Club Licencing

[superbigal]

Presumably now the lights are a requirement the LL will be brought into line with the rest of tier 5 and above. Ie kick of at 3.00pm ?

I dont imagine however that a 30 league game season will necessitate a couple of rounds of 7.45pm games ?

 

 

[gaz5]

Presumably now the lights are a requirement the LL will be brought into line with the rest of tier 5 and above. Ie kick of at 3.00pm ?
I dont imagine however that a 30 league game season will necessitate a couple of rounds of 7.45pm games ?
 
 

3pm is already the Lowland League standard kick off time.

Clubs without floodlights kick off at 2, for obvious reasons. That's not going to change for those clubs until they get, if they get, floodlights.

[LongTimeLurker]

14 hours ago, Mr Tee said:

Any truth in the rumour that there might be further announcement this coming week (Thursday) and that Rose may well go up?

Might be rubbish before I get shot down!

There would need to have been a successful appeal on licensing. Seems a bit quick for that to have happened but hopefully it's true.

[BS7]

So we're down to the specific of the changing criteria, the timing, and the allowance given or not given.

[magoo]

On 12/05/2019 at 09:47, Enigma said:

 

Not sure Gary kens how to spell his own name.

 

Why post if your not sure

[bluedragon]

18 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

There was something like that mentioned back when the change was announced. The length was always debated but the certainty was over existing members would get a derogation, new applicants wouldn't. The grey area existed for those that had applied in 2018, and we've seen how that ended up.

EDIT: This was the only part of the email notifiying members of the 2019 changes that was made public as far as I'm aware. No note in this about a length of derogation, but those that had this information were saying existing members had until 2021.

Thank you for posting that extract. However, I am still not persuaded that the derogation could not be given to a new applicant for an Entry level Licence under the SFA’s own rules.

The definition of “clubs” in the SFA Club Licensing Manual is: “The clubs referred to in this Manual are those in membership of the SPFL, the SHFL, the SLFL and other member clubs of the Scottish FA.”

The term “other member clubs of the Scottish FA” must include the former Junior clubs now in the East of Scotland League as they are surely Registered Members of the SFA by virtue of their membership of the East of Scotland Football Association that itself is an “Affiliated Association”.

Following this through “Derogation applications will be considered for those member clubs who do not currently have floodlights”. This makes no differentiation between class of membership – Full or Registered – and therefore this says to me it must equally apply to new applicants and existing holder of an Entry Level Licence..

I cannot find anywhere where the SFA can treat clubs differently over the new requirement for floodlights solely because of their class of membership. The club licensing manual also appears to suggest that the continuous improvement of standards, e.g. compulsory floodlights  “will incorporate reasonable timescales.” which supports the claim that the derogation should apply to all clubs affected by the sudden requirement for investment in floodlights. 

Edited May 13, 2019 by bluedragon

[Burnie_man]

5 minutes ago, bluedragon said:

Thank you for posting that extract. However, I am still not persuaded that the derogation could not be given to a new applicant for an Entry level Licence under the SFA’s own rules.

The definition of “clubs” in the SFA Club Licensing Manual is: “The clubs referred to in this Manual are those in membership of the SPFL, the SHFL, the SLFL and other member clubs of the Scottish FA.”

The term “other member clubs of the Scottish FA” must include the former Junior clubs now in the East of Scotland League as they are surely Registered Members of the SFA by virtue of their membership of the East of Scotland Football Association that itself is an “Affiliated Association”.

Following this through “Derogation applications will be considered for those member clubs who do not currently have floodlights”. This makes no differentiation between class of membership – Full or Registered – and therefore this says to me it must equally apply to new applicants and existing holder of an Entry Level Licence..

I cannot find anywhere where the SFA can treat clubs differently over the new requirement for floodlights solely because of their class of membership. The club licensing manual also appears to suggest that the continuous improvement of standards, e.g. compulsory floodlights  “will incorporate reasonable timescales.” which supports the claim that the derogation should apply to all clubs affected by the sudden requirement for investment in floodlights. 

Agree with that, the problem arises in how to appeal it as the manual only covers appeals of Licence Committee decisions, not decisions taken by the SFA Board.

However, has proper process been followed by the LC by referring the decision to the SFA Board, surely it's the LC who should have taken the decision?  

[Hertz1874]

I have a feeling this could have implications beyond this season. LTHV, couldn't afford the necessary stuff for licensing but did win the league 3 years on the trot and didn't kick up as much fuss.

I do understand, rules where changed at the final hour tho.

[Gimme]

I have a feeling this could have implications beyond this season. LTHV, couldn't afford the necessary stuff for licensing but did win the league 3 years on the trot and didn't kick up as much fuss.
I do understand, rules where changed at the final hour tho.

LTHV hadn't applied for their licence though.

[Marshmallo]

11 minutes ago, Gimme said:

41 minutes ago, Hertz1874 said:

I have a feeling this could have implications beyond this season. LTHV, couldn't afford the necessary stuff for licensing but did win the league 3 years on the trot and didn't kick up as much fuss.
I do understand, rules where changed at the final hour tho.

LTHV hadn't applied for their licence though.

And even if they had, the criteria weren't shifted between application and audit. 

Hertz1874, are you a current/former player at any EOS club by any chance? 

[bluedragon]

2 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

Agree with that, the problem arises in how to appeal it as the manual only covers appeals of Licence Committee decisions, not decisions taken by the SFA Board.

However, has proper process been followed by the LC by referring the decision to the SFA Board, surely it's the LC who should have taken the decision?  

If the application for a floodlight derogation was rejected it would have been the Licencing Committee that would have made that decision. The appeal would be against their decision. The SFA Board’s decision not to give Full membership would have been made on the back of the Licencing Committee refusing a licence.

“Clubs may submit applications to the Licencing Committee for derogation where there are variances with the criteria at the level of award applied for. It will be a matter for the Licencing Committee to determine whether to accept such an application on such terms as the LC specifies or to refuse the application, acting reasonably at all times.”

It appears clear that the early mention of specific derogations shows the SFA understood the impact of the introduction of a requirement for floodlights at Entry Level.  By drawing specific attention to derogations all clubs affected (current Entry Level members and new applicants) could have an expectation of a derogation being favourably considered and that they quickly have understood that their chances would increase significantly if they could demonstrate to the Licencing Committee that they had applied for planning permission, started fund raising and making grant applications as soon as possible.

It is difficult to understand what argument there is for not granting a floodlight derogation and for different treatment for different classes of SFA member.  A short-time derogation to allow a club to remain in a higher league without floodlights should be mirrored to allow a club that has won promotion to that league to have an identical derogation.

I remain hopeful that common sense will prevail.

[FairWeatherFan]

2 hours ago, bluedragon said:

Thank you for posting that extract. However, I am still not persuaded that the derogation could not be given to a new applicant for an Entry level Licence under the SFA’s own rules.

The definition of “clubs” in the SFA Club Licensing Manual is: “The clubs referred to in this Manual are those in membership of the SPFL, the SHFL, the SLFL and other member clubs of the Scottish FA.”

The term “other member clubs of the Scottish FA” must include the former Junior clubs now in the East of Scotland League as they are surely Registered Members of the SFA by virtue of their membership of the East of Scotland Football Association that itself is an “Affiliated Association”.

Following this through “Derogation applications will be considered for those member clubs who do not currently have floodlights”. This makes no differentiation between class of membership – Full or Registered – and therefore this says to me it must equally apply to new applicants and existing holder of an Entry Level Licence..

I cannot find anywhere where the SFA can treat clubs differently over the new requirement for floodlights solely because of their class of membership. The club licensing manual also appears to suggest that the continuous improvement of standards, e.g. compulsory floodlights  “will incorporate reasonable timescales.” which supports the claim that the derogation should apply to all clubs affected by the sudden requirement for investment in floodlights. 

Other member clubs only refers to SFA members in other leagues not listed. When LTHV got their license they became the 90th member club of the SFA. There's now 95.

[Burnie_man]

If the application for a floodlight derogation was rejected it would have been the Licencing Committee that would have made that decision. The appeal would be against their decision. The SFA Board’s decision not to give Full membership would have been made on the back of the Licencing Committee refusing a licence.
“Clubs may submit applications to the Licencing Committee for derogation where there are variances with the criteria at the level of award applied for. It will be a matter for the Licencing Committee to determine whether to accept such an application on such terms as the LC specifies or to refuse the application, acting reasonably at all times.”
It appears clear that the early mention of specific derogations shows the SFA understood the impact of the introduction of a requirement for floodlights at Entry Level.  By drawing specific attention to derogations all clubs affected (current Entry Level members and new applicants) could have an expectation of a derogation being favourably considered and that they quickly have understood that their chances would increase significantly if they could demonstrate to the Licencing Committee that they had applied for planning permission, started fund raising and making grant applications as soon as possible.
It is difficult to understand what argument there is for not granting a floodlight derogation and for different treatment for different classes of SFA member.  A short-time derogation to allow a club to remain in a higher league without floodlights should be mirrored to allow a club that has won promotion to that league to have an identical derogation.
I remain hopeful that common sense will prevail.

No, the Licence Committee referred the decision to the SFA Board, it was not made by the LC, they said they did not think they could make the decision on derogation.

[Hertz1874]

1 hour ago, Gimme said:

1 hour ago, Hertz1874 said:

I have a feeling this could have implications beyond this season. LTHV, couldn't afford the necessary stuff for licensing but did win the league 3 years on the trot and didn't kick up as much fuss.
I do understand, rules where changed at the final hour tho.

LTHV hadn't applied for their licence though.

I stated that in my post about a rule change.

 

[Gimme]

No, the Licence Committee referred the decision to the SFA Board, it was not made by the LC, they said they did not think they could make the decision on derogation.

In which case the board will be able to produce a detailed minute of the meeting at which they discussed whether or not derogation was possible having taken into account the circumstances of each club...


... Or maybe not

[Burnie_man]

In which case the board will be able to produce a detailed minute of the meeting at which they discussed whether or not derogation was possible having taken into account the circumstances of each club...


... Or maybe not

I've seen it.

"6 clubs with lights"

"Aye they're in"

"6 clubs without lights"

"Tell them to f*ck off"

"OK, next Scotland manager........"

[The REAL Rookie Cookie]

2 hours ago, Gimme said:

In which case the board will be able to produce a detailed minute of the meeting at which they discussed whether or not derogation was possible having taken into account the circumstances of each club...


... Or maybe not

The SFA rules state that derogation can only be granted by the Licensing Committee to 'member' clubs. None of the six rejected clubs who failed to meet the entry level standard due to not having floodlights were or are member clubs. A member club is one who on meeting the Entry Level criteria that is audited by and passed by the Licensing Committee is then recommended to the SFA board as having met those requirements and their membership application is approved by the board. 

The clubs who were both approved and rejected would have known prior to the Licensing Committee meeting in early February as to whether they had cleared any 'variances' or had any e.g. floodlights outstanding. They would have been fully aware in either scenario of the Licensing Committees decision. 

Derogation is open to member clubs after their annual licensing audit where they have 'variances' and they have to apply for it. This will apply to any member club i.e. LL clubs currently without floodlights after their next audit.

The refusal of licences is due to criteria changes during the application to audit process and the SFA dont cover themselves in glory. Any future new applicanys  will need to be very wary od the timing.of their applications.

PS would be interested to know where the lights Bonnyrigg have in storage.came from and when do they think.they will obtain planning permission as.not on MC planning agenda this week.

[BS7]

So clubs who want promotion to tier 5, maybe on gate income of £1000 every other week have to subsidise a £50k capital investment before they can get promotion?

thats exactly the kind of thinking that got Scottish football into the mess it’s in.

all very well these clubs that have grounds and floodlights bought and paid for by the councils. What about the clubs that are self sufficient?????

[BS7]

I don’t think clubs were aware in February - were your team Rookie Cookie? Certainly haven’t read anything that suggests any of the 12 clubs knew if and when the licences would be issued.

[Footballfirst]

1 hour ago, The REAL Rookie Cookie said:

PS would be interested to know where the lights Bonnyrigg have in storage.came from and when do they think.they will obtain planning permission as.not on MC planning agenda this week.

Old Newbattle HS lights I believe..