Club Licencing

[GNU_Linux]

Wow! Bet Pollock and Clydebank are delighted with that!  (It was them who applied for a license...having a brainfart!)

It was Cumnock & Petershill

[Spyro]

Just now, GNU_Linux said:

2 minutes ago, Spyro said:

Wow! Bet Pollock and Clydebank are delighted with that!  (It was them who applied for a license...having a brainfart!)

It was Cumnock & Petershill

Ffs thank you! 

[Footballfirst]

If I can summarise from the last few hours posts:

Rob Petrie was elected as president, unopposed.

Mike Mulraney was elected as vice president, unoposed

The six clubs previously confirmed as meeting the 2019 licence criteria were confirmed as "Full" members of the SFA

The licence status of Bonnyrigg and Dundonald was not discussed, but may be at the next SFA Board meeting on 20 June.

A vote was taken and passed 73-13 on future new members only being given "associate member" status (non voting).

There is no indication of how long "associate" membership lasts, or whether it is dependent on a club's status within the pyramid.

There was a suggestion that clubs cannot be promoted to tier 5 unless they have held associate membership for at least a year.

Discussions on future licence criteria are ongoing, e.g. seating requirements

[Footballfirst]

Bonnyrigg's tweet on today's AGM

Bonnyrigg Rose Athletic‏ @BonnyriggRose

Congratulations to @BroxburnAthFC @BlackburnUnited @EasthousesLily @hawshob @PenicuikAth and @Tynecastle_FC who were ratified as @ScottishFA members this afternoon.

[Auld Heid]

7 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

If I can summarise from the last few hours posts:

Rob Petrie was elected as president, unopposed.

Mike Mulraney was elected as vice president, unoposed

The six clubs previously confirmed as meeting the 2019 licence criteria were confirmed as "Full" members of the SFA

The licence status of Bonnyrigg and Dundonald was not discussed, but may be at the next SFA Board meeting on 20 June.

A vote was taken and passed 73-13 on future new members only being given "associate member" status (non voting).

There is no indication of how long "associate" membership lasts, or whether it is dependent on a club's status within the pyramid.

There was a suggestion that clubs cannot be promoted to tier 5 unless they have held associate membership for at least a year.

Discussions on future licence criteria are ongoing, e.g. seating requirements

Associate Membership - has merits if used in a proper manner and clearly defined. 

Many clubs and associations have Associate Membership as a transition to Full - this can be a useful transitioning tool.  It also allows the ruling bodies - full members to see what they can offer going forwards/upwards.  Personally I also think any existing Member who doesn't meet current criteria should also be made an Associate Member - until such times as they meet current criteria.

Clubs can't be promoted to the LL without a licence anyways - to stop Associate Members of less than 1 year is wrong.   Maybe if used to stop the next step up after LL

Any discussion of future licence criteria - should also apply to ALL existing Members otherwise it would only be a  prohibitive measure used to block future membership

[12 Angry Men]

Quotes lifted straight from the SFA website after the jobs for the boys appointments at the SFA AGM;

 

Petrie – ““We are a members organisation with responsibility for all of the game. We need to harness our strengths and engage in a constructive way with all of our stakeholders to make the Scottish FA and the national game the best it can be at all levels.”

 

Mulraney – “During my time as a Scottish FA board member I have seen progress in working closer with the membership and as Vice-President my commitment is to continue to advocate working more efficiently and effectively with and for our member clubs, so that the pursuit of higher standards is achieved in an integrated fashion.”

 

Meanwhile, in the world we inhabit, the one that actually exists outside of their own febrile imaginations, we see last minute licensing hurdles put in the way of progressive clubs to deny them such progression, we see a club lauded in the SFA’s own annual review of 2018 (see page 32 of the review at https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/3848/scottish-fa-annual-review-2018.pdf) denied promotion because of these hurdles, we see prohibitive resolutions passed to ensure new member clubs have no voice and we see the door left open for further erosion of future new members benefits and the consequent regression of a genuine football pyramid. Such is the hypocrisy of those in charge of Scottish football.

Edited June 13, 2019 by 12 Angry Men

[Marten]

34 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

Associate Membership - has merits if used in a proper manner and clearly defined. 

Many clubs and associations have Associate Membership as a transition to Full - this can be a useful transitioning tool.  It also allows the ruling bodies - full members to see what they can offer going forwards/upwards.  Personally I also think any existing Member who doesn't meet current criteria should also be made an Associate Member - until such times as they meet current criteria.

Clubs can't be promoted to the LL without a licence anyways - to stop Associate Members of less than 1 year is wrong.   Maybe if used to stop the next step up after LL

Any discussion of future licence criteria - should also apply to ALL existing Members otherwise it would only be a  prohibitive measure used to block future membership

I actually largely agree with that. If associate membership has slightly lower criteria and is used as a step up to full membership it could be useful. One example could be that an associate member can become a full member once fulfilling additional criteria with only full members being able to get promoted to the SPFL. That can help aspiring members to gradually make steps up.

Even in terms of LL promotion, to prevent another farce like now with Bonnyrigg, something could be possible along the lines of associate members being able to get promotion as long as they have a credible plan to meet the full membership standards with say 1 or 2 seasons.

[Black & Red Socks]

8 hours ago, The Informer said:

The most surprising vote of the day goes to Tom Johnston, who I am told from a very reliable source also voted for it. I wonder what his members will make of that?

If this turns out to be true - and of course it mightn't be and we might never really know, but if it does - then this is the measure of the man. Does he actually do anything that is in the best interests of his own member clubs (as it will be those of them who have ambitions to apply for membership of the SFA in the fullness of time who will be adversely affected here) or is everything he does calculated to preserve his own status within the games governing body i.e. in this instance he can go back to his membership with another example of why they should stick with the Juniors and with him as there is even more limited chance of progression in the Seniors when the SFA are imposing ever more stringent requirements on prospective members with ever more diminishing benefits?

[newcastle broon]

51 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

 

Personally I also think any existing Member who doesn't meet current criteria should also be made an Associate Member - until such times as they meet current criteria.

Did ye miss oot the 73-13 vote bit oot deliberately. 

Maybes find oot who the 73 are and take it from there  ? 

 

[Burnie_man]

I actually largely agree with that. If associate membership has slightly lower criteria and is used as a step up to full membership it could be useful. One example could be that an associate member can become a full member once fulfilling additional criteria with only full members being able to get promoted to the SPFL. That can help aspiring members to gradually make steps up.

Even in terms of LL promotion, to prevent another farce like now with Bonnyrigg, something could be possible along the lines of associate members being able to get promotion as long as they have a credible plan to meet the full membership standards with say 1 or 2 seasons.

As far as I can see, Associate membership isn't some helpful interim step to give clubs a lift up, you will be an Associate member forever unless you reach tier 5, and if you fall out of tier 5 your full membership will be removed.

 

Whether the SFA have watered it down a bit in the last few weeks to get it through I don't know. It's certainly not there to help new applicants.

 

[bravehearts dad]

9 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

If I can summarise from the last few hours posts:

Rob Petrie was elected as president, unopposed.

Mike Mulraney was elected as vice president, unoposed

The six clubs previously confirmed as meeting the 2019 licence criteria were confirmed as "Full" members of the SFA

The licence status of Bonnyrigg and Dundonald was not discussed, but may be at the next SFA Board meeting on 20 June.

A vote was taken and passed 73-13 on future new members only being given "associate member" status (non voting).

There is no indication of how long "associate" membership lasts, or whether it is dependent on a club's status within the pyramid.

There was a suggestion that clubs cannot be promoted to tier 5 unless they have held associate membership for at least a year.

Discussions on future licence criteria are ongoing, e.g. seating requirements

And 6 weeks prior to the start of the new season Bonnyrigg Rose and Whitehill Welfare still don’t know which League they will be playing in next season.

Checked my Oxford dictionary this morning. Looked up the word Joke answer SFA.

[Marten]

26 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

As far as I can see, Associate membership isn't some helpful interim step to give clubs a lift up, you will be an Associate member forever unless you reach tier 5, and if you fall out of tier 5 your Associate membership will be removed.

Whether the SFA have watered it down a bit in the last few weeks to get it through I don't know. It's certainly not there to help new applicants.

I think you're right, but I'm just saying that if done right, associate membership can be something very useful. Obviously there is nae chance the SFA will actually do a thing like that right.

[newcastle broon]

24 minutes ago, bravehearts dad said:

And 6 weeks prior to the start of the new season Bonnyrigg Rose and Whitehill Welfare still don’t know which League they will be playing in next season.

Checked my Oxford dictionary this morning. Looked up the word Joke answer SFA.

Gotta be 17 LL now surely wi 2 doon and possible 3rd if play offs suffice. 

Fixtures oot shortly how can the EOSFL and LL fixtures secretaries do them. 

An absolute baw ache. 

[Footballfirst]

13 minutes ago, newcastle broon said:

Gotta be 17 LL now surely wi 2 doon and possible 3rd if play offs suffice. 

Fixtures oot shortly how can the EOSFL and LL fixtures secretaries do them. 

An absolute baw ache. 

The SPFL fixtures are not due to be announced until Friday 21 June.  The LL can't produce their fixtures before then as they will have to take account of those clubs who ground share with SPFL clubs. The EOSFL could probably proceed, but with the uncertainty about the status of WW and BR they will probably want to hold off for as long as possible.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Footballfirst

[Pyramidic]

56 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

As far as I can see, Associate membership isn't some helpful interim step to give clubs a lift up, you will be an Associate member forever unless you reach tier 5, and if you fall out of tier 5 your Associate membership will be removed.

Whether the SFA have watered it down a bit in the last few weeks to get it through I don't know. It's certainly not there to help new applicants.

I find the actions of the SFA quite perverse - a national sports organisation doing absolutely nothing to engender wholesale improvement and inclusivity in Scottish football.  It really is a disgrace.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of Associate Membership if used properly.  In my view every club - both Senior and Junior - should automatically receive SFA Associate Membership.

Full Membership should be achievable by following properly defined and clear parameters. Perhaps the English system is better where to play at each level (step) a club must meet basic properly defined ground grading criteria.  They have their problems but it is a lot fairer than the mess we appear to have created.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Pyramidic

[AlanCamelonfan]

5 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

The SPFL fixtures are not due to be announced until Friday 21 June.  The LL can't produce their fixtures before then as they will have to take account of those clubs who ground share with SPFL clubs. The EOSFL could probably proceed, but with the uncertainty about the status of WW and BR they will probably want to hold off for as long as possible.

They don't really need to in that Bonnyrigg and Whitehill aren't that far apart geography wise if that came into it neither share their ground and both will play in the Scottish Cup. The only thing stopping eosfl going for fixtures now is the alex jack cup as they dont know who is in it?

[Ginaro]

1 minute ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

The only thing stopping eosfl going for fixtures now is the alex jack cup as they dont know who is in it?

Only difference would be whether Dundonald are in it or not, could draw it and make sure they get a first round fixture, then give their opponents a bye if needed.

Though we don't actually know the exact format of the Scottish Cup yet, they might change it and not have preliminary rounds, which would affect when AJC games are played.

20 minutes ago, newcastle broon said:

Gotta be 17 LL now surely wi 2 doon and possible 3rd if play offs suffice. 

Fixtures oot shortly how can the EOSFL and LL fixtures secretaries do them. 

An absolute baw ache. 

The LL rules don't allow a 17 team league, same as they don't allow Bonnyrigg to go up without full membership of the SFA.

And pretty sure it's the same person doing both LL and EoS fixtures...

[Black & Red Socks]

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

As far as I can see, Associate membership isn't some helpful interim step to give clubs a lift up, you will be an Associate member forever unless you reach tier 5, and if you fall out of tier 5 your Associate membership will be removed.

Whether the SFA have watered it down a bit in the last few weeks to get it through I don't know. It's certainly not there to help new applicants.

 

46 minutes ago, Marten said:

I think you're right, but I'm just saying that if done right, associate membership can be something very useful. Obviously there is nae chance the SFA will actually do a thing like that right.

If we use past actions to judge future actions then the introduction of Associate memberships will have absolutely nothing to do with the furtherance of inclusivity, which is disappointing as it could be a useful tool to signpost the way forward for Clubs and the improvements required as they move up the Pyramid and transition from Associate to Full members.  I feel, though, it is all to do with self preservation and, as such, is a missed opportunity.

BM - where you state that " if you fall out of tier 5 your Associate membership will be removed" I think you mean a Club's Full membership (which they will have been upgraded to from Associate membership on promotion) will be recalibrated back to Associate membership? (*not applicable to current Full members who will retain that status - license retention permitting - regardless of which Tier they are in?)

[newcastle broon]

14 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

 

The LL rules don't allow a 17 team league, same as they don't allow Bonnyrigg to go up without full membership of the SFA.

And pretty sure it's the same person doing both LL and EoS fixtures...

Did nae realise that,still think it only sensible solution now though as it's gone way past its sell by date for both clubs. 

Still a baw ache for the fixtures secretary imo. 

 

[LongTimeLurker]

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

As far as I can see, Associate membership isn't some helpful interim step to give clubs a lift up, you will be an Associate member forever unless you reach tier 5, and if you fall out of tier 5 your full membership will be removed...

Think too much of a fuss is being kicked up over this, if associate members can still be promoted and still get Scottish cup entry and access to membership related cash handouts. If all that is involved is voting rights at the AGM, this looks like a way to facilitate a large membership influx without running into opposition from SPFL clubs worried about losing their control over the SFA's future direction. The existing membership were never going to allow a situation to develop where PGB board level clubs might ultimately wind up being outvoted if the SJFA's entire membership were able to gate crash the party.