Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I just think the approach is a bit negative.
Football should be about incentives and rewards - You start the season wanting to finish as high up the league as possible, and hope that it is recognised and results in a positive outcome. 
Nobody sets out hoping not to be punished.
There's now an opportunity to reverse a poor decision and reward the highest placed clubs who thought they'd be playing for a place in a 1st division and not another season of conferences.
Otherwise the bottom placed clubs get exactly the same reward as those finishing 2nd, 3rd and 4th: nothing.

Your being negative just now by moaning about what has been decided, the management committee have a job to do whether you think it’s right or wrong, just accept it and move on.
Now we can think of the positives for next season if there is one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sniffer said:


Your being negative just now by moaning about what has been decided, the management committee have a job to do whether you think it’s right or wrong, just accept it and move on.
Now we can think of the positives for next season if there is one.

I do think it is wrong.

It is a decision which, in hindsight, appears to serve aspiring appliant members before existing ones, along with others filling the bottom places in the 2nd year of conferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if no promotion happens in the lowland/Eos leagues it’s a total mockery of the pyramid system, 

teams entered into this and have to get licences to be part of the SFA to get into lowland so why should the whole system be promotions in the top leagues and not in the lower leagues. 
surely there must be a same across the board situation or surely the pyramid system and SFA Licence system is flawed and unworkable. 
mad for the lowland league and EOS leagues not being together on this again is totally puzzling, isn’t there member of each organisation on each other’s boards ?? 

it’s like having 6 children and only giving Xmas presents to 4 of them ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, buloyal said:

I think if no promotion happens in the lowland/Eos leagues it’s a total mockery of the pyramid system, 

teams entered into this and have to get licences to be part of the SFA to get into lowland so why should the whole system be promotions in the top leagues and not in the lower leagues. 
surely there must be a same across the board situation or surely the pyramid system and SFA Licence system is flawed and unworkable. 
mad for the lowland league and EOS leagues not being together on this again is totally puzzling, isn’t there member of each organisation on each other’s boards ?? 

it’s like having 6 children and only giving Xmas presents to 4 of them ! 

Spot on! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

My personal view is that the Board has got their recommendation as near to a fair solution as was possible in the current circumstances.

The aim will have been to avoid punishing any individual club unfairly.

By "punishing", I mean, putting into effect a relegation that was previously just a risk of relegation.

At the top end of the tables, I don't have an issue in designating champion clubs on a PPG basis, allowing the nominated clubs to be considered for promotion

For the chasing clubs, they have lost out on a "potential" title winning or promotion promotion place.  I don't see that as a "punishment" per se, more like the loss of an opportunity.  I don't consider it as bad as losing your current status in the League

I think the proposals, as a package, represents the best and fairest result that could be achieved for all clubs in the circumstances that the League finds itself.  Some clubs will have gained a little, while others have lost a little, but no-one has been "punished" unfairly. 

Spot on mate, 100% agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

My personal view is that the Board has got their recommendation as near to a fair solution as was possible in the current circumstances.

The aim will have been to avoid punishing any individual club unfairly.

By "punishing", I mean, putting into effect a relegation that was previously just a risk of relegation.

At the top end of the tables, I don't have an issue in designating champion clubs on a PPG basis, allowing the nominated clubs to be considered for promotion

For the chasing clubs, they have lost out on a "potential" title winning or promotion promotion place.  I don't see that as a "punishment" per se, more like the loss of an opportunity.  I don't consider it as bad as losing your current status in the League

I think the proposals, as a package, represents the best and fairest result that could be achieved for all clubs in the circumstances that the League finds itself.  Some clubs will have gained a little, while others have lost a little, but no-one has been "punished" unfairly. 

Couldn't have put it better maself! 
 

F*ck Carole Baskin......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The board have to do something which I don’t envy there will be winners and losers. The biggest winners will be the three teams avoiding relegation plus Bo’ness if they get promoted to the Lowland league.  At the moment that is a big IF, as they are not yet licensed and the LL have not said anything concrete on promotion just no relegation. The three biggest losers as it stands are Tynecastle who were certainties for promotion (May still happen) plus Broxburn and HOB.  They both had better PPG’s than BU in 2020 and will now probably have to wait at least 5 years to get promoted to the LL unless the LL opens up more spots (WOS Teams will dominate the current play offs over the next few years).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Blowin In the Wind said:
The three biggest losers as it stands are Tynecastle who were certainties for promotion (May still happen) plus Broxburn and HOB.  They both had better PPG’s than BU in 2020 and will now probably have to wait at least 5 years to get promoted to the LL unless the LL opens up more spots (WOS Teams will dominate the current play offs over the next few years).


Tynecastle aren’t losers at all though as, should the board proposal be carried as I suspect it will given that I feel it the best option available, they will be promoted. I think you’re being unnecessarily pessimistic over the play-off possibilities against the WoSFL teams, they will be strong but so too will yourselves, Linlithgow Rose (eventually) and Penicuik Athletic amongst others.

Edited by Black & Red Socks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there an opportunity now to have another look at the structure for next season?   18 Premier / 16 First / 16 Second 
On basic sporting principles and fairness Bo'ness should get promoted, so it actually would be 17/16/16.
This way, no clubs are relegated from the Premier (rightly or wrongly). 
Tynecastle are promoted as clear 'B' winners, with LTHV winning 'A' on PPG.  
The top placed Conference clubs are at the very least rewarded with a 'promotion' of sorts, avoiding another season of Conferences... and the new clubs come in to a new division - the Fife neebors kept together.
Plenty promotion (green) relegation (red) and play-off (orange) opportunities.  Competitive leagues with lots to play for.
Any thoughts?
2032676462_EoSLeague2020.thumb.jpg.6126e5364fb53c63747c72519a686a75.jpg

Great proposal fair for all teams unable to compete for promotion to the premier

New teams I think would join in at any level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I like this as a proposal, it would allow for competitive keagues in all divisions and clubs narrowly missing out would get a promotion of sorts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not so great for those clubs who would find themselves in tier 8 as opposed to tier 7 next season. They would be getting needlessly punished.

I wanted Premier-First-Second for next season when there was still a chance that clubs hovering around the cut-off point in the Conferences had a chance to influence where they would end up. They don't have that chance now.

So instead of potentially challenging for a Premier spot, it would be First Division.

There's no perfect solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





... when there was still a chance that clubs hovering around the cut-off point in the Conferences had a chance to influence where they would end up. They don't have that chance now.

So instead of potentially challenging for a Premier spot, it would be First Division.


Isn't that exactly what you've been arguing was ok the last two days?

It's a valid point you make though.

Looking at the league tables, assuming Bo'ness go up and thus Inverkeithing, I think that would mean 2-9 in Conference A and 3-10 in Conference B would make up the first division?

Ormiston, Peebles & Craigroyston from A would miss out, Eadthouses & Arniston from B (on position, Hawick on PPG). Joined by 10 new teams in a single T8 for a 15 team league.

In conference A: Played / Points

BurntIsland 20 / 29
Ormiston 19 / 13
Peebles 20 / 8
Craigroyston 25 / 3

None of those realistically were bridging that gap. BurntIsland have more than double they points and would have pulled further away. They were in a false spot for me. The top 8 in Conference A could all beat each other in their days.

In conference B: Played / Points
Hawick 25 / 15
Easthouses 18 / 12
Arniston 22 / 9

Easthouses (or Hawick on PPG) and Arniston could have made that up in remaining fixtures, you're right.

So, simple solution to make sure any teams who could have bridged the gap don't miss out, do 18 for a season, like the premier, and relegate 5 instead of 3, running a 13 team T8. Include Hawick, Easthouses & Arniston.

Not saying it's perfect by any means or advocating for it (I do think it's a better middle ground than what has been proposed) but that covers you're (very valid) point about teams could have bridged the gap to make the first (just as we've been discussing the last few days at the other end of the table)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





Isn't that exactly what you've been arguing was ok the last two days?

It's a valid point you make though.

Looking at the league tables, assuming Bo'ness go up and thus Inverkeithing, I think that would mean 2-9 in Conference A and 3-10 in Conference B would make up the first division?

Ormiston, Peebles & Craigroyston from A would miss out, Eadthouses & Arniston from B (on position, Hawick on PPG). Joined by 10 new teams in a single T8 for a 15 team league.

In conference A: Played / Points

BurntIsland 20 / 29
Ormiston 19 / 13
Peebles 20 / 8
Craigroyston 25 / 3

None of those realistically were bridging that gap. BurntIsland have more than double they points and would have pulled further away. They were in a false spot for me. The top 8 in Conference A could all beat each other in their days.

In conference B: Played / Points
Hawick 25 / 15
Easthouses 18 / 12
Arniston 22 / 9

Easthouses (or Hawick on PPG) and Arniston could have made that up in remaining fixtures, you're right.

So, simple solution to make sure any teams who could have bridged the gap don't miss out, do 18 for a season, like the premier, and relegate 5 instead of 3, running a 13 team T8. Include Hawick, Easthouses & Arniston.

Not saying it's perfect by any means or advocating for it (I do think it's a better middle ground than what has been proposed) but that covers you're (very valid) point about teams could have bridged the gap to make the first (just as we've been discussing the last few days at the other end of the table)?

Nobody falls a tier in the EoS proposal. With this suggestion however, 3-6 clubs will be demoted to tier 8, and the 10 new clubs would start a tier lower than they were expecting.

That's where the difference lies, there are more disadvantaged clubs.

I'm not entirely against it, but it just seems to "punish" more clubs than the current proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Maybe not so great for those clubs who would find themselves in tier 8 as opposed to tier 7 next season. They would be getting needlessly punished.

I wanted Premier-First-Second for next season when there was still a chance that clubs hovering around the cut-off point in the Conferences had a chance to influence where they would end up. They don't have that chance now.

So instead of potentially challenging for a Premier spot, it would be First Division.

There's no perfect solution.

Hardly 'punished'.  If you finish bottom of the league it is reasonable to expect (and accept) a demotion.

The six bottom clubs are quite adrift  from the rest of the teams above in the leagues.

Fact is it should've been decided and agreed at the start of the season.

Frankly, another season of conferences is unnecessary - and  as you said above, Premier / First / Second was your preference, as it will be for the vast majority of clubs I've listed in that 1st division.

I think there should be a counter proposal on the table for clubs to decide.

The current proposal disadvantages existing clubs who did well this season  - particularly Fife based ones such as Inverkeithing, Glenrothes, Burntisland and Oakley who will have to compete for the same local players as new competitor clubs being parachuted in at the same level. They were brave enough to commit and move and will end the season with nothing for their efforts.

Arguably they are the ones being 'punished' here.

 

 

Edited by Che Dail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody falls a tier in the EoS proposal. With this suggestion however, 3-6 clubs will be demoted to tier 8, and the 10 new clubs would start a tier lower than they were expecting.

That's where the difference lies, there are more disadvantaged clubs.

I'm not entirely against it, but it just seems to "punish" more clubs than the current proposal.
It wasn't seen as a punishment when it missed out by 1 vote a month ago, it was seen as a restructure.

What's changed to make it a "punishment" now, especially as the above would incorporate everyone who realistically had a chance of making it then?

In fact, because of no teams being relegated from the premier and 3 going up, it means 3 additional teams are scooped up in the first than would have been a month ago, plus adding the other 2 who could have made it when the vote was held.

The new teams applied before that vote was held, mostly, not knowing (or caring) what level they came in at. But for 1 vote of existing members they'd already be T8.

I know what you're trying to say, I just don't agree with the "punishment" angle and you (none of us were) weren't arguing that a month ago when it was proposed and you backed it.

Surely it's far less of an impact/punishment now then it was then, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gaz5 said:

It wasn't seen as a punishment when it missed out by 1 vote a month ago, it was seen as a restructure.

What's changed to make it a "punishment" now, especially as the above would incorporate everyone who realistically had a chance of making it then?

In fact, because of no teams being relegated from the premier and 3 going up, it means 3 additional teams are scooped up in the first than would have been a month ago, plus adding the other 2 who could have made it when the vote was held.

The new teams applied before that vote was held, mostly, not knowing (or caring) what level they came in at. But for 1 vote of existing members they'd already be T8.

I know what you're trying to say, I just don't agree with the "punishment" angle and you (none of us were) weren't arguing that a month ago when it was proposed and you backed it.

Surely it's far less of an impact/punishment now then it was then, no?

100% agree with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It wasn't seen as a punishment when it missed out by 1 vote a month ago, it was seen as a restructure.

 

What's changed to make it a "punishment" now, especially as the above would incorporate everyone who realistically had a chance of making it then?

 

In fact, because of no teams being relegated from the premier and 3 going up, it means 3 additional teams are scooped up in the first than would have been a month ago, plus adding the other 2 who could have made it when the vote was held.

 

The new teams applied before that vote was held, mostly, not knowing (or caring) what level they came in at. But for 1 vote of existing members they'd already be T8.

 

I know what you're trying to say, I just don't agree with the "punishment" angle and you (none of us were) weren't arguing that a month ago when it was proposed and you backed it.

 

Surely it's far less of an impact/punishment now then it was then, no?

When it was put to a vote a few months ago, clubs still had half a season worth (or more) of games left to play their way into the First. It failed.

 

What this new suggestion does is effectively relegate those clubs to a Second division without a ball being kicked. That's the punishment and I'm not too sure many clubs would change their mind from a few months ago and vote for it if its going to see them drop to the bottom division.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Nobody falls a tier in the EoS proposal. With this suggestion however, 3-6 clubs will be demoted to tier 8, and the 10 new clubs would start a tier lower than they were expecting.

That's where the difference lies, there are more disadvantaged clubs.

I'm not entirely against it, but it just seems to "punish" more clubs than the current proposal.
So what we are saying is that we can use small margins to promote some clubs (fair enough) and save some others from the impending relegation that was coming their way. But we aren't able to use bigger margins (using the same formula) to split teams who sit further apart, ppg wise, and move to the set up we are going to the season after next anyway?

We can disadvantage some, save some from the inevitable, but not ensure there is fairness for the majority of others? (All whilst using the same formula (ppg) to assess who plays where, across the board, making every league 'competitive' for every club in the process and moving away from the conferences as is already planned)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When it was put to a vote a few months ago, clubs still had half a season worth (or more) of games left to play their way into the First. It failed. 
What this new suggestion does is effectively relegate those clubs to a Second division without a ball being kicked. That's the punishment and I'm not too sure many clubs would change their mind from a few months ago and vote for it if its going to see them drop to the bottom division.
 
As I said above though, the club's that would end up down a level now are the ones who would have ended up down a level then and didn't have any chance of playing their way out of it?

All the club's who had half a season to play out and could have would be in the first now, because of what's happening above?

So no one is punished now, when they actually would have been then?

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...