Club Licencing

[superbigal]

Maxwell had 0% involvement in that response. Sort of feel sorry for the poor old puppet whos name gets added to most correspondence.

This was written by the SFA legal eagles believe it or not.

Could someone confirm the actual status of the clubs who met the license requirement.

Have the licenses actually been granted ? or do they still need a final seal of approval from anyone in the SFA ?

Edited May 18, 2019 by superbigal

[Burnie_man]

14 hours ago, Truthteller said:

Roll up, roll up, roll up. Come and join the EOS. Get your licence here. Only two grand a ticket, everyone's a winner.

Upgrade your pitch and facilities, join the pyramid and shoot for the stars, get your money back no problem, join the elite.

Enjoy your epic journey through the Lowland league and the SPFL  on your way to the top of Scottish football.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your kind donations, all the best and good luck.

Now f**k off and don't come back.

Scottish Football Association.

If something is  too good to be true in appearance, it probably is too good to be true in reality.

You have been conned big style guys.

You must have missed the 6 clubs that have been Licenced.

[Burnie_man]

13 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Much of that explanation just doesn't make sense, IMO.

Saying it is necessary to maintain standards does not take in to account that the criteria was altered midseason with no notice, that a mechanism for derogation exists, and (most importantly) that Bonnyrigg will have the new standard in place imminently anyway. Meanwhile a substantial number of existing clubs - in the Lowland League and Scottish Cup - will not be complying any time soon.

Saying it is too close to next season to alter course is only because SFA put off making a decision for months. It's also illogical because playoffs higher up don't finish until tomorrow or actually next weekend in the case of the Scottish Premiership. Were it not for the fact Berwick took a tanking last week the Lowland League couldn't even know how many clubs it had until tomorrow evening.

Saying it is necessary for Scottish Cup replays seems to miss the fact that up to and including R3 such replays take place the following Saturday... it's very rare for unlit non-league sides to get to R4 or beyond. Citing the fact an unnamed club reached R5 this season and would have had to replay midweek conveniently side-steps the fact it was Auchinleck, who entered as a qualifier, and will do so again next season. Other qualifiers and at least half-a-dozen members will also be participating.

Saying it's necessary for Scottish Cup TV ties only applies to any being shown on Friday nights. There will also be a substantial number of existing clubs and qualifiers without floodlights. BBC showed a tie at unlit Auchinleck only 4 months ago. If a club hasn't lights, and BBC want a Friday night tie, they just won't pick a club without lights? If not... what if it's Whitehill v Bonnyrigg?

It is also concerning any process operates with "no appeal route". That is very undesirable.

Nothing much more to add. 

If we had half decent sports journalists in this country, they would be using this shambles to expose the SFA for what they are, but we dont, and it's handy there is the distraction of a new Scotland manager and Scottish Cup Final coming up.

Whatever happened to MSP Findlay's motion, is it just lip service of does it lead to anything else?

[bravehearts dad]

Do the clubs whose application was denied get there £2000 returned or does that go into the sfa slush fund?

P.S. I think I know the answer.

 

C’mon The Rose

[Whitburn Vale]

Time for the lawyers me thinks!!!

Enough holes in that SFA statement to drive a bus thru !!!

[superbigal]

You must have missed the 6 clubs that have been Licenced.

Again could you confirm the 6 do 100% have their licenses. Absolutely no rubber stamps still needed ?

[superbigal]

I understand licensing is set for a fair overhaul. Not so much the requirements, but the benefits that come with it. I understand membership may well be diluted to something called associate membership. Pretty sure this will go down in certain quarters like a lead balloon. Protection of the pot is firmly in play.

 

This undoubtedly will have an effect on the sjfas overall interest in joining the pyramid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Burnie_man]

5 minutes ago, superbigal said:

Again could you confirm the 6 do 100% have their licenses. Absolutely no rubber stamps still needed ?

Yes we have been awarded a licence, it's already been rubber stamped.

[Burnie_man]

4 minutes ago, superbigal said:

I understand licensing is set for a fair overhaul. Not so much the requirements, but the benefits that come with it. I understand membership may well be diluted to something called associate membership. Pretty sure this will go down in certain quarters like a lead balloon. Protection of the pot is firmly in play.

 

This undoubtedly will have an effect on the sjfas overall interest in joining the pyramid.

 

Has Larry been feeding you again

[superbigal]

Yes we have been awarded a licence, it's already been rubber stamped.

That's fine for the 6 then

[Burnie_man]

Just now, superbigal said:

2 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Yes we have been awarded a licence, it's already been rubber stamped.

That's fine for the 6 then

It is. What's your point?

People overlook the fact that 6 clubs have gone from Junior football to being Licenced in 12 months.  It's shameful how the SFA have dealt with the floodlight issue and it needs to be taken further, but let's not overlook the fact the SFA have admitted 6 former Juniors into membership.

[superbigal]

Has Larry been feeding you again [emoji38]

Pretty disrespectful as all the stuff I have brought to the discussion has been in good faith and often in writing.

You 100% sure you have heard nothing along those lines ?

As Blackburn are in I appreciate you have less to fight for.

 

 

 

 

[Burnie_man]

Just now, superbigal said:

Pretty disrespectful as all the stuff I have brought to the discussion has been in good faith and often in writing. You 100% sure you have heard nothing along those lines ?
As Blackburn are in I appreciate you have less to fight for.

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.

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, superbigal said:

Maxwell had 0% involvement in that response. Sort of feel sorry for the poor old puppet whos name gets added to most correspondence.

This was written by the SFA legal eagles believe it or not.

I've written dozens, maybe hundreds of letters with other people's names on them in the past 20 years. Many times my draft has been sent back for revision, sometimes more than once. The person signing it is  100% responsible for what goes out in their name. For those letters not important enough to get a reply from a senior person, they go out in my name.

Maxwell's letter is probably not legally inaccurate (though giving away the motive would leave them wide open to challenge in other circumstances), but any football person reading that would know it's the wrong thing to say. There's no reason to let him off the hook on this.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, superbigal said:

I understand licensing is set for a fair overhaul. Not so much the requirements, but the benefits that come with it. I understand membership may well be diluted to something called associate membership. Pretty sure this will go down in certain quarters like a lead balloon. Protection of the pot is firmly in play.

 

This undoubtedly will have an effect on the sjfas overall interest in joining the pyramid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who provides you with your information? Are you suggesting that licences will now not be licences but a diluted version? 

This sounds way off the mark and simply can't happen. The swing has well and truly diverted to non league clubs now and the spfl or sfa can't just stop a process or policy without the majority backing of member clubs. 

I really wish people would stop putting this stuff out there, its called misinformation, and only brings uncertainty and confusion to the whole debate. 

[FairWeatherFan]

36 minutes ago, superbigal said:

I understand licensing is set for a fair overhaul. Not so much the requirements, but the benefits that come with it. I understand membership may well be diluted to something called associate membership. Pretty sure this will go down in certain quarters like a lead balloon. Protection of the pot is firmly in play.

 

This undoubtedly will have an effect on the sjfas overall interest in joining the pyramid.

Does it not seem a tad strange that most posters related to SFA clubs are talking about the likes of seating becoming a requirement in future. Yet elsewhere behind the scenes you're getting information that the requirments are probably going to stay the same but everything else will be downgraded.

The SFA at the end of the is a membership organisation. 47 of the 89 members that will probably vote at this year's AGM exist outside the SPFL. We're about to have 95 members of which 53 exist outside the SPFL. There's still additional applications to come from outside the SPFL that will pass as they will meet the licensing requirements (including Bonnyrigg once they get their floodlights up). Turkeys don't vote for Christmas and all that.

[parsforlife]

I understand licensing is set for a fair overhaul. Not so much the requirements, but the benefits that come with it. I understand membership may well be diluted to something called associate membership. Pretty sure this will go down in certain quarters like a lead balloon. Protection of the pot is firmly in play.
 
This undoubtedly will have an effect on the sjfas overall interest in joining the pyramid.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Might be a bit of truth here. Cowden cowboy certainly talked about potential sfa re-structure to deal with any ‘influx’ Tho I’d the spfl clubs are more worried about losing control than the financial impact of more clubs. I think there will be a push for an spfl style voting structure. I think the sfa got rid of associate membership amongst the renders fiasco

Licensing is in need of a overhaul anyway IMO, done right it can encompass all clubs. We’d have a tier 6 licence, a tier 7, tier 8 and an amateur licence. Our current system is insufficient.

As said done right this can be a good thing, but what chance of threat with the current board and in particular the CEO

[pie n beans]

Is it to late for Bonnyrigg to use another stadium regarding the lights issue so they can still go up to the LL 

[AlanCamelonfan]

39 minutes ago, GordonS said:

I've written dozens, maybe hundreds of letters with other people's names on them in the past 20 years. Many times my draft has been sent back for revision, sometimes more than once. The person signing it is  100% responsible for what goes out in their name. For those letters not important enough to get a reply from a senior person, they go out in my name.

Maxwell's letter is probably not legally inaccurate (though giving away the motive would leave them wide open to challenge in other circumstances), but any football person reading that would know it's the wrong thing to say. There's no reason to let him off the hook on this.

Did you write this letter 

[Ginaro]

13 minutes ago, pie n beans said:

Is it to late for Bonnyrigg to use another stadium regarding the lights issue so they can still go up to the LL 

In theory they could groundshare with a licensed club which has lights (Easthouses or Penicuik), like other clubs in the LL do. Whether or not they could agree this and get it approved by the SFA to obtain a licence in the next few weeks is another matter. Plus they'd need to get approval from the LL board to switch their ground back to New Dundas Park.

Quote

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/4676/scottish-fa-club-licensing-manual-2019.pdf#page=51

8.2 The club shall have the sole use of the ground or “shared” use (approved by the Scottish FA) and shall be in a position to establish security of tenure for the ground and to play matches as and whenever required.

In cases where the club shares a ground with a club that plays under a different league body, the club must provide a written agreement, to the satisfaction of the Scottish FA, between the respective league bodies which relates to the scheduling of fixtures at that particular ground.

To establish security of tenure the club shall own or have a lease in place for the ground or such other formal documentation that satisfies the security of tenure criterion. The lease shall run until at least the end of the season finishing in May following the end of the year to which the Licence award relates.

The Scottish Cup excuse from Maxwell doesn't wash as Bonnyrigg are already in the cup without lights. Plus at least 26 out of 36 clubs in the first round will have lights so it won't be hard for the BBC to choose a match at a ground with lights.

Edited May 18, 2019 by Ginaro