Highland Pyramid

[FairWeatherFan]

8 hours ago, ArabAuslander said:

The SPFL only wanted 1 feeder to League Two, they reluctantly settled on 2. No way would they agree to 4 feeders. 

For the pyramid to be "complete" at Senior/Junior level the SFA need to a grow a pair and tell Brechin that the boundary stays, Tayside is in the Highland region and is a T6 League. As well as forcing the remaining WL Juniors to either disband and members Join the EoS, join the EoS as a Tier 7/8 regionalised league or go Amatuer.

Won't happen though.

Whatever Tayside clubs do its best for a co-ordinated effort. It perhaps hinders the applications if there's only a small handful of Tayside applicant's to the EoSFL Which I can see happening.

Entering the pyramid at this point means either feeding the Highland League or entering Tier 8 of the EoSFL and leaving the Juniors behind due to commitments required. Staying in what's essentially their own league with a cup against the North Region, the Junior Cup and perhaps whatever is left of the Lothians might be more appealing by comparison. 

[Marten]

14 hours ago, prodcast said:

Would the Tayside juniors not just fold into the current North Juniors as a district within the overall region?

I personally wouldn't mind Tayside joining the North Region, it gives more variety in opposition and some nice away trips that are not around Tayside. But I can't see it happening as I clearly seem an exception with this opinion.

[Jimmy Shaker]

8 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I don't think that's such a bad idea, apart from the Highland league struggling to finish in time for the play offs as it is. 

That's easily solved with a threat of disciplinary action for teams who don't bother looking after their pitches.

[bluearmyfaction]

9 hours ago, ArabAuslander said:

The SPFL only wanted 1 feeder to League Two, they reluctantly settled on 2. No way would they agree to 4 feeders. 
 

Unless more feeders would have a play-off amongst themselves before meeting Club 42?  In a way it might be better for the SPFL; a relegated team would have an easier task to win a smaller feeder structure (albeit the play-off would be harder).  Also more derbies/lower travel costs.

[invergowrie arab]

18 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

No indication that's on anybody's agenda. There was a podcast a few weeks back involving officeholders from both the north and east (Lochee United) regions where the pyramid was discussed in depth and that scenario was never mentioned.  You need to give a year's notice to change regions in the SJFA through the relevant AGMs, so if any individual Tayside club was planning to do Invergowrie Arab's option three by 2021-22 we would have already heard about it. The north region is widely expected to be at tier 6 by then along with the North Caledonian League.

For clarity option 3 would be entirely dependent in North Juniors being in at Tier 6 and AFTER option 1 had been rejected.

I don't see it ever happening but still think it more likely than a three league solution at Tier 6

[LongTimeLurker]

12 hours ago, ArabAuslander said:

The SPFL only wanted 1 feeder to League Two, they reluctantly settled on 2. No way would they agree to 4 feeders...

The SPFL seem to have been OK with three feeders when Option Z was up for discussion in a PWG context back in January. There were indications in the media that a boundary shift to please the Angus SPFL clubs was anticipated at that point and Option Z would have provided that with an HL (NCL + north region), LL East (EoS + east region) and LL West (SoS + west region) pyramid arrangement feeding into the Club 42 playoff.

The LL did not agree to split, which they had to do to eliminate the EoS effective veto over the LL tier 6 promotion playoff format, so that got nowhere. The WoS had to be pursued instead to get the west region clubs in after things reached a complete impasse between the LL/EoS and the SJFA on what to do next. That left the remaining east region clubs out in the cold.

This leaves Tayside in limbo to a significant extent, because the HL is still only negotiating with the NCL + north region and Tayside seemingly never even rates a mention as a future possibility in that context. The SFA, HL and SPFL appear to want Tayside to go south, the EoS appear open to voting on applications from Tayside clubs after Luncarty got in despite being marginally north of the Club 42 relegation rule boundary, but the attitude of the LL to what will unfold long term remains unclear and could still prove to be problematic.

The LL clubs rejected a change to the Club 42 relegation rule boundary at their recent AGM in the aftermath of Kelty or Brora not getting a playoff against Brechin City this year.

Edited August 13, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[FairWeatherFan]

3 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

The SPFL seem to have been OK with three feeders when Option Z was up for discussion in a PWG context back in January.

The SPFL were not part of the PWG discussions, unless you're trying to say Rod Petrie was even though he didn't sit on any SPFL boards at the time. The four suggestions were just ideas to work towards if there was enough support from within the PWG, which is why part of the feedback process the other leagues could make additional suggestions.

[Marten]

The SPFL seem to have been OK with three feeders when Option Z was up for discussion in a PWG context back in January. There were indications in the media that a boundary shift to please the Angus SPFL clubs was anticipated at that point and Option Z would have provided that with an HL (NCL + north region), LL East (EoS + east region) and LL West (SoS + west region) pyramid arrangement feeding into the Club 42 playoff.
The LL did not agree to split, which they had to do to eliminate the EoS effective veto over the LL tier 6 promotion playoff format, so that got nowhere. The WoS had to be pursued instead to get the west region clubs in after things reached a complete impasse between the LL/EoS and the SJFA on what to do next. That left the remaining east region clubs out in the cold.
This leaves Tayside in limbo to a significant extent, because the HL is still only negotiating with the NCL + north region and Tayside seemingly never even rates a mention as a future possibility in that context. The SFA, HL and SPFL appear to want Tayside to go south, the EoS appear open to voting on applications from Tayside clubs after Luncarty got in despite being marginally north of the Club 42 relegation rule boundary, but the attitude of the LL to what will unfold long term remains unclear and could still prove to be problematic.
The LL clubs rejected a change to the Club 42 relegation rule boundary at their recent AGM in the aftermath of Kelty or Brora not getting a playoff against Brechin City this year.

The SPFL have NEVER been open to 3 tier 5 feeders. They originally only wanted one feeder, but accepted two as a compromise. They've made very clear more won't be accepted. For that reason "option Z" was a non-starter and shouldn't have been suggested by the SJFA / WRJFA. Whatever the LL thought of it was really irrelevant because it was never seriously on the table. Stop peddling these lies.

[LongTimeLurker]

11 minutes ago, Marten said:

....They've made very clear more won't be accepted....

Can you point me to a source of information to back that up?

[Cyclizine]

56 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Can you point me to a source of information to back that up?

Or alternatively, can you point to one where the SPFL have said they would consider three feeders?

Edited August 13, 2020 by Cyclizine

[Marten]

Can you point me to a source of information to back that up?

You have literally made stuff up that's entirely baseless and you ask me for proof... [emoji849]

[Cyclizine]

1 minute ago, Marten said:

You have literally made stuff up that's entirely baseless and you ask me for proof...

Classic LTL...

He's blocked me anyway as I am ironically supposedly wasting his time, so he won't see my question.

[FairWeatherFan]

12 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

Classic LTL...

He's blocked me anyway as I am ironically supposedly wasting his time, so he won't see my question.

He's got a bunch of people on ignore, but still ends up commenting on things they say. Which is why I find it funny when he says you're going on his list.

[LongTimeLurker]

20 minutes ago, Marten said:

You have literally made stuff up that's entirely baseless and you ask me for proof...

I can easily dig up the urls for the media stories from back in January related to the boundary shift and the info related to Option Z. I'll take your bluster on this as a sign that you can't do something similar. The idea that the SFA would even raise Option Z without sounding out the HL and SPFL about it first is bizarre, but you and others on here clearly seem to believe that's how they would operate.

Edited August 13, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[FairWeatherFan]

3 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

I can easily dig up the urls for the media stories from back in January related to the boundary shift and the info related to Option Z. I'll take your bluster on this as a sign that you can't do something similar. The idea that the SFA would even raise Option Z without sounding out the HL and SPFL about it first is bizarre, but you and others on here clearly seem to believe that's how they would operate.

Can you find something other than this? Since that was the only media report I remeber at the time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51111688

Which amounted to explaining what the HL/LL boundary, quotes from the old Montrose chairman which may have been lifted from around the time of Montrose competing in the 1st SPFL Playoff and one sentence which was debunked at the time.

Quote

But it could be altered after a Hampden meeting between all relevant bodies on 29 January.

The meeting on 29 January being the last PWG meeting which didn't have SPFL or HL representation. And going into it the SFA had asked the LL, EoSFL, SoSFL, and SJFA to provide feedback from their members on what they thought it should be. So was nothing more than trying to find some sort of consensus.

[Cyclizine]

22 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

I can easily dig up the urls for the media stories...

Go on then.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Cyclizine

[Stag Nation]

42 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

I can easily dig up the urls for the media stories from back in January related to the boundary shift and the info related to Option Z. I'll take your bluster on this as a sign that you can't do something similar. The idea that the SFA would even raise Option Z without sounding out the HL and SPFL about it first is bizarre, but you and others on here clearly seem to believe that's how they would operate.

SFA act bizarrely? Yes, hard to believe.

[FairWeatherFan]

On the SPFL and HL being sounded out on Option Z front. Nothing had been heard or suggested about that idea in advance of the PWG meeting in December. In fact nothing had really been heard on the PWG front since the 4 way playoff idea was shot down earlier in the year.

Then when the meeting came around there was no "meat on the bones" of the proposal. What had shifted from an SFA perspective that they would allow another 16 clubs voting rights after limiting those rights months at the 2019 SFA AGM. How would the SPFL League Cup and SPFL Challenge Cup be restructured? How would any SPFL Playoff work?

Fairly obvious questions of significant importance to those involved. Yet there was never anything said on that front. Almost as if it was a compromise thrown out during the discussion hoping to find some consensus.

1. West Region only enter = LL & EoSFL proposal which SJFA objects as it doesn't resolve the East Region..
2. EoS Premier, SoSFL, East Region Super, West Premiership at Tier 6 =  SJFA & SoSFL fine with it but LL & EoSFL had already rejected it.
3. West Region at Tier 6 and East Region at Tier 7 feeding into EoS Premier = SFA compromise one to get all the Juniors into the pyramid at same time. EoSFL object as they don't want the East Region as a feeder
4. 3 Region Tier 5 with West Region & SoSFL feeding the West of Scotland and the East Region & EoSFL feeding the East of Scotland = SFA compromise hoping to resolve the issue in the East.

EDIT: Just to add the "SPFL" were okay with SPFL3, Colts in general, and the Celtic/Rangers Colts in SPFL2 trial with no relegation. Except when the "SPFL" went to its members they weren't having it.

Edited August 13, 2020 by FairWeatherFan

[LongTimeLurker]

20 minutes ago, Stag Nation said:

SFA act bizarrely? Yes, hard to believe.

It's easy to make a cheap jibe like that and pretend you are saying something profound. We are not talking about Tom Johnston and the SJFA here, but about people who are capable of behaving in a professional manner and who would otherwise be employable in a professional setting.

Edited August 13, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[prodcast]

I am surprised to read here that the LL-HL boundary/catchments is/are still being discussed by the administrations as I thought that was settled years ago.

For my part, the 'lowland' name has always seemed cosmetic since it doesn't approximate the Highland Boundary, which is about a line from Dumbarton to Stonehaven, and the LL includes/is fed by the Southern Uplands.

All of which seemed moot, but maybe not now...?