Club Licencing

[craigkillie]

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.

My opinion is that licensing should move towards being tied to league status rather than Scottish Cup eligibility. Have lots of different levels of license for each level of the pyramid, and have qualifying competitions for Scottish Cup entry for clubs below a certain tier (eg Tier 6).

[parsforlife]

My opinion is that licensing should move towards being tied to league status rather than Scottish Cup eligibility. Have lots of different levels of license for each level of the pyramid, and have qualifying competitions for Scottish Cup entry for clubs below a certain tier (eg Tier 6).

 

We should certainly be aiming for a cohesive licensing system, there’s no reason we can’t look to be achieving grading every club in Scotland. Lower level licences would obviously not need as extensive oversight but some would be great.

 

I still fantasise about an all in Scottish cup tho

 

[tamthebam]

2 hours ago, Whitburn Vale said:

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.

The DEVIL'S ILLUMINATION will never come to the parish of Golspie! 

I wonder if The Mannie is floodlit- they would just have to redirect some of the lamps downwards.. 

[Burnie_man]

[Robert James]

10 hours ago, stanley said:

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.

I agree with your views that a tiered licensing system should be applied, depending upon the level each club plays at. I support floodlights being mandatory at Tier 5 (HFL and SLL), and clubs who don't have them, should be relegated from tier 5, or not promoted to it.

Clubs playing at Tier 6 and below, should be excluded from the licensing requirement for floodlights (only), and be accepted (or retained) as  Members, providing they comply with the "enclosed ground", and "cover rules" (+ H & S etc), but would NOT  be eligible to gain promotion above Tier 6. Their status within the SFA should be that of an Associate Member, with no voting rights, and classed as "Associate Licensing" Level. 

My reasoning is that floodlights are an expensive addition, rarely needed at the lower tiers of football, and  club Treasurers will find it difficult to justify lights as being within a sound financial framework for their club. Regarding the 50 years plus SFA membership of Girvan and Golspie, there "historical" rights"  should count for something, and in particular, a 'longer' derogation could have been granted to permit a lower licensing ('Associate') criterion to be introduced, as outlined above.  

It is wholly unnecessary to apply the same licensing criteria to Golspie, as are required for lower level SPFL clubs. The SFA should be encouraging smaller clubs, not killing them off.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Robert James
typo error

[Guest]

What about clubs playing tier 6 who have all the licence criteria covered? Does this mean that although they have everything the licence requires they don't get the same level of membership because they play in a lower league? How would that work? Doesn't seem fair if that's what we are suggesting.

[craigkillie]

What about clubs playing tier 6 who have all the licence criteria covered? Does this mean that although they have everything the licence requires they don't get the same level of membership because they play in a lower league? How would that work? Doesn't seem fair if that's what we are suggesting.

It depends what the "levels of membership" actually mean. My opinion is that there should basically be a system that sets out a list of criteria for each level of the pyramid, and when a club gets promoted they have to show that they meet the criteria for the level above (preferably with the option for a year derogation on some).

[Burnie_man]

Every single member whether full or associate or whatever should retain a voice and voting rights. It's wrong to silence clubs regardless of member status but that is what the SFA have done, with hardly anything being said and clubs who voted for it below the SPFL should be ashamed of themselves.

[Robert James]

9 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

Every single member whether full or associate or whatever should retain a voice and voting rights. It's wrong to silence clubs regardless of member status but that is what the SFA have done, with hardly anything being said and clubs who voted for it below the SPFL should be ashamed of themselves.

I disagree.  Many clubs or organisations (outside football) have both "Full" and "Associate" membership levels. Some even award "Honorary" membership membership, in recognition of (say) longevity of membership, and loyalty. 

[Burnie_man]

I disagree.  Many clubs or organisations (outside football) have both "Full" and "Associate" membership levels. Some even award "Honorary" membership membership, in recognition of (say) longevity of membership, and loyalty. 

So you think clubs voices should be silenced despite being a member of the national association the same as all other clubs, how on earth is that inclusive?

I can accept clubs at a higher level having a bigger share of the vote (which operates in the SPFL) and more of a say, but to deny clubs entirely is not the way forward. It's draconian and born entirely out of self preservation.

[Robert James]

13 hours ago, G4Mac said:

What about clubs playing tier 6 who have all the licence criteria covered? Does this mean that although they have everything the licence requires they don't get the same level of membership because they play in a lower league? How would that work? Doesn't seem fair if that's what we are suggesting.

This was not what I was suggesting.

To clarify, all clubs who meet the "Entry" requirement (including floodlights), should retain full membership rights, irrespective as to the Tier they play at.  However those existing SFA member clubs should be permitted to be given "Associate" member status - providing they meet all the licensing standards, with the exception of floodlights. As such, they would not be permitted to gain promotion to Tier 5 or above, but would be allowed to enter the Scottish Cup, albeit at the First Preliminary Round stage.. 

This would be a better prospect for "Associates", who would otherwise have their SFA membership taken away from them. Ask them, if you don't agree. 

From Burnie_man's  response, I assume he would rather expel them from the SFA, rather than allow such clubs to retain both their membership, and de facto, their voting rights ?

Edited June 21, 2019 by Robert James
additional question added

[Whitburn Vale]

21 hours ago, tamthebam said:

The DEVIL'S ILLUMINATION will never come to the parish of Golspie! 

I wonder if The Mannie is floodlit- they would just have to redirect some of the lamps downwards.. 

Sounds a plan,though what happens when somebody knocks him down,lol 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Whitburn Vale

[Guest]

This was not what I was suggesting.
To clarify, all clubs who meet the "Entry" requirement (including floodlights), should retain full membership rights, irrespective as to the Tier they play at.  However those existing SFA member clubs should be permitted to be given "Associate" member status - providing they meet all the licensing standards, with the exception of floodlights. As such, they would not be permitted to gain promotion to Tier 5 or above, but would be allowed to enter the Scottish Cup, albeit at the First Preliminary Round stage.. 
This would be a better prospect for "Associates", who would otherwise have their SFA membership taken away from them. Ask them, if you don't agree. 
From Burnie_man's  response, I assume he would rather expel them from the SFA, rather than allow such clubs to retain both their membership, and de facto, their voting rights ?

I disagree wholeheartedly. If there is a criteria for membership then unless a club meets every element of it they should remain non members. That's the point of the licence in the first place. Teams could do everything else but get floodlights and gets all the same benefits as teams who have them, barring being able to be promoted. That isn't cricket surely?

Why have a criteria if you don't stick to it, firmly and fairly?

[Burnie_man]

This was not what I was suggesting.
To clarify, all clubs who meet the "Entry" requirement (including floodlights), should retain full membership rights, irrespective as to the Tier they play at.  However those existing SFA member clubs should be permitted to be given "Associate" member status - providing they meet all the licensing standards, with the exception of floodlights. As such, they would not be permitted to gain promotion to Tier 5 or above, but would be allowed to enter the Scottish Cup, albeit at the First Preliminary Round stage.. 
This would be a better prospect for "Associates", who would otherwise have their SFA membership taken away from them. Ask them, if you don't agree. 
From Burnie_man's  response, I assume he would rather expel them from the SFA, rather than allow such clubs to retain both their membership, and de facto, their voting rights ?

My response is that there shouldn't be a two tier membership structure where some members are allowed to vote and speak at AGM, whilst others are not.

Everyone should just be a member with the same rights, albeit there may be a case for Premiership club votes to carry more weight than EoS club votes, but everyone should have some form of influence on the game, however small.

That's my point.

If a member no longer meets the membership criteria then they are no longer members, same as any members organisation.

[superbigal]

Was at the Rec St Andrew's utd park tonight as my son was playing his 2nd ever game of 11s on it.
It was magnificent surface. Cut as short as a bowling green with no grass cuttings (must have some mower) and not a weed in sight. Dugouts and patches of astroturf 1st time I've seen them and need a little work around the edges. Hopefully they get permission okay for the lights. As there is a giant phonemast already on site you would expect so.
Once again I must emphasise probably the best surface ive seen on a non spfl pitch in years. Congratulations to the groundsman.

[newcastle broon]

1 minute ago, superbigal said:

Hopefully they get permission okay for the lights. As there is a giant phonemast already on site you would expect so.
 

Is it their ground the club should  be earning a fair few quid from that  ? 

[superbigal]

St Andrew's

[Dev]

This is the ideal opportunity for the SFA to set out its' plans for the Pyramid for the next five to ten years.

Start with consultations directly between the Chief Exec and the President of the SFA and each League (not association). Take in the feed-back then come up with a structure. Set out a time-scale and put into practice after publishing the plan so everyone knows what is what from the start.

If clubs wish to be a part of the Pyramid they can. They will know what is what and can make the decision which works for them. They can always apply to join at a later stage if wish.

Once the structure is there then fit licencing into that structure on a pre-agreed basis, including the criteria of facilities etc needed at each level. Ten stick with it. Clubs can then make plans in the secure knowledge that the goal-post won't be moved again for at lest a set number of seasons, let alone in mid season! 

The current stage has been subject to confusion and inconsistency together with a lack of understanding of what clubs want and will respond positively to. When the top dogs of the SFA meet up with the EoS and Lowland leagues's clubs and it becomes obvious that they have no clue about football beneath the SPFL / outside the Juniors it beggars belief!

The SFA needs to show who is the boss and take full responsibility and not allow individuals, allegedly representing subordinate SFA associations to play merry H-LL with plans for the structure.

There will be a whole range of views on what should be, each with their own merits, which is healthy but don't loose sight of what has been going on and the need to sort out a plan which will work for those clubs which "want in" to whatever structure emerges.

[Burnie_man]

38 minutes ago, Dev said:

This is the ideal opportunity for the SFA to set out its' plans for the Pyramid for the next five to ten years.

Start with consultations directly between the Chief Exec and the President of the SFA and each League (not association). Take in the feed-back then come up with a structure. Set out a time-scale and put into practice after publishing the plan so everyone knows what is what from the start.

If clubs wish to be a part of the Pyramid they can. They will know what is what and can make the decision which works for them. They can always apply to join at a later stage if wish.

Once the structure is there then fit licencing into that structure on a pre-agreed basis, including the criteria of facilities etc needed at each level. Ten stick with it. Clubs can then make plans in the secure knowledge that the goal-post won't be moved again for at lest a set number of seasons, let alone in mid season! 

The current stage has been subject to confusion and inconsistency together with a lack of understanding of what clubs want and will respond positively to. When the top dogs of the SFA meet up with the EoS and Lowland leagues's clubs and it becomes obvious that they have no clue about football beneath the SPFL / outside the Juniors it beggars belief!

The SFA needs to show who is the boss and take full responsibility and not allow individuals, allegedly representing subordinate SFA associations to play merry H-LL with plans for the structure.

There will be a whole range of views on what should be, each with their own merits, which is healthy but don't loose sight of what has been going on and the need to sort out a plan which will work for those clubs which "want in" to whatever structure emerges.

 

There's one thing for sure, there's very little point in carrying on down the same road at PWG, it's done, finished, it's incapable of providing a workable solution.

 

[Robert James]

4 hours ago, G4Mac said:

I disagree wholeheartedly. If there is a criteria for membership then unless a club meets every element of it they should remain non members. That's the point of the licence in the first place. Teams could do everything else but get floodlights and gets all the same benefits as teams who have them, barring being able to be promoted. That isn't cricket surely?

Why have a criteria if you don't stick to it, firmly and fairly?

It would only apply to EXISTING member clubs, who will lose there licence. Not to new applicants for SFA  membership