Jump to content

WoSFL Licensing


Recommended Posts

Looking back over this thread these clubs seem to be looking towards licencing at some time or other in the future OR are improving their facilities e.g. installing flood-lighting:

Blantyre Victoria, Gartcairn Juniors, Glenafton Athletic, Kilwinning Rangers, Maybole Juniors, Petershill, Pollok, Rutherglen Glencairn, St Roch's and Vale of Leven.

Then there's the clubs which ground-share and have licenced/licence compliant grounds. Yoker is the obvious one but not necessarily planning to try for a licence. There are a number of ground-shares in the league at present. Any of these compliant grounds? Thinking Maryhill/Drumchapel, Rossvale at Petershill. etc.

Not WoS but other threads suggesting that some of the Midlands League and North Juniors clubs are actively going for licencing e.g. Tayport, Lochee United, etc and maybe Dyce. In the South Creetown cannot be too far off (are they planning to apply?). In the East St Andrews United are nearly there and Crossgates Primrose and Inverkeithing Hillside Swifts have plans or are up-grading their grounds. Leith Athletic should be able to move forward when they move to share with Edinburgh City at Meadowbank, while in the past Edinburgh United, Thornton Hibs, Oakley United and Glenrothes showed interest. It would be surprising if none of the current Conference X clubs don't have ambitions too.

Edited by Dev
..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rutherglen Glencairn announced over a year ago that it was their intention to work towards gaining their SFA licence. At the recent AGM the members approved an amended club constitution which provided the platform for a formal application to be made, and this was submitted last week. We now await feedback from the SFA on where the process will take us next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hampden Diehard said:

Shouldn't be taking licensing for Pollok to be improving their toilets given their crowds.

Unfortunately we can’t all have Willie Haughey pump money in.
Instead we will no doubt continue to rely on the support / sponsorship and hard working people behind the scenes to gradually improve things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to see how far Pollok can go in pyramid terms. A core home support of 700 or so makes League One the potential natural habitat and league entry could boost that even further. Hopefully there is no NIMBYism when installing floodlights goes through the planning permission process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going by how many clubs have installed the Pleasure Lamps, there can't have been many NIMBY situations, for the sake of a few night matches I can never see the arguments against. Great to see so many going for licenses, shows the clubs have taken the pyramid seriously. Taken the Scots a while, but it's great news for all fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to see how far Pollok can go in pyramid terms. A core home support of 700 or so makes League One the potential natural habitat and league entry could boost that even further. Hopefully there is no NIMBYism when installing floodlights goes through the planning permission process.


After I read this I went on YouTube to have a gander at some of the latest Pollok highlights. Watched a couple of games, both decent crowds - in particular one game against Talbot look fairly busy. I really like Polloks stadium, I don’t think it would look out of place in League 2 or even League 1. Definitely a club with potential there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't mind seeing some more cover at Pollok, opposite the other side - not sure where they could squeeze any seats into the ground, behind the goals ? Well done to Rutherglen on going for a licence, really good how most clubs have grasped the move into Senior football, with the improvements being done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 03/11/2021 at 20:52, Andy groundhopper said:

Wouldn't mind seeing some more cover at Pollok, opposite the other side - not sure where they could squeeze any seats into the ground, behind the goals ? Well done to Rutherglen on going for a licence, really good how most clubs have grasped the move into Senior football, with the improvements being done.

Without replacing the main terrace, there's not really any room for seats. Bounded to the north by the river, the east by the flats, and south by the restaurant and function suites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/10/2021 at 15:41, Dev said:

Looking back over this thread these clubs seem to be looking towards licencing at some time or other in the future OR are improving their facilities e.g. installing flood-lighting:

Blantyre Victoria, Gartcairn Juniors, Glenafton Athletic, Kilwinning Rangers, Maybole Juniors, Petershill, Pollok, Rutherglen Glencairn, St Roch's and Vale of Leven...

 

Should be easy for Maryhill to get licensed?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

 

Should be easy for Maryhill to get licensed?

 

 

It's not "easy" for any club to get licensed. As has been mentioned on here many times, stadium facilities are only a small part of the licensing compliance requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot depends on the personnel within these clubs, whether licensing is a priority for them or not. Having the necessary ground requirements is one thing, but having people willing to commit to the minefield of paperwork (that never gets mentioned when licensing is discussed) is another thing. Ground criteria make up only about 25% of the clauses that require compliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dev said:

Would that give Drumchapel United a way to getlicenced too? Similar maybe with Rossvale at Petershill?

I'd think both Drumchapel United and Rossvale have other priorities than tying themselves to facilities for the sake of licencing. It's not exactly done Broomhill/BSC Glasgow much good if the relationship sours.

Even use of the same ground doesn't mean they have access to the same facilities or requirements of licencing. Three grounds for the home club get Bronze grading and the three tenants only meet Entry. So if a ground only meets Entry there's no guarantee whatever access the tenant would have would meet the same standard.

An example being Syngenta when sharing with Dunipace. Syngenta didn't have access to the main changing rooms.

image.png.f295d05e1afdc1523e9f3e50d73981da.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, glensmad said:

A lot depends on the personnel within these clubs, whether licensing is a priority for them or not. Having the necessary ground requirements is one thing, but having people willing to commit to the minefield of paperwork (that never gets mentioned when licensing is discussed) is another thing. Ground criteria make up only about 25% of the clauses that require compliance.

Think people get that but clubs the size of Golspie Sutherland have done it so it isn't mission impossible and is something most WoS members should be aspiring to do eventually given the obvious benefits.

Edited by LongTimeLurker
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...