Jump to content

Club Licencing


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BS7 said:

The league set up released by the eosfl suggests it’s not finalized

Yes i noted that which is bizarre at this stage  , but its all quiet from the Lowland League site !!!

Whether its correct or not i think for the good of all just publish it Officially and move on 

My only conclusion is that a legal intervention has been made by Bonnyrigg and the LL are sizing up their options based on the Legal aspects involved or 

It could just be they just are not interested and will just publish the LL fixtures with the team in there be it WW/or Bonnyrigg  ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hertz1874 said:

I truly believe there's nothing Bonnyrigg can do, LTHV would have something to say on the matter if reprieve was given.

Why would they have something to say - I don' think LTHV had the criteria changed on them like Bonnyrigg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Why would they have something to say - I don' think LTHV had the criteria changed on them like Bonnyrigg.

I understand that, and provisions where made for them to get what was needed but these weren't in place when the licensing check was done.

They will only win the league next year again anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Hertz1874 said:

I understand that, and provisions where made for them to get what was needed but these weren't in place when the licensing check was done.

They will only win the league next year again anyway.

When LTHV won the EOS, they didn't even apply for a license. They only applied in 2017/18, when Kelty won the league, and were awarded one in June. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Golum said:

Yes i noted that which is bizarre at this stage  , but its all quiet from the Lowland League site !!!

Whether its correct or not i think for the good of all just publish it Officially and move on 

My only conclusion is that a legal intervention has been made by Bonnyrigg and the LL are sizing up their options based on the Legal aspects involved or 

It could just be they just are not interested and will just publish the LL fixtures with the team in there be it WW/or Bonnyrigg  ?

 

 

I think it could be that Whitehill and Bonnyrigg both have winnable cases so the league could be 17 teams.

eos isn’t such a big deal because a team would just shift up - but you’d have to redraw the fixtures for 17 teams instead of 16.

berwick have fair thrown a spanner in the works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Golum said:

...My only conclusion is that a legal intervention has been made by Bonnyrigg...

Bonnyrigg Rose have been dropping very heavy hints that's what they are going to do. Doubt it's happened yet though, because we would almost certainly know about it if they had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BS7 said:

I think it could be that Whitehill and Bonnyrigg both have winnable cases so the league could be 17 teams.

eos isn’t such a big deal because a team would just shift up - but you’d have to redraw the fixtures for 17 teams instead of 16.

berwick have fair thrown a spanner in the works.

Well if the LL can ignore their rules and run with 17 teams then they can ignore the rule that says you have to be an SFA member to join - meaning they can promote Bonnyrigg to replace WW and run with 16 instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LL haven't done away with their rules thus far and unfortunately for Bonnyrigg I can't see them doing so in this instance. The sfa have done bonnyrigg out of their spot and it will be up to them to rectify it, which again, wont happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The LL haven't done away with their rules thus far and unfortunately for Bonnyrigg I can't see them doing so in this instance. The sfa have done bonnyrigg out of their spot and it will be up to them to rectify it, which again, wont happen. 
The SFA have previously set a precedent where they have changed the goalposts and when challenged granted the licence with added caveat.

When Linlithgow applied they added the requirement to join the LL. We pointed out this wasnt a condition when we started the process.

As such they granted the licence with caveat of we could be required in future to join LL.

That should be the same standard applied to Bonnyrigg assuming lights were the only reason for refusal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Spyro said:

Or admit that they’ve fucked up, go to 18 teams and add a relegation playoff spot :rolleyes:

I agree entirely,

An 18 club  Lowland League for next season) would provide a way of overcoming the current promotion mess around the Bonnyrigg situation, and the confusion in the LL's relegation rules, caused by Selkirk'  demise.

Also  an 18 club league would enable 2 clubs to be relegated from the  Lowland League every season thereafter.  It would also  give each club 34 league matches per season, which would be beneficial /appropriate for a top tier pyramid feeder league. SPFL League 2  clubs play 36 league matches each season, not 30 (or 28 last season) as applies in the SLL.

Floodlights will in future be compulsory in the Lowland, as is already the case in the Highland League.  Lights will help alleviate any problem in fitting in  the extra 4  matches  per season.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

The SFA have previously set a precedent where they have changed the goalposts and when challenged granted the licence with added caveat.

When Linlithgow applied they added the requirement to join the LL. We pointed out this wasnt a condition when we started the process.

As such they granted the licence with caveat of we could be required in future to join LL.

That should be the same standard applied to Bonnyrigg assuming lights were the only reason for refusal.

Did the SFA apply the same caveat to Banks O'Dee, who were the other Junior club to benefit from the SFA's "precedent"at that time ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Auld Heid said:

The SFA have previously set a precedent where they have changed the goalposts and when challenged granted the licence with added caveat.

When Linlithgow applied they added the requirement to join the LL. We pointed out this wasnt a condition when we started the process.

As such they granted the licence with caveat of we could be required in future to join LL.

That should be the same standard applied to Bonnyrigg assuming lights were the only reason for refusal.

How did the SFA get "challenged", did yourselves (and BoD?) just point this out to the SFA or did you have to threaten/take further steps first to get the SFA to accept you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Marten said:

How did the SFA get "challenged", did yourselves (and BoD?) just point this out to the SFA or did you have to threaten/take further steps first to get the SFA to accept you?

Wouldn't think there would be any threatening.maybe just pointing out facts would have sufficed.imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lithgierose said:

Wouldn't think there would be any threatening.maybe just pointing out facts would have sufficed.imo

The reason why I ask this is because in Bonnyrigg's case it doesn't seem the SFA wants to listen, so "harder action" might be needed to overturn the SFA's decision. I was therefore wondering if it was as difficult for you guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did the SFA get "challenged", did yourselves (and BoD?) just point this out to the SFA or did you have to threaten/take further steps first to get the SFA to accept you?
No it was simply pointing out that was not the criteria at point of application.

The SFA accepted that representation but added the caveat of they may as a condition of licence require us to join the LL.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

No it was simply pointing out that was not the criteria at point of application.

The SFA accepted that representation but added the caveat of they may as a condition of licence require us to join the LL.

Ok, thanks. Hopefully they will end up seeing sense in Bonnyrigg's case too. I highly doubt that though, unfortunately.

I'm sure Bonnyrigg will use that as an examply why they should be allowed a license now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Marten said:

Ok, thanks. Hopefully they will end up seeing sense in Bonnyrigg's case too. I highly doubt that though, unfortunately.

I'm sure Bonnyrigg will use that as an examply why they should be allowed a license now.

In addition to the arguments already posted on here, this could be a helpful "precedent" for Bonnyrigg to use.

When is the Lowland AGM being held ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/05/2019 at 11:25, Burnie_man said:

Nothing's disrespectful, you're supposed to be a neutral in this debate (your own words) but constantly parrot stuff right from the book of a certain poster from Lochee.

No I have heard nothing and given the amount of guff posted on here from Junior sources forgive me for being highly skeptical. Either way, everyone knows Licencing is an evolving process and you need to be prepared to meet any new demands on an annual basis, that's not new news.

Any changes will also affect current SFA members, and also remember there are more members outwith the SPFL than in it and it needs passed at AGM.

 

On 18/05/2019 at 13:34, gogsy said:

To be fair to superbigal the Hill of Beath statement about their licence   says their membership is effective from the annual SFA general meeting which is being held on 12th June.

 

I wonder if any of todays rumours regarding licensing are to be believed.

Hearing once again that these memberships may well be diluted in terms of return.  

Cant imagine Scottish cup entry will be in doubt but potentially the annual windfall and or voting rights.

Hoping Burnieman is ready to shoot me down in flames but I have heard something is afoot. I certainly believe at least one of the newly licensed clubs has more information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...