Club Licencing

[Robert James]

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

 

There's one thing for sure, there's very little point in carrying on down the same road at PWG, it's done, finished, it's incapable of providing a workable solution.

 

Sadly you are correct regarding PWG's decision being  "done and dusted". 

However I am entitled to place my personal views on record, just as I did when I was  the first posters on the P&B Forum, to point out that the Bonnyrigg decision was wrong, and would be very difficult to defend if it resulted in litigation. Hence the SFA/PWG doesn't always get its own way. It had derogation powers, but chose not to use them for Girvan and Golspie.. Nor for others like Burntisland and Coldstream (tier 7 clubs).

Floodlights are expensive, and are not required by clubs at this level.

 

[Robert James]

2 hours ago, Dev said:

This is the ideal opportunity for the SFA to set out its' plans for the Pyramid for the next five to ten years.

Start with consultations directly between the Chief Exec and the President of the SFA and each League (not association). Take in the feed-back then come up with a structure. Set out a time-scale and put into practice after publishing the plan so everyone knows what is what from the start.

If clubs wish to be a part of the Pyramid they can. They will know what is what and can make the decision which works for them. They can always apply to join at a later stage if wish.

Once the structure is there then fit licencing into that structure on a pre-agreed basis, including the criteria of facilities etc needed at each level. Ten stick with it. Clubs can then make plans in the secure knowledge that the goal-post won't be moved again for at lest a set number of seasons, let alone in mid season! 

The current stage has been subject to confusion and inconsistency together with a lack of understanding of what clubs want and will respond positively to. When the top dogs of the SFA meet up with the EoS and Lowland leagues's clubs and it becomes obvious that they have no clue about football beneath the SPFL / outside the Juniors it beggars belief!

The SFA needs to show who is the boss and take full responsibility and not allow individuals, allegedly representing subordinate SFA associations to play merry H-LL with plans for the structure.

There will be a whole range of views on what should be, each with their own merits, which is healthy but don't loose sight of what has been going on and the need to sort out a plan which will work for those clubs which "want in" to whatever structure emerges.

I agree with your comment that there should be a "criteria of facilities etc, needed at each level".

[superbigal]

Is it their ground the club should  be earning a fair few quid from that  ? 

Unfortunately if memory serves rather than taking an annual fee from Vodafone, I believe they took a lifetime amount. Probably in the days of stupid wages and financial obligations. Hopefully Patriot can confirm ?

[Dev]

11 hours ago, Dev said:

This is the ideal opportunity for the SFA to set out its' plans for the Pyramid for the next five to ten years.

Start with consultations directly between the Chief Exec and the President of the SFA and each League (not association). Take in the feed-back then come up with a structure. Set out a time-scale and put into practice after publishing the plan so everyone knows what is what from the start.

If clubs wish to be a part of the Pyramid they can. They will know what is what and can make the decision which works for them. They can always apply to join at a later stage if wish.

Once the structure is there then fit licencing into that structure on a pre-agreed basis, including the criteria of facilities etc needed at each level. Ten stick with it. Clubs can then make plans in the secure knowledge that the goal-post won't be moved again for at lest a set number of seasons, let alone in mid season! 

The current stage has been subject to confusion and inconsistency together with a lack of understanding of what clubs want and will respond positively to. When the top dogs of the SFA meet up with the EoS and Lowland leagues's clubs and it becomes obvious that they have no clue about football beneath the SPFL / outside the Juniors it beggars belief!

The SFA needs to show who is the boss and take full responsibility and not allow individuals, allegedly representing subordinate SFA associations to play merry H-LL with plans for the structure.

There will be a whole range of views on what should be, each with their own merits, which is healthy but don't loose sight of what has been going on and the need to sort out a plan which will work for those clubs which "want in" to whatever structure emerges.

Sadly, in my view, the PWGs have been used as a tool to kick the progress of the Pyramid into the Long Grass, so the SFA should now accept responsibility directly at top level in order to get this over the line, but appropriate consultations directly with leagues, including Amateur leagues, is necessary.

Once this is done everyone will know what is what and can join in or not on an individual club or league basis. The Top Brass can then get on with other priorities.

[LongTimeLurker]

The SFA has no power to dictate an outcome on this in terms of their constitution. If they did the east and west superleagues would already be in at tier 6 for next season. The PWG is either going to have to come up with a compromise or the LL is probably going to have to adopt a Borg from Star Trek  approach to get clubs from the west on board by adding extra tiers.

[Auld Heid]

I agree with your comment that there should be a "criteria of facilities etc, needed at each level".

Correct.

Teams also need to realise membership isnt a right but also comes with a level of requirement.

At the same time its wrong of the SFA to continually move the bar to restrict application especially during the process.

So having tiered membership makes sense so teams are clear on requirements on and off the field of membership.

The Bonnyrigg scenario proved that when promotion was initially refused despite them actually meeting as much if not more of the current criteria than Whitehill. (No disrespect intended to Whitehill)

[pipedreamer]

10 hours ago, Robert James said:

It would only apply to EXISTING member clubs, who will lose there licence. Not to new applicants for SFA  membership

Clubs should be held to the same standard wether they are applying for a membership now or historically have one due to a quirk of history, why should club a) spend many thousands to meet criteria to join while club b) receives an annual payment but doesn’t meet the same criteria. 

Ian Maxwell talked of fairness and treating all applications the same in his email to Bonnyrigg Rose. Stating that they couldn’t decide wether clubs met ‘enough’ of the criteria to join, it was black and white, you either meet it or you don’t. If for 100 years you’ve been a member but play in a sub-par ground and stand to lose your license due to non compliance on floodlights, then that’s just tough, blame the spfl & sfa top brass for putting the criteria in place to put it out of reach of some clubs outwith the pyramid while not thinking of their existing members. 

 

A lot of junior clubs probably would have installed floodlights lights if they were encouraged and permitted to be used for fixtures in the sjfa, the west region at their last meeting even said to clubs that it’s still a rule that floodlights cannot be used unless the away team agrees, or a protest can be lodged. Utterly mental and backwards stuff.

[Dev]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

The SFA has no power to dictate an outcome on this in terms of their constitution. If they did the east and west superleagues would already be in at tier 6 for next season. The PWG is either going to have to come up with a compromise or the LL is probably going to have to adopt a Borg from Star Trek  approach to get clubs from the west on board by adding extra tiers.

Provided there is appropriate consultation by the SFA top brass with clubs,via their leagues, then they learn about the practical issues involved so that they can make sensible decisions. Clearly, given their apparent lack of knowledge regarding the boundary between the Highland and Lowland zones, consutlations, as suggested, would assist them in the process. Thus increasing the opportunity for rational discussion and decision making.

Given all of that then, the SFA should take the necessary powers to make things happen.

[parsforlife]

, the SFA should take the necessary powers to make things happen.

They don’t have any powers basically, as maxwell has found out

[Burnie_man]

The SFA don't have powers to force anything upon any league otherwise Colt teams would be in League 2 next season.

 

It requires consultation and agreement, but the PWG has been shown to be not fit for purpose, a major part of which is not insisting that Junior leagues rather than the SJFA are involved, that for a start needs amended.

 

What is also required is more discussion directly with clubs to understand views.

 

 

[Robert James]

5 hours ago, Auld Heid said:

Correct.

Teams also need to realise membership isnt a right but also comes with a level of requirement.

At the same time its wrong of the SFA to continually move the bar to restrict application especially during the process.

So having tiered membership makes sense so teams are clear on requirements on and off the field of membership.

The Bonnyrigg scenario proved that when promotion was initially refused despite them actually meeting as much if not more of the current criteria than Whitehill. (No disrespect intended to Whitehill)

Interesting views, but not much further to take the debate this subject. So turning to the practicalities of the EXISTING SFA Members needing to install floodlights, or have their SFA licence withdrawn, it would be informative to know which of the clubs concerned are likely to be able to install lights within the designated timescale, and which clubs are not likely to succeed or choose not to do so. I understand that the inclusion of floodlights in the licence rules, affects the following clubs :

Whitehill Welfare

Girvan

Golspie Sutherland

Vale of Leithen

Civil Service Strollers

Burntisland Shipyard

Coldstream

Wigtown & Bladnoch

Any updates would be appreciated please. Have I missed anyone ? 

  

Edited June 22, 2019 by Robert James
typo error

[HibeeJibee]

Coldstream + CSS + Whitehill have already announced schemes.

[patriot1]

12 hours ago, superbigal said:

23 hours ago, newcastle broon said:

Is it their ground the club should  be earning a fair few quid from that  ? 

Unfortunately if memory serves rather than taking an annual fee from Vodafone, I believe they took a lifetime amount. Probably in the days of stupid wages and financial obligations. Hopefully Patriot can confirm ?

You are correct Al about the mast payment. The wages weren't as high as many made out but they were higher than we could afford long term. 

As for the pitch, thanks for the kind words. Our groundsman was at Kennoway Star Hearts until the Star half of the committee left then he came to us. His work is greatly appreciated although there are others on the committee who contribute. 

[Robert James]

17 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Coldstream + CSS + Whitehill have already announced schemes.

Helpful and appreciated, with 3 clubs underway, leaving 5 other clubs facing a loss of SFA membership.

As far as I can recall, a Burntisland poster stated that "Shippy" were drawing up plans, although this was some time ago. Underway ?

Anyone got any floodlights updates about Vale of Leithen,  Wigtown,  Girvan, and  Golspie ? 

[Dev]

1 hour ago, Robert James said:

Helpful and appreciated, with 3 clubs underway, leaving 5 other clubs facing a loss of SFA membership.

As far as I can recall, a Burntisland poster stated that "Shippy" were drawing up plans, although this was some time ago. Underway ?

Anyone got any floodlights updates about Vale of Leithen,  Wigtown,  Girvan, and  Golspie ? 

On the Lowland League thread some-one is hinting that Vale of Leithen may be having flood-lights in due course. Can anyone shed some light on this?!

[Dev]

On 22/06/2019 at 12:21, parsforlife said:

 

They don’t have any powers basically, as maxwell has found out

 

 

On 22/06/2019 at 12:27, Burnie_man said:

The SFA don't have powers to force anything upon any league otherwise Colt teams would be in League 2 next season.

 

It requires consultation and agreement, but the PWG has been shown to be not fit for purpose, a major part of which is not insisting that Junior leagues rather than the SJFA are involved, that for a start needs amended.

 

What is also required is more discussion directly with clubs to understand views.

 

 

Surely the case was that, when IM and RP met the EoS and Lowland leagues' clubs, they were enlightened as to matters such as the Highland/Lowland league boundary issue and it's knock on effects, as well as other relevant matters, about which they were not previously aware.

They realised that they needed to brush up on their facts and to reconsider what they had been lead to believe from other sources before moving further forward with their Pyramid ideas. Quite wise too I would say. Indeed this could have been the moment when the "penny dropped" for them both!

Clearly it is the SFA which runs Scottish football - like it or not. However, a new Chief Exec sometimes needs time to wake up to what has and hasn't been going on, and why. That's why I believe that now may be the ideal time for him and RP to learn from their errors and to move forward meaningfully, without fear or favour, regarding the Pyramid.

[parsforlife]

Surely the case was that, when IM and RP met the EoS and Lowland leagues' clubs, they were enlightened as to matters such as the Highland/Lowland league boundary issue and it's knock on effects, as well as other relevant matters, about which they were not previously aware.
They realised that they needed to brush up on their facts and to reconsider what they had been lead to believe from other sources before moving further forward with their Pyramid ideas. Quite wise too I would say. Indeed this could have been the moment when the "penny dropped" for them both!


Clearly it is the SFA which runs Scottish football - like it or not.

Well no they don’t run it in the way your suggesting, just because the board make a decision doesn’t mean it will happen, outside of affairs with the national team pretty much everything requires to pass a vote of some kind, wether directly to clubs or with leagues.

The EoS meeting where telts were dished out might have been eye opening for them, but they still thought they could press forward with the ‘done deal’ right up to the point when they realised a vote had to be cast, which they lost comprehensively.

[LongTimeLurker]

2 hours ago, Dev said:

...Clearly it is the SFA which runs Scottish football - like it or not...

The SFA is ultimately only the member clubs and associations acting together according to its written constitution and its Board only has certain powers delegated to it to run day to day affairs between AGMs. Any major decision involving the clubs and leagues rather than the national teams is taken by the clubs and leagues involved. Last season's saga with SJFA entry has demonstrated clearly that the Board cannot dictate its preferred outcome where the pyramid is concerned. The sooner people grasp that the quicker further progress is likely to be.

[GordonS]

FWIW (which is very little), I don't agree with the need to have floodlights at the lowest level for SFA membership, but it's not the end of the world. I have a problem with two things; a lack of consultation period, and the introduction of the requirement with no lead-in time and while there were a large number of applications in the pipeline. So often it's not the thing that's wrong, it's the way it's done.

[LongTimeLurker]

Their argument is that they want all Scottish cup entrants to be able to host a midweek cup replay under lights. The Lochee United vs Ayr United saga from a few years back is an example of why that holds some water. SPFL clubs were clearly spooked at the prospect of having upwards of 17 new members joining all at once. Associate membership below tier 5 should limit the danger of ever more onerous requirements being added to keep numbers down.