Jump to content

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Suppose the LL have two options, either confirm WW at the AGM or announce WW/Bonnyrigg will swap if the latter gets their licence at the June SFA board meeting or AGM. Waiting another two weeks probably won't hurt anyone, given the fixtures didn't get announced last year until 25th June (10 days after the SPFL) - presumably they'll need to wait until SPFL fixtures are announced on 21st June due to groundsharing?

Aye fcuk whitehill just gie us a shout and we'll bow to our superiors :thumsup2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BS7 said:

I can’t see WW wearing that - why should they?

Well indeed, though it is a possibility given they've not come out and said anything since the play-off - it's two months past the original deadline so just a question of how long does the LL give Bonnyrigg to get licensed, they might think another 12 days isn't going to cause further issues.

1 minute ago, newcastle broon said:

Aye fcuk whitehill just gie us a shout and we'll bow to our superiors :thumsup2

Suppose you kept your half of the bargain by finishing 15th. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Well indeed, though it is a possibility given they've not come out and said anything since the play-off - it's two months past the original deadline so just a question of how long does the LL give Bonnyrigg to get licensed, they might think another 12 days isn't going to cause further issues.

Suppose you kept your half of the bargain by finishing 15th. :P

Just letting you ken it's no just Bonnyrigg that's getting fcuked aboot here likes :thumsup2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really needs to be announced what’s happening one way or the other as it’s unfair on both Whitehill and Bonnyrigg as neither knows which level they’re at next season. SFA 100% to blame here Bonnyrigg should have been given their licence as the goalposts where moved which was unfair. Now it’s unfair on Whitehill as they’re left in limbo. SFA couldn’t run s bath, it’s no wonder our game is in such a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have any of the 3 clubs in LL without lights indicated any plans yet ?

Also in my naivety on voting rights and being led to believe turkeys dont vote for Christmas etc. Presumably there was a majority vote taken at some point of all the members to add the lights requirement ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, superbigal said:

Have any of the 3 clubs in LL without lights indicated any plans yet ?

Also in my naivety on voting rights and being led to believe turkeys dont vote for Christmas etc. Presumably there was a majority vote taken at some point of all the members to add the lights requirement ?

CSS look to be sorted. VoL I'm not too sure on & WW are having to deal with a different kind of uncertainty so there hasn't been much positive news on the floodlights front.

All 3 are looking into it as they obviously don't want to lose their licenses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have any of the 3 clubs in LL without lights indicated any plans yet ?

Also in my naivety on voting rights and being led to believe turkeys dont vote for Christmas etc. Presumably there was a majority vote taken at some point of all the members to add the lights requirement ?
The LL do not have a requirement for floodlights. It's a new Licence requirement and you need a Licence to play in the LL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, superbigal said:

Have any of the 3 clubs in LL without lights indicated any plans yet ?

Also in my naivety on voting rights and being led to believe turkeys dont vote for Christmas etc. Presumably there was a majority vote taken at some point of all the members to add the lights requirement ?

Licensing requirements changes aren’t voted on by members. They are set by the sfa and licensing committee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope Bonnyrigg still get a license, but imo the LL should decide (might have to be through an EGM to get it approved though), that WW are in the LL whatever happens and if Bonnyrigg get a license, the LL will just run with 17 clubs and add an extra relegation spot to go down to 16 for 2020/21.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Marten said:

I really hope Bonnyrigg still get a license, but imo the LL should decide (might have to be through an EGM to get it approved though), that WW are in the LL whatever happens and if Bonnyrigg get a license, the LL will just run with 17 clubs and add an extra relegation spot to go down to 16 for 2020/21.

That would have knock-on effects to the EoS, with Leith Athletic being promoted to the EoS Premier, and one of the Conferences only running with 11 clubs, which in turn will affect their inter-conference fixtures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

That would have knock-on effects to the EoS, with Leith Athletic being promoted to the EoS Premier, and one of the Conferences only running with 11 clubs, which in turn will affect their inter-conference fixtures. 

In that case it would be simpler for the EoS to run the Premier with 15 clubs for 1 season.  Tough on Leith though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, pipedreamer said:

Licensing requirements changes aren’t voted on by members. They are set by the sfa and licensing committee.

Great that is my point. This small body decided floodlights were required.   It was not a vote to the 91 members (Or whatever number it is).

So this particular body presumably can set the licensing benefits as well as the standards ?

What I am trying to get at, is if it is the sfa and licensing committee that comes up with a revised License (Associate or whatever they want to call it), with reduced benefits. 

That the members themselves do not vote on the proposal.

I have read on here that the clubs would potentially not allow it (Because they would outnumber the bigger clubs in sheer votes)

But how can they if this function is actioned by committee ?

Edited by superbigal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, superbigal said:

Great that is my point. This small body decided floodlights were required.   It was not a vote to the 91 members (Or whatever number it is).

So this particular body presumably can set the licensing benefits as well as the standards ?

What I am trying to get at, is if it is the sfa and licensing committee that comes up with a revised License (Associate or whatever they want to call it), with reduced benefits. 

That the members themselves do not vote on the proposal.

I have read on here that the clubs would potentially not allow it.

But how can they if it is done by committee ?

The two things are intertwined but separate. Membership rights are something voted on by members. The licensing process is in the control of the licensing committee & board.

Look at how the SPFL board can make up whatever they want with the Challenge Cup but can't push through Colts. One is a delegated responsibility and the other a membership vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FairWeatherFan said:

The two things are intertwined but separate. Membership rights are something voted on by members. The licensing process is in the control of the licensing committee & board.

Look at how the SPFL board can make up whatever they want with the Challenge Cup but can't push through Colts. One is a delegated responsibility and the other a membership vote.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since Sir Peter was pushed out - Whitehill have been everyone's whipping boys.

Bring back Peter and there will be no SFA u-turns and Whitehill would be gifted the lights currently in use at Hampden Park.... just to keep the peace!

Share this post


Link to post
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...