux: https://planning.fife.gov.uk/online/caseDetails.do?caseType=Application&keyVal=PQGL5EHFMNS00

[Burnie_man]

28 minutes ago, Marten said:

I really hope Bonnyrigg still get a license, but imo the LL should decide (might have to be through an EGM to get it approved though), that WW are in the LL whatever happens and if Bonnyrigg get a license, the LL will just run with 17 clubs and add an extra relegation spot to go down to 16 for 2020/21.

That would have knock-on effects to the EoS, with Leith Athletic being promoted to the EoS Premier, and one of the Conferences only running with 11 clubs, which in turn will affect their inter-conference fixtures. 

[gwd440]

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

That would have knock-on effects to the EoS, with Leith Athletic being promoted to the EoS Premier, and one of the Conferences only running with 11 clubs, which in turn will affect their inter-conference fixtures. 

In that case it would be simpler for the EoS to run the Premier with 15 clubs for 1 season.  Tough on Leith though.

[RampantFM]

Spoiler

https://twitter.com/OfficialCatchup/status/1134442110055268353

 

[superbigal]

6 hours ago, pipedreamer said:

Licensing requirements changes aren’t voted on by members. They are set by the sfa and licensing committee.

Great that is my point. This small body decided floodlights were required.   It was not a vote to the 91 members (Or whatever number it is).

So this particular body presumably can set the licensing benefits as well as the standards ?

What I am trying to get at, is if it is the sfa and licensing committee that comes up with a revised License (Associate or whatever they want to call it), with reduced benefits. 

That the members themselves do not vote on the proposal.

I have read on here that the clubs would potentially not allow it (Because they would outnumber the bigger clubs in sheer votes)

But how can they if this function is actioned by committee ?

Edited May 31, 2019 by superbigal

[FairWeatherFan]

3 minutes ago, superbigal said:

Great that is my point. This small body decided floodlights were required.   It was not a vote to the 91 members (Or whatever number it is).

So this particular body presumably can set the licensing benefits as well as the standards ?

What I am trying to get at, is if it is the sfa and licensing committee that comes up with a revised License (Associate or whatever they want to call it), with reduced benefits. 

That the members themselves do not vote on the proposal.

I have read on here that the clubs would potentially not allow it.

But how can they if it is done by committee ?

The two things are intertwined but separate. Membership rights are something voted on by members. The licensing process is in the control of the licensing committee & board.

Look at how the SPFL board can make up whatever they want with the Challenge Cup but can't push through Colts. One is a delegated responsibility and the other a membership vote.

[superbigal]

1 minute ago, FairWeatherFan said:

The two things are intertwined but separate. Membership rights are something voted on by members. The licensing process is in the control of the licensing committee & board.

Look at how the SPFL board can make up whatever they want with the Challenge Cup but can't push through Colts. One is a delegated responsibility and the other a membership vote.

Thanks

[MDM]

Since Sir Peter was pushed out - Whitehill have been everyone's whipping boys.

Bring back Peter and there will be no SFA u-turns and Whitehill would be gifted the lights currently in use at Hampden Park.... just to keep the peace!

[LongTimeLurker]

2 hours ago, RampantFM said:

  Hide contents

https://twitter.com/OfficialCatchup/status/1134442110055268353

 

[Footballfirst]

……. and the last pillar going up

 

[parsforlife]

Fair play to bonyrigg, they certainly haven’t hung around!

[Footballfirst]

I was speaking to someone with close connections to Penicuik this morning. He confirmed that the club had been told that they won't be given full membership of the SFA at the AGM, but an "affiliate" or "associate" non voting membership.

[Dev]

7 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I was speaking to someone with close connections to Penicuik this morning. He confirmed that the club had been told that they won't be given full membership of the SFA at the AGM, but an "affiliate" or "associate" non voting membership.

Let's see. Clubs paid for an Application for Full Membership subject to gaining a Licence. 2K a time.

Looks like a contract. The SFA seems to believe that it can move the goal posts at will, regardless of contracts? Also there is the Pyramid UEFA compliance issue.

Maybe it's time for the SFA to be scrapped and restarted from fresh.

[LongTimeLurker]

44 minutes ago, Dev said:

Let's see. Clubs paid for an Application for Full Membership subject to gaining a Licence. 2K a time.

Looks like a contract. The SFA seems to believe that it can move the goal posts at will, regardless of contracts? Also there is the Pyramid UEFA compliance issue.

Maybe it's time for the SFA to be scrapped and restarted from fresh.

Isn't it in the regulations that the SFA can adjust the requirements and add new conditions as they see fit?

As long as Scottish cup entry and ability to be promoted isn't affected this associate membership thing is no big deal. Better that than ever harsher licensing requirements to pull up the drawbridge.