Season over

[Che Dail]

19 minutes ago, sniffer said:

I don’t think it’s an offering I would say a decision the board has made and what is anyone to be grateful for ?
Are you looking for clubs to fail so the clubs trying to come into the league doesn’t compete against your club because it definitely sounds like it is.
We will also see what happens with planning.

Because there is no ruling or obligation on anyone to accept clubs into the league that don't meet the criteria - yours included.

It is being done in good faith and in an act of goodwill. 

Several clubs have already been knocked back - what's the point of having ground criteria if it isnt going to be applied? 

What's to stop every amateur club in the region coming forward and promising they'll meet the criteria at some point in future? 

Thornton didn't even meet the ERJFA ground criteria, and made no effort to upgrade the ground in the last 10 years despite getting planning permission so why should anyone believe you now?

You've shown on this thread a habit of making things up and exaggerating.

I want the clubs to succeed and be accepted in, but not to the detriment of existing clubs by coming in at the same level. You should be starting at the bottom like everyone else, that's all.

I'd suggest a bit of humility is required.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Che Dail

[Yankee123]

Some of these arguments and discussions are simply bonkers... 

I think we would be all in agreement back in July before the leagues kicked off, everything start off fair and square...the leagues were drawn based on historical data to ensure an equal split whilst accommodated league new comers...The last time i checked you obtain the same 3 points beating Tweedmouth or Craigroyston as you do if you beat a Tyncastle or Hutchie Vale...right? 

And that a Points per game ratio is established by winning football matches, and that those who win more football matches than the lose/draw (out of the games they managed to play) will simply have a better points per game ratio...win more of your matches (that were available to play) you deserve to be promoted. 

Any argument about teams that haven't played each other, or are in a so called "inferior" conference is just absolute nonsense. There are arguments on every page of a book thats never been written before...I will pick one example...the inter-conference debate, and i will use them as the example. Kinnoull...have played 8 inter conference games which include only 3 teams from the top half of conference B...drawing 1 vs. Preston (a team 11 points adrift in conf B)...and i use this is only 1 example of if's but's and why. 

Another would be the inter conference standings...where even less of a PPG ratio splits the teams in the running for promotion/play off's. 

My point is there is so many variables on this, two sided arguments etc and as a result the only option is to go back to absolute basics...which in this instance is PPG ratio. The board has stated, that no team will be worse off. Some teams will be better off through promotion (because they have won more games of football during the period in which it was not a risk to human life to do so) and the rest of the teams will be "no worse off"...i.e in exactly the same position they started the season!  

In the interest of consistency, reason (also putting everything into perspective at this moment and time) and also the relative short period of time we have to conclude, awarding promotion to those teams who have simply..won more games of football but ensuring the teams outwith this are not disadvantaged i.e no worse off than when the league started is (in my opinion) the only fair way to proceed and therefore it is rightly so that LTHV, Tyncastle & Inverkeithing are promoted. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Yankee123

[Anychance]

I would say after reading your post that null and void is the fairest way no team is worse off then and no team is disadvantaged then

[sniffer]

Because there is no ruling or obligation on anyone to accept clubs into the league that don't meet the criteria - yours included.
It is being done in good faith and in an act of goodwill. 
Several clubs have already been knocked back - what's the point of having ground criteria if it isnt going to be applied? 
What's to stop every amateur club in the region coming forward and promising they'll meet the criteria at some point in future? 
Thornton didn't even meet the ERJFA ground criteria, and made no effort to upgrade the ground in the last 10 years despite getting planning permission so why should anyone believe you now?
You've shown on this thread a habit of making things up and exaggerating.
I want the clubs to succeed and be accepted in, but not to the detriment of existing clubs by coming in at the same level. You should be starting at the bottom like everyone else, that's all.
I'd suggest a bit of humility is required.

Firstly can you tell me what clubs were knocked back, was it the clubs that never had a ground and never turned up to the meeting? I also find it difficult that a club established since 1935 didn’t meet the ersjfa criteria also let’s not talk about ground criteria or upgrades as I see peeble rovers and Inverkeithing hs don’t seem to make the criteria but still they seem to be ok and even maybe getting promoted.
You also talk about coming in at the same level was it not the case that the junior teams that went over two years ago came in at the same level with the original eos teams did you think that was fair.
Detriment to existing clubs comes to mind.
I think we will leave at that and agree to disagree.

[Ginaro]

55 minutes ago, Yankee123 said:

My point is there is so many variables on this, two sided arguments etc and as a result the only option is to go back to absolute basics...which in this instance is PPG ratio. The board has stated, that no team will be worse off. Some teams will be better off through promotion (because they have won more games of football during the period in which it was not a risk to human life to do so) and the rest of the teams will be "no worse off"...i.e in exactly the same position they started the season!  

In the interest of consistency, reason (also putting everything into perspective at this moment and time) and also the relative short period of time we have to conclude, awarding promotion to those teams who have simply..won more games of football but ensuring the teams outwith this are not disadvantaged i.e no worse off than when the league started is (in my opinion) the only fair way to proceed and therefore it is rightly so that LTHV, Tyncastle & Inverkeithing are promoted. 

There's so many variables and arguments with PPG in an incomplete season, that we should go back to absolute basics - which means using PPG?

[Guest]

Some of these arguments and discussions are simply bonkers... 
I think we would be all in agreement back in July before the leagues kicked off, everything start off fair and square...the leagues were drawn based on historical data to ensure an equal split whilst accommodated league new comers...The last time i checked you obtain the same 3 points beating Tweedmouth or Craigroyston as you do if you beat a Tyncastle or Hutchie Vale...right? 
And that a Points per game ratio is established by winning football matches, and that those who win more football matches than the lose/draw (out of the games they managed to play) will simply have a better points per game ratio...win more of your matches (that were available to play) you deserve to be promoted. 
Any argument about teams that haven't played each other, or are in a so called "inferior" conference is just absolute nonsense. There are arguments on every page of a book thats never been written before...I will pick one example...the inter-conference debate, and i will use them as the example. Kinnoull...have played 8 inter conference games which include only 3 teams from the top half of conference B...drawing 1 vs. Preston (a team 11 points adrift in conf B)...and i use this is only 1 example of if's but's and why. 
Another would be the inter conference standings...where even less of a PPG ratio splits the teams in the running for promotion/play off's. 
My point is there is so many variables on this, two sided arguments etc and as a result the only option is to go back to absolute basics...which in this instance is PPG ratio. The board has stated, that no team will be worse off. Some teams will be better off through promotion (because they have won more games of football during the period in which it was not a risk to human life to do so) and the rest of the teams will be "no worse off"...i.e in exactly the same position they started the season!  
In the interest of consistency, reason (also putting everything into perspective at this moment and time) and also the relative short period of time we have to conclude, awarding promotion to those teams who have simply..won more games of football but ensuring the teams outwith this are not disadvantaged i.e no worse off than when the league started is (in my opinion) the only fair way to proceed and therefore it is rightly so that LTHV, Tyncastle & Inverkeithing are promoted. 

Ppg does not account for any of the variables involved in a league season. If that is what is decided via the vote the clubs, like my own, will have to accept it and move on.

It doesn't treat everyone fairly, thats my own stance, and to describe the variables as nonsense isn't great either. Its easy to say its nonsense or its fair when it doesn't impact on your club.

I think just for kicks though, we should stop next season at the same time and award everything, relegation included, on ppg. [emoji13] (joking of course)

[John S]

Don't think there is any solution that treats everybody fairly

Ppg does not account for any of the variables involved in a league season. If that is what is decided via the vote the clubs, like my own, will have to accept it and move on.

It doesn't treat everyone fairly, thats my own stance, and to describe the variables as nonsense isn't great either. Its easy to say its nonsense or its fair when it doesn't impact on your club.

I think just for kicks though, we should stop next season at the same time and award everything, relegation included, on ppg. [emoji13] (joking of course)

[Anychance]

Look at kinnoull for example played only 17 games there PPG puts them 3rd most teams have played 20 odd that’s a big swing don’t think that’s fair on the teams like dunipace and Herriot watt

[Joe Exotic]

3 hours ago, Yankee123 said:

Some of these arguments and discussions are simply bonkers... 

I think we would be all in agreement back in July before the leagues kicked off, everything start off fair and square...the leagues were drawn based on historical data to ensure an equal split whilst accommodated league new comers...The last time i checked you obtain the same 3 points beating Tweedmouth or Craigroyston as you do if you beat a Tyncastle or Hutchie Vale...right? 

And that a Points per game ratio is established by winning football matches, and that those who win more football matches than the lose/draw (out of the games they managed to play) will simply have a better points per game ratio...win more of your matches (that were available to play) you deserve to be promoted. 

Any argument about teams that haven't played each other, or are in a so called "inferior" conference is just absolute nonsense. There are arguments on every page of a book thats never been written before...I will pick one example...the inter-conference debate, and i will use them as the example. Kinnoull...have played 8 inter conference games which include only 3 teams from the top half of conference B...drawing 1 vs. Preston (a team 11 points adrift in conf B)...and i use this is only 1 example of if's but's and why. 

Another would be the inter conference standings...where even less of a PPG ratio splits the teams in the running for promotion/play off's. 

My point is there is so many variables on this, two sided arguments etc and as a result the only option is to go back to absolute basics...which in this instance is PPG ratio. The board has stated, that no team will be worse off. Some teams will be better off through promotion (because they have won more games of football during the period in which it was not a risk to human life to do so) and the rest of the teams will be "no worse off"...i.e in exactly the same position they started the season!  

In the interest of consistency, reason (also putting everything into perspective at this moment and time) and also the relative short period of time we have to conclude, awarding promotion to those teams who have simply..won more games of football but ensuring the teams outwith this are not disadvantaged i.e no worse off than when the league started is (in my opinion) the only fair way to proceed and therefore it is rightly so that LTHV, Tyncastle & Inverkeithing are promoted. 

100% agree. PPG is the fairest way based on what we know and not what we think we know.

F4ck Carole Baskin 

Edited April 20, 2020 by Joe Exotic

[snowball]

How would it look if it was ppg just on own conference?

[gaz5]

100% agree. PPG is the fairest way based on what we know and not what we think we know.
F4ck Carole Baskin 

It's not a fair way at all, never mind "the fairest". [emoji846]

It's a better option than void because Tynecastle shouldn't be punished when they were certainly going up, I'm pleased about that if nothing else, but PPG when teams have played different fixtures to each other (and some teams haven't played each other even once yet) and are so close to each other is not "fair".

It will benefit some and disadvantage others in the conference's. It will benefit some and disadvantage others at the top of the Premier and LL as well.

If it didn't disadvantage anyone, we'd have Relegation based on it as well as promotion, but we don't, because that wouldn't be "fair" on the relegated clubs.

It is what it is. A method for drawing a line under the season that will benefit some and disadvantage others. It seems that limiting the teams disadvantaged is the goal, so ourselves, Leith, Kinnoull, Glenrothes, HoB and Bonnyrigg will just need to suck it up.

[Toebash1]

24 minutes ago, snowball said:

How would it look if it was ppg just on own conference?

LTHV would win Conf A 

Tynecastle would win Conf B 

[Che Dail]

4 hours ago, sniffer said:

Firstly can you tell me what clubs were knocked back, was it the clubs that never had a ground and never turned up to the meeting? I also find it difficult that a club established since 1935 didn’t meet the ersjfa criteria also let’s not talk about ground criteria or upgrades as I see peeble rovers and Inverkeithing hs don’t seem to make the criteria but still they seem to be ok and even maybe getting promoted.
You also talk about coming in at the same level was it not the case that the junior teams that went over two years ago came in at the same level with the original eos teams did you think that was fair.
Detriment to existing clubs comes to mind.
I think we will leave at that and agree to disagree.

Make up you mind -  do you want me to answer all your questions or just leave it at that?

You probably have no idea about the league history having just started to become interested - but Peebles  have been EoS members for years and enjoy grandfather rights - so you're in no position to criticise them or Inverkeithing who do in fact have a fence around the ground - but who were also members before the influx of Junior clubs.

I think the Juniors moving over two years absolutely would have accepted being placed in Conferences below the existing members.  They were in no position to dictate anything, just like the situation you are in now.  At that time it was the existing members who decided the new structure and format for the new season, and for good reason they opted to allow the new clubs in at the same level - it was a sensible and logical approach at the time.  

However, it would have been reasonable to expect that this season would have been the last of it and anyone else wishing to join would have to fill in at the lowest tier, and it would be reasonable to expect them all to accept that and 'get on with it' as you put it - if that's what the clubs were to decide.

 

[Che Dail]

4 hours ago, John S said:

Don't think there is any solution that treats everybody fairly

I think re-thinking the structure and going Premier / First / Second treats everybody fairly, and respects their efforts on the park over the last 2 seasons.

In the proposal attached nobody is relegated from the Premier. The two conference champions get promoted (and hopefully so will Bo'ness to LL, if common sense prevails) - Tynecastle clear winners, LTHV on PPG and on balance deserved, based on their efforts this season and generally over the past last few years, I think.

Those chasing promotion and missing out: Inverkeithing / Leith / Dunipace / Kinnoull - at least they're getting a 'promotion' of sorts, into a stronger league - and in effect, a better chance of promotion to the Premier next season competing in the one division.  This is better for attracting players and supporters alike who want to play and watch a better standard.

The recurring point / question, 'is it fair on the bottom 6 clubs from this season?'  Maybe it's a blessing as they would be alongside clubs of similar ability based on placings in the last 2 seasons.  Other than Easthouses, they all finished in the bottom 4 in the 1st season of Conferences as well as this season: Arniston / Peebles / Hawick / Tweedmouth / Eyemouth / Craigroyston.    With the greatest of respect to all those clubs, I think it is fair that after 2 seasons of pretty much identical performance they should find themselves in a lower division.

And the current / former Junior clubs - not one of them currently meets the ground criteria, and only one (Kennoway) actually played in the 'real' Juniors Super League before the big clubs quit.  By all means they should be admitted to the league, but is it unfair in any way whatsoever to ask them to start in a bottom tier?  

Hopefully there is an opportunity for clubs to pick an alternative to the single option being put forward.  If they decide to go with more of the same, fair enough - at least ask the question.  

Edited April 20, 2020 by Che Dail

[LongTimeLurker]

It would be unfair and unprofessional to move the goalposts after publicly announcing that there would be tier 7 conferences again before the application deadline. You lost the vote on that issue. Deal with it and move on. Any West Lothian entrants at the end of next season will be at tier 8, so you are getting what you want in the not too distant future.

[Che Dail]

15 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

It would be unfair and unprofessional to move the goalposts after publicly announcing that there would be tier 7 conferences again before the application deadline. You lost the vote on that issue. Deal with it and move on. Any West Lothian entrants at the end of next season will be at tier 8, so you are getting what you want in the not too distant future.

Well I disagree. The vote was done 3/4 of the way through the season and in the end it hinged on a single vote. 

Clubs were voting based on the outcome of a whole season, as some were vying for promotion. But Coronavirus changes everything - it has brought the season to a immediate stop and clubs are now losing out while others have inevitably gained.

All I'm saying is, if there's a chance for a rethink, it should be taken.

 

[Stoosh83]

What about the fact if they decide to relegate 5 teams next year, then the teams finishing 8th in the conferences miss out on a 1st division. When it was voted in that the top 8 would qualify?

[Che Dail]

7 minutes ago, Stoosh83 said:

What about the fact if they decide to relegate 5 teams next year, then the teams finishing 8th in the conferences miss out on a 1st division. When it was voted in that the top 8 would qualify?

If I understand your point correctly... they would only relegate 3 if Bo'ness are promoted now (and it becomes an 17 team league) with 4th bottom facing a playoff.

Premier needs to be brought back to a 16 team league the following season regardless.

In any case, the detail around promotion and relegation can be agreed - the principal is that the structure reverts to Premier / First / Second.

[Burnieman]

16 minutes ago, Stoosh83 said:

What about the fact if they decide to relegate 5 teams next year, then the teams finishing 8th in the conferences miss out on a 1st division. When it was voted in that the top 8 would qualify?

Just to add some fact to the debate and this particular point, there was never a definition of who would or wouldn't qualify for the First Division from the Conferences as at that point (1st February), they clearly didn't know how many clubs were joining and therefore didn't know how big the First Division would be ie 12, 14 or 16 clubs.

8th place was used as an example of what might happen if 6 new clubs joined the EoS.

Edited April 20, 2020 by Burnieman

[Guest]

It would be unfair and unprofessional to move the goalposts after publicly announcing that there would be tier 7 conferences again before the application deadline. You lost the vote on that issue. Deal with it and move on. Any West Lothian entrants at the end of next season will be at tier 8, so you are getting what you want in the not too distant future.

The whole landscape has changed since the vote, in such circumstances it wouldn't be unusual to see the vote recast with the new impact of the promotion without relegation added into the information clubs will use to choose their path.

In essence, clubs voted based on a normal season this year with both promotion and relegation into and out of the Premier league at the end of this season and next season, it looks ever more likely this will not be the case, having fundamentally changed due to covid and only promoting this year.

It would make sense, under the circumstances, to put the vote back to clubs with a clear outline of what impact promotion only this year will make on the amount of clubs forming a first division next season.

Whilst it was never set out what position clubs would have to finish to get into the first division after a normal season when the vote was cast, it was pretty clear you were looking at a 16 team division which meant that top 8 was what you were aiming for, that now seems to have changed.