Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, Burnie_man said:

The SJFA wrote to the SFA Board citing their members vote and asking for access to tier 6. The SFA Board passed the request to the PWG to progress. The SJFA paint this as a "directive" that must be implemented, which is way off the mark as they are finding out.

Let's not pretend this was all an SFA idea, until that point the SJFA were refusing to have anything to do with the Pyramid (and would have continued to do so were it not for the goings on in the east) so why would the SFA suddenly have suggested this? Nice try.

Because they had a board meeting and ratified it,hence Maxwells e mail in October.

All it’s been since then is the EoSL trying to come up with the same old tired points which have all been resolved with SFA staff.

If I was on the SFA board and there were a lot of licensing applications from EoS clubs I know where I’d be putting them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kilbowie Benches said:

Because they had a board meeting and ratified it,hence Maxwells e mail in October.

All it’s been since then is the EoSL trying to come up with the same old tired points which have all been resolved with SFA staff.

If I was on the SFA board and there were a lot of licensing applications from EoS clubs I know where I’d be putting them!

What exactly did they ratify? all they did was say "Fine, you now want in, go and speak to the other leagues via the PWG".  This was before Maxwell's time. Is that what you call a "directive"? because as you have found out it's pretty meaningless, there has to be agreement and consensus at PWG, there isn't.

If the SFA Board were able to issue "directives" which carried weight, Rangers and Celtic Colts would be starting next season in League Two. They're not, because SPFL clubs rejected the plan.

You, as a Clydebank board member and deferred EoS applicant, need to be careful with your continual ridiculous criticisms of the EoS.

Edited by Burnie_man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I was on the SFA board and there were a lot of licensing applications from EoS clubs I know where I’d be putting them!


So basically the clubs who have done the work to get their applications in and all the work done to meet the standards should be punished? That’s a frankly shocking attitude to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

What exactly did they ratify? all they did was say "Fine, you now want in, go and speak to the other leagues via the PWG".  This was before Maxwell's time. Id that what you call a "directive"? because as you have found out it's pretty meaningless, there has to be agreement and consensus at PWG, there isn't.

If the SFA Board were able to issue "directives" which carried weight, Rangers and Celtic Colts would be starting next season in League Two. They're not, because SPFL clubs rejected the plan.

You, as a Clydebank board member and deferred EoS applicant, need to be careful with your continual ridiculous criticisms of the EoS.

They ratified that the West/East Juniors were to go into the pyramid at tier 6 before the October e mail.

You don’t like it but that’s what happened !

Edited by Kilbowie Benches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blue White Dynamite said:

 


So basically the clubs who have done the work to get their applications in and all the work done to meet the standards should be punished? That’s a frankly shocking attitude to take.

 

So is trying to piss about and stop the pyramid to develop the way the national association wants it to id say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kilbowie Benches said:

Because they had a board meeting and ratified it,hence Maxwells e mail in October.

All it’s been since then is the EoSL trying to come up with the same old tired points which have all been resolved with SFA staff.

If I was on the SFA board and there were a lot of licensing applications from EoS clubs I know where I’d be putting them!

What an utterly absurd way of looking at things, clubs have spent thousands of pounds on and off the pitch to get their licences.  As inept as the SFA are I don't think they would share this stupid attitude just because the EOS member clubs rejected a silly proposal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kilbowie Benches said:

They ratified that the West/East Juniors were to go into the pyramid at tier 6 before the October e mail.

You don’t like it but that’s what happened !

Jeezo, that email wasn't from the SFA Board.

You know as well as I do that the SFA don't have the power to force this through. Are you being told to keep banging out this line in the hope it might come true eventually  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is an SFA board directive,read the minutes of the PWG.

You’re getting angry at the wrong people!

 

And yet you can't answer the question as to what the SJFA have contributed or conceded to in negotiations. Telling.

 

I would like to build 4 new houses in your street. One of them will be in your garden. The local council said this would be acceptable to them, but I have to clear it with you and your wife/husband/significant other first.

 

I now have a directive to build 4 houses, including one in your garden and if you don't let me your are being obstructive.

 

The other 3 would actually raise the value of your property.

 

Do you:

 

a. Say "no, f**k off you can't build any houses"

b. Say "ok, you can build the other 3, but not the one in my garden"

c. Aye crack on, whack then in and stick a house on my front grass.

 

That is essentially your stance here, put into the most ridiculous example I can think of.

 

You think the EoS should answer c), you are claiming they are answering a), when in reality what they are saying is "we'll compromise, it's b).

 

As they say that, you think it's entirely ok for the other party to insist on c) and claim the EoS is being obstructive to the juniors.

 

 

The reality is opposing a stupid idea and having an alternative middle ground isn't obstructive.

 

The other party but being willing to acknowledge that the idea is batshit crazy and compromise for everyone, including their own members, benefit, is obstructive.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Jeezo, that email wasn't from the SFA Board.

You know as well as I do that the SFA don't have the power to force this through. Are you being told to keep banging out this line in the hope it might come true eventually  :lol:

We’ll see in just over 2 weeks time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kilbowie Benches said:

We’ll see in just over 2 weeks time.

Aye, and like all the other times nothing much will happen if the SFA/SJFA don't start listening, and we now know that every single LL and EoS club have rejected the plan, possibly even SoS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gaz5 said:

And yet you can't answer the question as to what the SJFA have contributed or conceded to in negotiations. Telling.

I would like to build 4 new houses in your street. One of them will be in your garden. The local council said this would be acceptable to them, but I have to clear it with you and your wife/husband/significant other first.

I now have a directive to build for houses, including one in your garden and if you don't let me your are being obstructive.

The other 3 would actually raise the value of your property.

Do you:

a) Say "no, f**k off you can't build any houses"
b) Say "ok, you can build the other 3, but not the one in my garden"
c) Aye crack on, whack then in and stick a house on my front grass.

That is essentially your stance here, put into the most ridiculous example I can think of.

You think the EoS should answer c), you are claiming they are answering a), when in reality what they are saying is "we'll compromise, it's b).

As they say that, you think it's entirely ok for the other party to insist on c) and claim the EoS is being obstructive to the juniors.

emoji846.png

The reality is opposing a stupid idea and having an alternative middle ground isn't obstructive.

The other party but being willing to acknowledge that the idea is batshit crazy and compromise for everyone, including their own members, benefit, is obstructive.

The SJFA contribution is thst they are bringing the biggest and best non league clubs from the most populated area of the country into the national pyramid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burnie_man said:

Aye, and like all the other times nothing much will happen if the SFA/SJFA don't start listening, and we now know that every single LL and EoS club have rejected the plan, possibly even SoS.

Possibly? There he goes again ! The man with all the facts :thumsup2

Share this post


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

The SJFA contribution is thst they are bringing the biggest and best non league clubs from the most populated area of the country into the national pyramid.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kilbowie Benches said:

Possibly? There he goes again ! The man with all the facts :thumsup2

Well your facts have all fallen like dominoes so far :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The SJFA contribution is thst they are bringing the biggest and best non league clubs from the most populated area of the country into the national pyramid.
Which the EoS have agreed to, but the SJFA won't compromise for the benefit of those biggest and best clubs in their own memberships benefit.

Do you even know what your argument is here?

The only people stopping the "big clubs" in the West being in the pyramid next season is the SJFA. All they need to do is say "OK, we acknowledge the issue in the East, we will defer that for further discussion for a season, would you let the West in from next year?".

100% everyone says yes to that.

You are, indeed, angry at the wrong people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

Which the EoS have agreed to, but the SJFA won't compromise for the benefit of those biggest and best clubs in their own memberships benefit.

Do you even know what your argument is here?

The only people stopping the "big clubs" in the West being in the pyramid next season is the SJFA. All they need to do is say "OK, we acknowledge the issue in the East, we will defer that for further discussion for a season, would you let the West in from next year?".

100% everyone says yes to that.

You are, indeed, angry at the wrong people. emoji6.png

Except that the SFA have already agreed to the West /East Juniors going in.

Share this post


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

Except that the SFA have already agreed to the West /East Juniors going in.

Shame for you that's it's still not happening.  I don't think many of the east juniors left are bothered by pyramid so why are you getting uptight about something that doesn't affect you. The west could be in no bother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is all 'agreed' & sorted how come the LL advert for its vacancy on both the SFA & LL site mention the existing boundry of the Tay? To add the ERJFA in wholesale that boundry would need to be moved north & theres been nothing regarding moving it by the Professional Game Body (HL, LL & SPFL)

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...