Highland Pyramid

[welshbairn]

12 minutes ago, prodcast said:

 

What l have in mind is the current north juniors' top tier, which has or had fewer teams/games than the HL but a similar catchment area, being a suitable intermediate step for clubs promoted from various district leagues - such as the North Caley, the current north junior second tier with its parallel sub-regions, and the Tayside juniors (all feeding in, therefore, at tier 7) - to progress through on their way to the HL.

But I suspect the Tayside juniors will go south because player recruitment may be easier for them.

That would be shite for the NCL, their winners having to play nearly all their away games in Aberdeenshire. I don't think anybody wants that, including the North Junior Superleague. Anyway, the NCL are furthest forward with negotiating for a tier 6 slot, the North Juniors seem distinctly unenthusiastic but that could be changing with Junior football rapidly diminishing in the South.

Edited August 14, 2020 by welshbairn

[GNU_Linux]

Didn't Golspie try & install floodlights a few years back but got nimby'ed by the houses adjacent to the ground?

[FairWeatherFan]

19 minutes ago, prodcast said:

 

What l have in mind is the current north juniors' top tier, which has or had fewer teams/games than the HL but a similar catchment area, being a suitable intermediate step for clubs promoted from various district leagues - such as the North Caley, the current north junior second tier with its parallel sub-regions, and the Tayside juniors (all feeding in, therefore, at tier 7) - to progress through on their way to the HL.

But I suspect the Tayside juniors will go south because player recruitment may be easier for them.

Clubs have taken the step up from the NCL to the Highland League in previous years. The NCL also covers a widespread travel wise even if it is just the Highlands and going forward is going to have to accomodate a 24 game league season.

15 minutes ago, prodcast said:

So does that leave the question open as to why they were not invited to replace Cove, but Banks o'Dee were?

No.

Banks O'dee = Do you want to join our league?

Golspie Sutherland = Do you want to join our league by spending thousands of £s and the possiblity of not getting planning permission.

Its the difference of being invited to a wedding. Only to find its a destination wedding  and having to pay for all the expenses yourself.

[Jacksgranda]

41 minutes ago, Jimmy Shaker said:

Banks O'Dee were asked because we all knew they'd say no. 

IMO. 

[prodcast]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

That would be shite for the NCL, their winners having to play nearly all their away games in Aberdeenshire. I don't think anybody wants that, including the North Junior Superleague. Anyway, the NCL are furthest forward with negotiating for a tier 6 slot, the North Juniors seem distinctly unenthusiastic but that could be changing with Junior football rapidly diminishing in the South.

Okay. My memory is of the second tier of the north juniors being regionalised, so Golspie for example wouldn't have had to travel all about Aberdeenshire at that level - although they ultimately may as part of the HL. I had thought the Tayside juniors would fit into that regionalised second level alongside Brechin and Montrose juniors. But l seem to be way off.

1 hour ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Clubs have taken the step up from the NCL to the Highland League in previous years. The NCL also covers a widespread travel wise even if it is just the Highlands and going forward is going to have to accomodate a 24 game league season.

No.

Banks O'dee = Do you want to join our league?

Golspie Sutherland = Do you want to join our league by spending thousands of £s and the possiblity of not getting planning permission.

Its the difference of being invited to a wedding. Only to find its a destination wedding  and having to pay for all the expenses yourself.

From memory, Banks o'Dee had applied and been rejected in the past - possibly why they were contacted first; maybe why they said no.

On that petty note, did LTL suggest earlier that the LL had rejected a change proposed by the SPFL (on where Club 42 would be relegated to) because the SPFL cancelled the pyramid play off this season? Or am I muck-raking in conspiracies?

[FairWeatherFan]

11 minutes ago, prodcast said:

From memory, Banks o'Dee had applied and been rejected in the past - possibly why they were contacted first; maybe why they said no.

Formartine United kicked off a number of clubs applying to the Highland League for the 2009-10 season. Four clubs ended up making it official and the Highland League decided to accept 3 to become an 18 team league once again.

The 15 Highland League clubs at the time each had 3 votes to fill the 3 spots. Banks O'Dee only got 5/15 votes. BoD were seen as the best overall candidate, but were also seen as the least interested and put in the least amount of effort.

11 minutes ago, prodcast said:

On that petty note, did LTL suggest earlier that the LL had rejected a change proposed by the SPFL (on where Club 42 would be relegated to) because the SPFL cancelled the pyramid play off this season? Or am I muck-raking in conspiracies?

Nobody knows why they rejected it, but as this was happening around the time of the SPFL play-off being cancelled its not like there was any kind of encouragement to accept a change.

It went to a membership vote at the LL AGM and its rejection was well supported. There's probably a mix of reasons and not just one that saw its rejection. Its not as simple as being petty.

As examples of some of the factors they would have considered: Lowland League clubs have increased probability of relegation to balance the league at 16 with no greater chance of promotion.  Lowland League clubs also take on extra travel costs for nothing in return.

If anyone is being petty its the SPFL are meant to have put pressure on the Lowland League by threatening to remove Lowland League club invitations to the SPFL League and Challenge Cups.

[prodcast]

2 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Formartine United kicked off a number of clubs applying to the Highland League for the 2009-10 season. Four clubs ended up making it official and the Highland League decided to accept 3 to become an 18 team league once again.

The 15 Highland League clubs at the time each had 3 votes to fill the 3 spots. Banks O'Dee only got 5/15 votes. BoD were seen as the best overall candidate, but were also seen as the least interested and put in the least amount of effort.

Good knowledge. 

Sorry to be petty myself, but 3 votes each for 15 clubs would be 45 votes in total. I take it Banks o'Dee received 5/45.

2 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Nobody knows why they rejected it, but as this was happening around the time of the SPFL play-off being cancelled its not like there was any kind of encouragement to accept a change.

It went to a membership vote at the LL AGM and its rejection was well supported. There's probably a mix of reasons and not just one that saw its rejection. Its not as simple as being petty.

As examples of some of the factors they would have considered: Lowland League clubs have increased probability of relegation to balance the league at 16 with no greater chance of promotion.  Lowland League clubs also take on extra travel costs for nothing in return.

If anyone is being petty its the SPFL are meant to have put pressure on the Lowland League by threatening to remove Lowland League club invitations to the SPFL League and Challenge Cups.

Going by the possible reasons you give, it seems unlikely the Tayside clubs will be welcomed in the EoS/LL.

[Dev]

5 hours ago, GNU_Linux said:

Didn't Golspie try & install floodlights a few years back but got nimby'ed by the houses adjacent to the ground?

They re-applied and now have planning permission for flood-lights. Presumably they will be going up soon so they can keep their licence?

[FairWeatherFan]

8 minutes ago, prodcast said:

Good knowledge. 

Sorry to be petty myself, but 3 votes each for 15 clubs would be 45 votes in total. I take it Banks o'Dee received 5/45.

15 voting members with 3 votes for 3 teams from 4 applicants. Maximum number of votes any one club can receive is 15.

[welshbairn]

14 minutes ago, prodcast said:

Sorry to be petty myself, but 3 votes each for 15 clubs would be 45 votes in total. I take it Banks o'Dee received 5/45.

I'll outdo your pettiness in pointing out that each club could vote for them only once, so they got 5 votes out of a maximum of 15.

P.S. Pettiness overload!

Edited August 14, 2020 by welshbairn

[LongTimeLurker]

3 hours ago, prodcast said:

....On that petty note, did LTL suggest earlier that the LL had rejected a change proposed by the SPFL (on where Club 42 would be relegated to) because the SPFL cancelled the pyramid play off this season? Or am I muck-raking in conspiracies?

All I said was that it wasn't surprising it got knocked back given that backdrop. Didn't want to imply I was in the loop enough to know for sure.

Things to note on how the LL is getting along with the SFA at the moment are that the LL received zero backing publicly from the SFA after George Fraser stated in interviews that the Club 42 playoff was an SFA competition rather than an SPFL one when trying to find a way in for Kelty, and that the LL were eventually told by the SFA that they had to use the west superleague 2019-20 table to determine the composition of a single tier 6 WoS division for 2020-21 after initially wanting to run four parallel conferences with all 67 teams.

The latter came after WoS clubs were allowed to retain SJFA membership and continue to enter the Junior Cup in what looked like a possible SFA intervention behind the scenes to potentially enable the new WoS to effectively be the west region (continuing). EoS linked posters on here seemed less than gruntled at the time that the west region was advising all members to apply rather than having the WoS as an anti-SJFA breakaway. If the WoS clubs now proceed to vote in SJFA linked officeholders and the north region becomes a tier 6 feeder for the HL, the SJFA will be embedded in the pyramid both north and south for better or worse (I lean more towards the latter posture).

Where am I going with this? Although the LL knocked it back this time, it's not necessarily the end of the story, if the rest of Scottish football wants a particular set of changes to be made badly enough. The footballing world doesn't revolve entirely around what the LL and EoS want. It's possible that the LL are simply holding out for something in exchange with automatic relegation of Club 42 being the obvious item for their agenda.

Edited August 14, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[prodcast]

1 hour ago, FairWeatherFan said:

15 voting members with 3 votes for 3 teams from 4 applicants. Maximum number of votes any one club can receive is 15.

Hehe - I see it now. Apologies.

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

I'll outdo your pettiness in pointing out that each club could vote for them only once, so they got 5 votes out of a maximum of 15.

P.S. Pettiness overload!

Touche!

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

All I said was that it wasn't surprising it got knocked back given that backdrop. Didn't want to imply I was in the loop enough to know for sure.

Things to note on how the LL is getting along with the SFA at the moment are that the LL received zero backing publicly from the SFA after George Fraser stated in interviews that the Club 42 playoff was an SFA competition rather than an SPFL one when trying to find a way in for Kelty, and that the LL were eventually told by the SFA that they had to use the west superleague 2019-20 table to determine the composition of a single tier 6 WoS division for 2020-21 after initially wanting to run four parallel conferences with all 67 teams.

The latter came after WoS clubs were allowed to retain SJFA membership and continue to enter the Junior Cup in what looked like a possible SFA intervention behind the scenes to potentially enable the new WoS to effectively be the west region (continuing). EoS linked posters on here seemed less than gruntled at the time that the west region was advising all members to apply rather than having the WoS as an anti-SJFA breakaway. If the WoS clubs now proceed to vote in SJFA linked officeholders and the north region becomes a tier 6 feeder for the HL, the SJFA will be embedded in the pyramid both north and south for better or worse (I lean more towards the latter posture).

Where am I going with this? Although the LL knocked it back this time, it's not necessarily the end of the story, if the rest of Scottish football wants a particular set of changes to be made badly enough. The footballing world doesn't revolve entirely around what the LL and EoS want. It's possible that the LL are simply holding out for something in exchange with automatic relegation of Club 42 being the obvious item for their agenda.

Your wording was fine, I think.

I don't like the politics of the LL holding out for something in exchange, but it may be preferable to them shunning Tayside/Angus clubs on the basis of travel costs or of increased competition - if LL clubs have genuine aspirations to play nationally, that is.

I wonder if a smaller LL division for the more ambitious clubs would help bring about the necessary changes: automatic relegation from the SPFL, moving the 'boundary' north, and enabling a Midland or Tayside division to feed in below, via play offs.

[Robert James]

9 hours ago, Dev said:

They re-applied and now have planning permission for flood-lights. Presumably they will be going up soon so they can keep their licence?

Correct.  Installation work should commence in the autumn.

Golspie have been SFA Members since the 1960's, and have no intention of losing their licence.

 

14 hours ago, welshbairn said:

That would be shite for the NCL, their winners having to play nearly all their away games in Aberdeenshire. I don't think anybody wants that, including the North Junior Superleague. Anyway, the NCL are furthest forward with negotiating for a tier 6 slot, the North Juniors seem distinctly unenthusiastic but that could be changing with Junior football rapidly diminishing in the South.

 

The NCL will not become a feeder league below the North Juniors.. Neither the North Caley clubs, nor the North Juniors would support this suggestion, which is impractical on both travelling and financial. grounds.

 

[Marten]

20 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

All in the original post. There were media reports that the boundary issue was possibly about to get sorted in favour of the Angus SPFL clubs at around the same time that the SFA asked the various LL feeder related negotiation parties to consider and canvas opinion on Option Z through the PWG process. That boundary shift could only happen through an agreement involving the SPFL, SFA, HL and LL, so it is reasonable to infer that the SFA and SPFL would have been in close contact about what was happening and given the timing that Option Z was designed to be the magic bullet that fixed several pyramid related issues quickly all at once (i.e. how to get the three junior regions in with the SJFA still intact and move Tayside south). That's never been explicitly stated anywhere in mainstream media terms, so I was careful to use wording to highlight that it was based on inference. When the PWG process went tits up is likely to be when the SPFL tried to strongarm the LL into still agreeing the boundary shift in the manner described by George Fraser.

I'm sorry, but I don't think your logic makes sense. Option Z was included on request of the SJFA. To then assume it was discussed with the SPFL is not a conclusion you can draw imo. Knowing the SFA, it's imo very unlikely that they consulted the SPFL about this at any stage. They have shown to not understand much about non-league football and the rules involved, so I highly doubt that would suddenly change.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Marten

[LongTimeLurker]

What's your source for the assertion that Option Z was included at the request of the SJFA? Are you aware of the extent to which the SPFL is represented on the SFA board:

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43410242

https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/organisation/strategy-structure/who-we-are/board-committees/

Senior SPFL people are present at SFA board meetings, so the left hand inherently knows what the right hand is doing in this context. Consulting the SPFL isn't difficult when Neil Doncaster is sitting in on the SFA's internal decision making board meetings and both organisations have Hampden as their HQ. Note also how Brechin City are repesented by their chairman Ken Ferguson on the SFA's professional game board as one of the SPFL representatives.

Edited August 15, 2020 by LongTimeLurker

[Jacksgranda]

16 hours ago, prodcast said:

Good knowledge. 

Sorry to be petty myself, but 3 votes each for 15 clubs would be 45 votes in total. I take it Banks o'Dee received 5/45.

Going by the possible reasons you give, it seems unlikely the Tayside clubs will be welcomed in the EoS/LL.

I took it to mean they could vote for 3 clubs to fill the 3 positions

[prodcast]

6 hours ago, Robert James said:

The NCL will not become a feeder league below the North Juniors.. Neither the North Caley clubs, nor the North Juniors would support this suggestion, which is impractical on both travelling and financial. grounds.

 

Would they both support being on a par with the Tayside clubs, all 3 areas being tier 6 feeders to the HL?

It seems to me that would be the consequence of the LL rejection of scrapping the HL-LL boundary, which has effectively blocked the EoS from folding the Tayside clubs in at, perhaps, tier 7.

 

[prodcast]

4 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said:

I took it to mean they could vote for 3 clubs to fill the 3 positions

Yeah - I'm not the brightest!

[Jacksgranda]

5 minutes ago, prodcast said:

Yeah - I'm not the brightest!

[LongTimeLurker]

31 minutes ago, prodcast said:

...It seems to me that would be the consequence of the LL rejection of scrapping the HL-LL boundary, which has effectively blocked the EoS from folding the Tayside clubs in at, perhaps, tier 7.

The EoS just voted in Luncarty who are north of the line in terms of their registered ground. According to patriot, who is linked to St Andrews United, this was justified by stating that the Tay Bridge midpoint line of latitude boundary on registered ground location only applies to Club 42 and that there are no geographical limits on who can apply to the EoS subject to a vote by the existing membership.

Edited August 15, 2020 by LongTimeLurker