Club Licencing

[Burnie_man]

Blackburn's membership certificate states they are a "Full Member", and those articles refer to only two types of clubs, Full members and Registered members.

 

It does refer to "associate members" as those playing below tier 5, but how can you be both a full member and associate member?

[Footballfirst]

6 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Blackburn's membership certificate states they are a "Full Member"

I spoke previously to someone connected to Penicuik, who said that despite what the certificate said, they were being treated as an "associate member" with no voting rights.

Can you confirm whether or not Blackburn has voting rights.

My understanding was that the effective date for admittance of the newly licensed members was the day of the SFA AGM. The resolution makes specific reference to the status as as the commencement of the AGM. 

[Burnie_man]

I spoke previously to someone connected to Penicuik, who said that despite what the certificate said, they were being treated as an "associate member" with no voting rights.
Can you confirm whether or not Blackburn has voting rights.
My understanding was that the effective date for admittance of the newly licensed members was the day of the SFA AGM. The resolution makes specific reference to the status as as the commencement of the AGM. 

No idea, as far as I am aware our man at the AGM was given the certificate and that was it. There has been no comms from the SFA saying we're anything but a full member with full rights.

As i said above, how can you both be a full member and an associate member?

[Footballfirst]

1 minute ago, Burnie_man said:

As i said above, how can you both be a full member and an associate member?

Come on now. This is the SFA we are talking about. 

[vikingTON]

4 hours ago, Spyro said:

The newspaper interviews from John Young are still there for all to see. Claiming they’d try there best, but allowing half the team to go on holiday. Also other things that were mentioned to some of the squad that I won’t go into here which I heard directly as I worked up that way and spoke to people around the club regularly at the time.

There was no chance Brora were going to win that playoff, it suited everyone to lose it. 

...except that Brora were actually winning the play-off with barely twenty minutes to go in the second leg, until two unstoppable goals suddenly turned it round for Montrose. Seems a rather convoluted to first put yourself in a promising position and rely on two worldies to get the result that you wanted, when they could have just lost the first leg 0-3 and been done with it. It's almost as if if your argument doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever. 

Quote

You can believe what you want though, I try not to comment on the HL too much as I know it seems to upset folk but they say the right things at the right time to show they are open minded and forward thinking whilst holding all the cards and playing their own game

I'll believe what is both rational and based on the evidence of a contest that I actually watched, while filing your conspiratorial nonsense in the bin where it belongs. 

[Burnie_man]

Come on now. This is the SFA we are talking about. [emoji49]

Having read it, they seem to want to treat those full members below tier 5 differently to those full members in tier 5 or above. You can't do that surely, the articles say there are only two types of membership, Full members (licence holders) or Registered members (Junior clubs, non licenced clubs etc).

[GordonS]

3 hours ago, Robert James said:

Has anyone checked to see how many times an North Region junior club has won this Cup, and how many times  the East Region clubs (north & south of the Tay),  have won it ?

It would be an interesting comparison of the respective strengths of the two regions (or three, if the East's  'north' & 'south' clubs are sub divided)  over XX years.  

Banks O'Dee made the semis last year, Montrose, Dyce and Hermes also made the quarters.

Season before, Hermes and Stonehaven made the semis, they were the only North teams in the quarters too.

In 16-17, Hermes made the quarters and got no further. I don't know how to check further back but I think we all know a man who does...

[FairWeatherFan]

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

Banks O'Dee made the semis last year, Montrose, Dyce and Hermes also made the quarters.

Season before, Hermes and Stonehaven made the semis, they were the only North teams in the quarters too.

In 16-17, Hermes made the quarters and got no further. I don't know how to check further back but I think we all know a man who does...

Cobbled together from Wikipedia and the odd club website.

1989    Deveronside
1990    
1991    
1992    Tayport
1993    
1994    
1995    Tayport
1996    
1997    
1998    
1999    
2000    Tayport
2001    Dundee North End
2002    Tayport
2003    Tayport
2004    Tayport
2005    Tayport
2006    Lochee United
2007    
2008    Montrose Roselea
2009    Sunnybank
2010    Sunnybank
2011    Dundee North End
2012    Jeanfield Swifts
2013    Jeanfield Swifts
2014    Lochee United
2015    Tayport
2016    Lochee United
2017    Broughty Athletic
2018    Carnoustie Panmure
2019    Broughty Athletic

Edited July 12, 2019 by FairWeatherFan

[Jack Burton]

The newspaper interviews from John Young are still there for all to see. Claiming they’d try there best, but allowing half the team to go on holiday. Also other things that were mentioned to some of the squad that I won’t go into here which I heard directly as I worked up that way and spoke to people around the club regularly at the time.
There was no chance Brora were going to win that playoff, it suited everyone to lose it. You can believe what you want though, I try not to comment on the HL too much as I know it seems to upset folk but they say the right things at the right time to show they are open minded and forward thinking whilst holding all the cards and playing their own game

If they were going to throw the play off then why not just lose the penalty shoot out against Edinburgh in the semi final?

Suppose they didn't want to make it too obvious so were only 20 mins away from actually winning the play off before they allowed Montrose to score from around 25 yards out [emoji23]

[Robert James]

4 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Changes to the SFA's Articles of Assocation as agreed at their AGM on 12 June have  now been lodged at Companies House.

As previously indicated, some of the changes affect the voting rights for new full members in tier 6 and below, and as such those members will now be defined as "associate members" 

Rather than read the full A0A document (74 pages), just refer to the "Resolution of Alteration to Articles of Association" (3 pages)

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC005453/filing-history

If my reading of the changes is correct, then Bonnyrigg is now a "Full Member", but Penicuick, Broxburn, Hill of Beath and the other newly licensed clubs are now designated as "associate members". 

Linlithgow would appear to retain its voting rights, despite being in Tier 6, as it was a full member before the SFA's 2019 AGM 

If despite being below Tier 5, Linlithgow retains its full voting rights, does this also apply to the voting rights/full membership of Banks O,Dee, Girvan, Golspie Sutherland, and Glasgow University ? 

Specifically,Banks O.Dee were granted full membership on the same basis as Linlithgow, thereby protecting their SFA membership rights. This led to a change in the SFA licensing rules , excluding all clubs not playing in a  pyramid 'feeder' league, from becoming SFA members thereafter.

Also, Girvan FC, Golspie Sutherland and Glasgow University have been full SFA members, continuously since the 1960's. Their membership was also retained when the pyramid cause was added to the licensing requirements ? 

I haven't been able to find any relevant clauses in the revised SFA AoA document which refers to th existing membership "protections"..

 

Edited July 12, 2019 by Robert James
typo error

[parsforlife]

Having read it, they seem to want to treat those full members below tier 5 differently to those full members in tier 5 or above. You can't do that surely, the articles say there are only two types of membership, Full members (licence holders) or Registered members (Junior clubs, non licenced clubs etc).

They seem to now have sub-categories of full member, tier 5 and above with votes, tier 6 and bellow without.

Interesting that ‘all other rights and obligations remain’ suggests that clubs will still get dividends etc.

Also the way things are written seems that the rules apply to all, not differentiating between old and new members, makes it more surprising that it passed so comfortably. Think it’s possible a few clubs(especially anyone relegated from LL) will be surprised to turn up at next AGM and be shot down if they try to speak or vote.

[Burnie_man]

2 hours ago, parsforlife said:

They seem to now have sub-categories of full member, tier 5 and above with votes, tier 6 and bellow without.

Interesting that ‘all other rights and obligations remain’ suggests that clubs will still get dividends etc.

Also the way things are written seems that the rules apply to all, not differentiating between old and new members, makes it more surprising that it passed so comfortably. Think it’s possible a few clubs(especially anyone relegated from LL) will be surprised to turn up at next AGM and be shot down if they try to speak or vote.

It's just the voting rights that are lost, at the moment.........

I hear there is some form of complaint been lodged by the EoS on behalf of the 6 new member clubs.

[Spyro]

11 hours ago, Jack Burton said:

If they were going to throw the play off then why not just lose the penalty shoot out against Edinburgh in the semi final?

Suppose they didn't want to make it too obvious so were only 20 mins away from actually winning the play off before they allowed Montrose to score from around 25 yards out

It’s funny that it’s only a few folk on here that don’t know this already. Everyone else in the area knows the truth, no one has ever questioned it apart from one or 2 folk on here...

Basically, right up until half time of the Montrose game, most the squad wanted to win the game and actually thought they were fighting for the place... even though certain people were told otherwise, and eventually things happened to make the rest aware! That’s all I’m saying on it! 

Edited July 13, 2019 by Spyro

[Footballfirst]

11 hours ago, Robert James said:

I haven't been able to find any relevant clauses in the revised SFA AoA document which refers to th existing membership "protections"..

The new Article 4.7 offers the protection that the provisions of Article 4.6 don't apply for clubs that were full members prior to the commencement of the 2019 AGM. 

New Article 4.8 deals with the new "associate member" clubs being promoted and relegated

Edited July 13, 2019 by Footballfirst

[Marten]

On 12/07/2019 at 14:09, gaz5 said:

Who cares, we're not England (or any other country for that matter).

The line in Scotland is as far South as it reasonably can be based on population/club demographic. To have a floating line for "balance" would be more likely to see it move further South and suck more clubs North than it ever would to move North.

If we look at the ERSJFA as an example, the only league that spanned the boundary, they have split themselves into North and South Regions, from an all in regional setup, and we've had Montrose move North.

Seems the teams with experience of having teams either side of it have themselves decided the line is just about right.

Bottom line though is that the demarcation is there, is clear (and always has been) and clubs need to play in the structure on whatever side of it they fall, or don't join the pyramid.

As has been pointed out more than a few times, the travel doesn't appear significantly different for the clubs on the boundary. There are a few outliers North and South in both setups as you climb up the levels but outside of those travel would be broadly similar.
 

The approach in England already causes problems there, but in Scotland it could be far worse due to the way the population is spread over the countries. England still has a number of major population centres (Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Tyne & Wear, Leeds/Bradford, Sheffield etc.) in the north, that can't be said about Scotland.

In case of a "flexible" boundary like in England, Kelty would be the first team to be dumped in the HL from the LL. Stirling Uni would be the next one. About a decade or so later and you can end up with an Edinburgh based team in the HL.

[Robert James]

11 hours ago, Marten said:

The approach in England already causes problems there, but in Scotland it could be far worse due to the way the population is spread over the countries. England still has a number of major population centres (Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Tyne & Wear, Leeds/Bradford, Sheffield etc.) in the north, that can't be said about Scotland.

In case of a "flexible" boundary like in England, Kelty would be the first team to be dumped in the HL from the LL. Stirling Uni would be the next one. About a decade or so later and you can end up with an Edinburgh based team in the HL.

A flexible boundary can't exist in Scotland, as it would conflict with Lowland League relegation & promotion rules,  and a Highland structure which allows for a maximum of 20 clubs. If this number is exceeded, the HFL will be split int 2 divisions.

[craigkillie]

The rules of those leagues aren't set in stone to remain the same for eternity. A flexible boundary could easily exist in Scotland.

Whether it is a good idea or not is a different question.

[Marten]

9 hours ago, Robert James said:

A flexible boundary can't exist in Scotland, as it would conflict with Lowland League relegation & promotion rules,  and a Highland structure which allows for a maximum of 20 clubs. If this number is exceeded, the HFL will be split int 2 divisions.

In theory, a flexible boundary can exist if a full scale reform takes place. With the "English approach", the HFL should then go down to 16 clubs (or LL up to 18) to level the number of tier 5 clubs. There could be 5 feeder leagues below (EOS, SOS, NRJFA (including Tayside), WRJFA, NCL). Promotion from tier 6 could then also rapidly change the boundary. Whether or not it is desirable is a wholly different matter.

[Robert James]

11 hours ago, Marten said:

In theory, a flexible boundary can exist if a full scale reform takes place. With the "English approach", the HFL should then go down to 16 clubs (or LL up to 18) to level the number of tier 5 clubs. There could be 5 feeder leagues below (EOS, SOS, NRJFA (including Tayside), WRJFA, NCL). Promotion from tier 6 could then also rapidly change the boundary. Whether or not it is desirable is a wholly different matter.

I think a boundary change is unnecessary, and is unlikely to get support from the relevant Scottish bodies/clubs.

The geography in England is much easier to (re)organise because only Devon, Cornwall and the north east are relatively remote. Even in  the latter area, the pyramid leagues are being realigned in 2020/21, with an extra 'north east' league being created, above the existing  Northern League.  Also, Devon & Cornwall football has been reorganised  'locally' (within its boundaries) for 2019/20. 

[Robert James]

On 11/07/2019 at 23:08, Robert James said:

Yes, the SFA signalled the boundary as one of the key issues to be resolved.  Other questions for the PWG to review include :-

* will the West juniors join 'en bloc', or will there be a Kelty type split, similar to the East Region ?

* will the ERJFA continue with its regional north/south structure, in the knowledge that the SFA has stated it needs to have only one SuperLeague ?

* will there be some sort of merger agreed between the junior clubs south of the Tay, and the East of Scotland League ?

* will Lochee United, and any other north of Tay clubs, follow Montrose Roselea into the Highland catchment area, and if they did, would it encourage the stronger north junior clubs, to 'reconsider' the pyramid ?  

* will the PWG support the North Caledonian League's wish to become a pyramid feeder league (for clubs in the highlands and islands), and if so, would the Highland League accept the NCL, in circumstances where the NRJFA maintains its stance of not joining the pyramid ?

                          Also, are any further changes envisaged in Club licensing rules in the foreseeable future, which could have an impact for senior and junior clubs ?

 

 

Apologies as being slightly off topic, but the NCL AGM has confirmed that Bonar Bridge FC has been unanimously elected to join the league for 2019/20, making a total of 10 clubs, plus 2 others for some of the NCL Cup competitions..

See "Expansion of the NCL"  P&B topic, for details of the Press Release issued today: also available on its web site.

Edited July 15, 2019 by Robert James
additional question added