Club Licencing

[Burnie_man]

'Senior' Scottish Cup finances (updated with 17-18 data):
For playing in:
PR1: £3000
PR2: £3000
R1: £4000
R2: £5000
R3: £6000
R4: £9000
R5: £12000
R6: £15000
SF: £18000
Runner Up: £30000
Winner: £60000

[Black & Red Socks]

'Senior' Scottish Cup finances (updated with 17-

PR1: £3000

PR2: £3000

R1: £4000

R2: £5000

R3: £6000

R4: £9000

R5: £12000

R6: £15000

SF: £18000

Runner Up: £30000

Winner: £60000

Is that correct, only £60k for the Scottish Cup winners and £30k for the runners up? Wow, BBC Match of the Day presenters get more than that for one show, which highlights what our clubs are up against financially - if, indeed, £60k/£30k is the case.....

[Ginaro]

27 minutes ago, Black & Red Socks said:

Is that correct, only £60k for the Scottish Cup winners and £30k for the runners up? Wow, BBC Match of the Day presenters get more than that for one show, which highlights what our clubs are up against financially - if, indeed, £60k/£30k is the case.....

It's cumulative, so it would be 114k for Celtic.

[newcastle broon]

WW  statement basically says got a year to get lights or lose license.

There  ye go happy now!!

[FairWeatherFan]

Whitehill Welfare were audited at the start of the month and were told they had year to get floodlights in place or risk losing their license.

Seems like the 3 years derogation idea for existing members hasn't turned out to be true. It's basically until whenever a club is due to be audited next since the rule came into place + 1 year.

From the last published list of licensed clubs from April 2019 none of the clubs without floodlights were listed as having had a review this year. So WW, Coldstream, VoL, CSS, Golspie, Girvan etc have a year to get them in place.

[tamthebam]

Strollers have planning permission from the Cooncil and are apparently getting the old set that graced the Meadowbank 3G where Leith Ath played. 

 

I always said Welfare should have put a bid in for the big Meadowbank lights and put Rosewell on the map! 

[Spyro]

1 hour ago, tamthebam said:

I always said Welfare should have put a bid in for the big Meadowbank lights and put Rosewell on the map! 

On the map?! They’d light half of Midlothian with them, the neighbours would have an absolute meltdown  

[Rab B Nesbit]

8 hours ago, tamthebam said:

Strollers have planning permission from the Cooncil and are apparently getting the old set that graced the Meadowbank 3G where Leith Ath played. 

I always said Welfare should have put a bid in for the big Meadowbank lights and put Rosewell on the map! 

I’m not sure the latest managers sponsors stretch that far. Out of interest did anyone buy the big Meadowbank lights Tam ? 

[lithgierose]

9 hours ago, Spyro said:

On the map?! They’d light half of Midlothian with them, the neighbours would have an absolute meltdown  

The neighbours could cut their leccy bills though. 

[Robert James]

13 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Whitehill Welfare were audited at the start of the month and were told they had year to get floodlights in place or risk losing their license.

Seems like the 3 years derogation idea for existing members hasn't turned out to be true. It's basically until whenever a club is due to be audited next since the rule came into place + 1 year.

From the last published list of licensed clubs from April 2019 none of the clubs without floodlights were listed as having had a review this year. So WW, Coldstream, VoL, CSS, Golspie, Girvan etc have a year to get them in place.

It will be tough on  Golspie Sutherland and Girvan, if they lose their SFA Membership as a consequence of not having floodlights, as they have been SFA Members continuously  since before 1965, as stated in The Scottish Football Association's  "Official List of Clubs and Colours 1965/66" handbook . Fifty plus years of membership therefore counts for nothing. 

As a minimum a derogation of two years, should have been granted to existing SFA Member clubs IMO, as planning applications for the installation of floodlights close to domestic housing (in particular), requires  consultation with residents, and can take  longer than a year, to be approved. Sadly, the opportunity to apply better floodlighting derogation for existing Member clubs, has not been exercised.  

Footnote :  In looking at the SFA 1965/66 Handbook, I noticed that Aberdeen University were full SFA Members at that time. Not sure why, or when they discontinued their membership ? 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Robert James
additional question added

[GNU_Linux]

It will be tough on  Golspie Sutherland and Girvan, if they lose their SFA Membership as a consequence of not having floodlights, as they have been SFA Members continuously  since before 1965, as stated in The Scottish Football Association's  "Official List of Clubs and Colours 1965/66" handbook . Fifty plus years of membership therefore counts for nothing. 
As a minimum a derogation of two years, should have been granted to existing SFA Member clubs IMO, as planning applications for the installation of floodlights close to domestic housing (in particular), requires  consultation with residents, and can take  longer than a year, to be approved. Sadly, the opportunity to apply better floodlighting derogation for existing Member clubs, has not been exercised.  
Footnote :  In looking at the SFA 1965/66 Handbook, I noticed that Aberdeen University were full SFA Members at that time. Not sure why, or when they discontinued their membership ? 

Aberdeen Uni got punted in the 80s iirc. Think it was the last time a member was kicked excluding cases of clubs going bust.

[tamthebam]

Aberdeen Uni's treasurer forgot to pay the subs to the SFA. As the Uni ground didn't comply with ground regulations at the time that was it for the Students as they couldn't get back in.

A similar case was that of Peebles Rovers who went junior for a few seasons in the early 70s. Once they rejoined the East of Scotland League they were required to enclose their ground, which they couldn't as it doubled as a cricket pitch in the summer.  

 

[stanley]

It won't be tough on Golspie and Girvan at all.  They're lucky Scottish football is normally a once you're in, you're in forever situation.  If other clubs have to spend a lot of money to get floodlights then they should have to as well.

Not of any significance that they have continuously been members for years.

RJ often comes out with posts that suggest existing members should be protected in some way and I think it's everything that's wrong with Scottish football i.e. it's all about self-preservation.

Edited June 20, 2019 by stanley

[Auld Heid]

It will be tough on  Golspie Sutherland and Girvan, if they lose their SFA Membership as a consequence of not having floodlights, as they have been SFA Members continuously  since before 1965, as stated in The Scottish Football Association's  "Official List of Clubs and Colours 1965/66" handbook . Fifty plus years of membership therefore counts for nothing. 
As a minimum a derogation of two years, should have been granted to existing SFA Member clubs IMO, as planning applications for the installation of floodlights close to domestic housing (in particular), requires  consultation with residents, and can take  longer than a year, to be approved. Sadly, the opportunity to apply better floodlighting derogation for existing Member clubs, has not been exercised.  
Footnote :  In looking at the SFA 1965/66 Handbook, I noticed that Aberdeen University were full SFA Members at that time. Not sure why, or when they discontinued their membership ? 

Yes it will be sad to see teams lose their license.

But a licence shouldn't be seen as a right. You cant set standards for one at not expect others to meet the same.

[magoo]

52 minutes ago, stanley said:

It won't be tough on Golspie and Grivan at all.  They're lucky Scottish football is normally a once you're in, you're in forever situation.  If other clubs have to spend a lot of money to get floodlights then they should have to as well.

Not of any significance that they have continuously been members for years.

RJ often comes out with posts that suggest existing members should be protected in some way and I think it's everything that's wrong with Scottish football i.e. it's all about self-preservation.

It's hardly self preservation if you simply don't have the funds to spend on lights, that clubs have managed perfectly well without for decades, 

[craigkillie]

It's hardly self preservation if you simply don't have the funds to spend on lights, that clubs have managed perfectly well without for decades, 

Nobody is saying that they have to install them, just that it's reasonable for those clubs to be judged by exactly the same standards as every other club in Scotland. They shouldn't keep their license purely based on a historical quirk.

Both clubs have presumably obtained reasonable financial benefits from their SFA membership over the years, and it is their responsibility to continue to upgrade their facilities to meet the appropriate standards of the day.

[Lowland League Follower]

8 minutes ago, magoo said:

It's hardly self preservation if you simply don't have the funds to spend on lights, that clubs have managed perfectly well without for decades, 

But surely if Whitehill had ambitions to gain promotion from LL to SPLF League 2 then you would have needed floodlights, as you have previously stated planning permission application is already been submitted, so 12 months to get this over the line should be achievable. Other clubs have completed the process within 12 months of application approval. Good luck on raising the funds, and I believe you already have volunteers offering services (Electrician).

[stanley]

56 minutes ago, magoo said:

It's hardly self preservation if you simply don't have the funds to spend on lights, that clubs have managed perfectly well without for decades, 

Whether or not clubs should need floodlights is a separate issue.

The point is it has to be equal standards for all.  If clubs now going for a licence need floodlights then clubs who already have a licence should need them too.  You can't give the existing members preferential treatment. 

There has been a general culture in Scottish football of protecting those who are already in.  No relegation at all from the SPFL until the past few years and even then it's still a play-off not automatic.  Different standards needed for new clubs applying than ones already in.  That type of thing.

I'm not criticising clubs like Golspie who may not have the money, just the overall system we've seen in Scottish football.

Personally I would have different levels of licensing for non-league clubs.  Floodlights gets you to one level and is perhaps needed for tier 5.  Below that it isn't needed and you can get to tier 6 with a lower level of licence.  That's just my opinion and doesn't fit in with the SFA's of putting unnecessary hurdles in the way of ambitious clubs.  We should be getting more clubs into the pyramid system and Scottish Cup and recognising the level they play at and the levels of support.  A club like Golspie clearly don't need floodlights.

[HibeeJibee]

There should be a level below Entry now its criteria has becoming demanding enough to require lights.


That said: people predicted manyhistoric SFA members wouldn't get licensed when it was hitched-up to membership. In reality they all did - and only Newton Stewart and St Cuthberts were late.

I'm not saying Burntisland, CSS, Coldstream, Girvan, Golspie, Vale, Whitehill and Wigtown will all get lit - as I said some may even feel it's not worth it - but I don't foresee swathes failing.


It's also slightly different for CSS and Vale - and Whitehill until now - as LL lighting policy was hardening.

Edited June 20, 2019 by HibeeJibee

[Whitburn Vale]

Golspie's problem as far as floodlights are concerned,is the neighbor's.

They've talked off putting them up in the past but it's been met with resistance to those who stay in the houses behind their ground.