Jump to content
magoo

Whitehill welfare 2019/20

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Marten said:

I tried finding some information on the Threave case. All I found so far is this article: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/local-sport/threave-rovers-south-scotland-league-8099347

"Recently, chairman Davie McVitie said they planned to reapply for their place which they would have held on to had no team been promoted from the East or South leagues."

This quote suggests they were originally relegated but had the chance to re-apply, which they ultimately didn't do.

There were various different newspaper quotes from around the time, some conflicting as the LL were supposedly looking to introduce relegation for the bottom club regardless of promotion scenarios.

The closes official source I remember finding was from the LL website http://slfl.co.uk/ferrari-packaging-scottish-lowland-football-league-announce-league-expansion/

image.png.76116a86b0799b4b0d8b9ca1f23f5aae.png

If they had been relegated, they wouldn't have had to resign.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it's quite simple, the bottom club in the LL can only be relegated if there is a team who meet membership criteria to be promoted. 

As it stands there isn't a team who meet the criteria, therefore WW will not be relegated. It's in the rules. 

As for moving to 17 teams in the league that can't happen either as that would require rule changes - something which would take time and would also need the agreement of the SFA. 

Do Bonnyrigg have a process for appealing the decision? I thought that the SFA board decisions were final? It's the SFA board that have made this decision so who would they appeal too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

There were various different newspaper quotes from around the time, some conflicting as the LL were supposedly looking to introduce relegation for the bottom club regardless of promotion scenarios.

The closes official source I remember finding was from the LL website http://slfl.co.uk/ferrari-packaging-scottish-lowland-football-league-announce-league-expansion/

image.png.76116a86b0799b4b0d8b9ca1f23f5aae.png

If they had been relegated, they wouldn't have had to resign.

 

Threave Rovers were not relegated, the champion club that year did not have a license therefore there was no relegation. They didn't want to continue in the LL so resigned and rejoined the SOS. 

The rules around promotion and relegation are known at the start of each season and have always been that relegation only happens if the champion club have a license. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, It's Me said:

Threave Rovers were not relegated, the champion club that year did not have a license therefore there was no relegation. They didn't want to continue in the LL so resigned and rejoined the SOS. 

The rules around promotion and relegation are known at the start of each season and have always been that relegation only happens if the champion club have a license. 

Totally Agree 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, It's Me said:

Threave Rovers were not relegated, the champion club that year did not have a license therefore there was no relegation. They didn't want to continue in the LL so resigned and rejoined the SOS. 

The rules around promotion and relegation are known at the start of each season and have always been that relegation only happens if the champion club have a license. 

Or a club is relegated from the spfl without the lowland champions joining the spfl. 

 

I read it that Selkirk is filled by application regardless. Whitehill are replaced by Berwick as the “bottom” club are relegated to make space for the spfl club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, pipedreamer said:

Or a club is relegated from the spfl without the lowland champions joining the spfl. 

 

I read it that Selkirk is filled by application regardless. Whitehill are replaced by Berwick as the “bottom” club are relegated to make space for the spfl club.

the bottom club is deemed as WW and relegated / replaced by EOS champion in this case there is none ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the bottom club is deemed as WW and relegated / replaced by EOS champion in this case there is none ?
I read it the same way as pipedreamer, in that Whitehill were indeed initially reprieved by Bonnyrigg not getting a licence, but would be relegated by Berwick coming down and no LL champion going up, in which case Dalbeattie are the ones reprieved by Bonnyrigg not being licenced.

Selkirk vacancy is a vacancy to be filled by application, which may well be awarded to Whitehill, which would see them stay in the league but through application, not through the relegation mechanism.

It's more then just what happens below that impacts relegation in the LL.

It will be up to the league obviously and I'm sure they will do the right thing by the rules, this is all just conjecture/personal interpretation on our part.

I don't believe there's anything in the rules which allows Berwick to fill the Selkirk vacancy in a relegation context.

We'll see I guess.

Share this post


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

I read it the same way as pipedreamer, in that Whitehill were indeed initially reprieved by Bonnyrigg not getting a licence, but would be relegated by Berwick coming down and no LL champion going up, in which case Dalbeattie are the ones reprieved by Bonnyrigg not being licenced.

Selkirk vacancy is a vacancy to be filled by application, which may well be awarded to Whitehill, which would see them stay in the league but through application, not through the relegation mechanism.

It's more then just what happens below that impacts relegation in the LL.

It will be up to the league obviously and I'm sure they will do the right thing by the rules, this is all just conjecture/personal interpretation on our part.

I don't believe there's anything in the rules which allows Berwick to fill the Selkirk vacancy in a relegation context.

We'll see I guess.

There's nothing that says a vacancy has to be filled by application. Admission is by the combination of both application & promotion/relegation.

When the league reaches 16 it's only by promotion/relegation, unless a vacancy arises through resignation or expulsion. In which case it's a combination of application or promotion/relegation again.

Promotion and relegation returns the league to 16. So there's no spot to apply for.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's nothing that says a vacancy has to be filled by application. Admission is by the combination of both application & promotion/relegation. When the league reaches 16 it's only by promotion/relegation, unless a vacancy arises through resignation or expulsion. In which case it's a combination of application or promotion/relegation again.

Promotion and relegation returns the league to 16. So there's no spot to apply for.

 

 

 

I interpret it differently (I think, everything you say is actually the same as I've said, except the last sentence).

 

Otherwise, had Bonnyrigg been licenced and EK beat Cove, Whitehill also wouldn't have been relegated due to the Selkirk vacancy? We know that's not true because there was no mechanism to make the promoted club fill that vacancy in the rules?

 

All I'm saying really is that if there was no way to make the promoted club take the vacancy created by Selkirk without changing the rules (which the SFA said couldn't be done mid season) then surely there's also no way to make the relegated club fill that vacancy, using the same rules?

 

As I say, it's all irrelevant what we think, only how the LL interpret and apply the rules. They've been put in an awkward position by the SFA and there's arguments could be made for any of the possible outcomes the LL could choose.

 

 

 

Share this post


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

emoji846.png 

I interpret it differently (I think, everything you say is actually the same as I've said, except the last sentence).

 

Otherwise, had Bonnyrigg been licenced and EK beat Cove, Whitehill also wouldn't have been relegated due to the Selkirk vacancy? We know that's not true because there was no mechanism to make the promoted club fill that vacancy in the rules?

Bonnyrigg being licensed relegates WW. Leaves the LL at 15 with EK/Berwick playoff being a wash. So there would be a vacancy then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bonnyrigg being licensed relegates WW. Leaves the LL at 15 with EK/Berwick playoff being a wash. So there would be a vacancy then.
As I said, we both have different interpretations.

Mine is that my reading of it is Berwick coming down now relegates Whitehill, leaving the Selkirk vacancy, which Whitehill could apply for and might get.

If Berwick hadn't come down, then Whitehill would have been saved entirely, leaving the Selkirk vacancy.

I'm not trying to convince anyone I know what's going on and I don't have any skin in the game, just my interpretation. I've no problem ending up being completely wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is this. WW can only be relegated if the champion club (in this case Bonnyrigg Rose) is eligible to enter the LL. Invitations are only considered once all promotion and relegation issues have been resolved and the league still doesn't have 16 club's.

As it stands if Berwick Rangers are relegated and Bonnyrigg are not licenced then WW will not be relegated. 

Share this post


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

My understanding is this. WW can only be relegated if the champion club (in this case Bonnyrigg Rose) is eligible to enter the LL. Invitations are only considered once all promotion and relegation issues have been resolved and the league still doesn't have 16 club's.

As it stands if Berwick Rangers are relegated and Bonnyrigg are not licenced then WW will not be relegated. 

Think we had this conversation a few weeks ago.

All confusing stuff Jerry but I'm happy to take your word on it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, newcastle broon said:

A 17 team LL for next season would make sense. I'm sure the league could squeeze in 2 more league matches ? After all teams,albeit champions have recently withdrew from the league cup maybes leaving an option should any problems arise with fixtures  throughout the season? 

It would be 4 more matchdays NB not 2 more. Think about it.

NB:

giphy.gif

EDIT: Also, as solutions go - given the League Cup is played after the league season finishes, withdrawing from it wouldn't be an obvious solution for getting the league season finished.

Edited by HibeeJibee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, gaz5 said:

I read it the same way as pipedreamer, in that Whitehill were indeed initially reprieved by Bonnyrigg not getting a licence, but would be relegated by Berwick coming down and no LL champion going up, in which case Dalbeattie are the ones reprieved by Bonnyrigg not being licenced.

Selkirk vacancy is a vacancy to be filled by application, which may well be awarded to Whitehill, which would see them stay in the league but through application, not through the relegation mechanism.

It's more then just what happens below that impacts relegation in the LL.

It will be up to the league obviously and I'm sure they will do the right thing by the rules, this is all just conjecture/personal interpretation on our part.

I don't believe there's anything in the rules which allows Berwick to fill the Selkirk vacancy in a relegation context.

We'll see I guess.

Surely WW would not be accepted by application as they still dont satisfy the most recent licensing rules e.g no floodlights, or am I getting confused by it all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely WW would not be accepted by application as they still dont satisfy the most recent licensing rules e.g no floodlights, or am I getting confused by it all?
They still have a licence and presumably whatever period of derrogation the SFA have allowed to get floodlights before losing it if they don't.

Under which circumstances they would be eligible for LL.

Licence is required for LL, rather than floodlights. Floodlights were only recently made a requirement for the licence, which is causing all the problems.

Share this post


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

It would be 4 more matchdays NB not 2 more. Think about it.

NB:

giphy.gif

 

:oops my bad I thought.

16 team league = 30 matches 

17 team league = 32 matches 

 

Share this post


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

It would be 4 more matchdays NB not 2 more. Think about it.

NB:

giphy.gif

 

5 hours ago, newcastle broon said:

:oops my bad I thought.

16 team league = 30 matches 

17 team league = 32 matches


giphy.gif

tenor.gif?itemid=5059908

Edited by HibeeJibee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, newcastle broon said:

The 1st shoots of Spring :)

Screenshot_20190514-161817_Twitter.jpg

Shouldn’t that be the first shoots of Springfield? :)

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...