Lowland League 2021-22 General Chat

[It's Me]

Heard some more about the board issues - not sure if it’s true or not - but just what I’ve been told! 
 

So the issue about the boundary is back again - old news. But for some reason the LL Board are pushing for it to be scrapped. As we now know the rules to allow the ugly sisters to play have still not been approved. Some board members feel this was being done with the intention of trying to strong arm the clubs into agreeing to deleting the boundary and said board members wanted all clubs to be fully aware of the circumstances before voting on Monday night.
 

A vote took place and George Fraser (who voted against telling the clubs) lost the vote. It’s suggested that he (George) then went running to Maxwell to tell him it was all going to come out - something neither he or Maxwell wanted as they didn’t fancy the ugly sisters knocking their door down - and then someone on the board who had voted to tell the clubs then changed their vote. (Again I have no proof of this but it’s what’s I’ve been told). 
 

As a result Chris from The Braves and wee Tam at Strollers resigned. 
 

if any of this is true then it’s time for the LL Board to step down and never be involved in running a football league again. It seems self interest is more important than serving the clubs who would have voted them into these positions they are in today. 
 

As said already I have no proof of this but it’s what I have been told. 

[FairWeatherFan]

35 minutes ago, It's Me said:

Heard some more about the board issues - not sure if it’s true or not - but just what I’ve been told! 
 

So the issue about the boundary is back again - old news. But for some reason the LL Board are pushing for it to be scrapped. As we now know the rules to allow the ugly sisters to play have still not been approved. Some board members feel this was being done with the intention of trying to strong arm the clubs into agreeing to deleting the boundary and said board members wanted all clubs to be fully aware of the circumstances before voting on Monday night.
 

A vote took place and George Fraser (who voted against telling the clubs) lost the vote. It’s suggested that he (George) then went running to Maxwell to tell him it was all going to come out - something neither he or Maxwell wanted as they didn’t fancy the ugly sisters knocking their door down - and then someone on the board who had voted to tell the clubs then changed their vote. (Again I have no proof of this but it’s what’s I’ve been told). 
 

As a result Chris from The Braves and wee Tam at Strollers resigned. 
 

if any of this is true then it’s time for the LL Board to step down and never be involved in running a football league again. It seems self interest is more important than serving the clubs who would have voted them into these positions they are in today. 
 

As said already I have no proof of this but it’s what I have been told. 

I'm not getting why the boundary is causing this much of an issue.

[Ginaro]

After a short but interesting three months, I tendered my resignation from the SLFL Board yesterday. When elected to the board in May, I promised the clubs that I would act with integrity, inclusion and transparency on their behalf to better the league and protect their interests.

Unable to exercise these values, I was left with no choice but to stand down.
Although frustrated, I remain committed to improving our game and believe I have a lot to offer under different circumstances.

Chris EWING

https://www.caledonianbraves.com/news/chris-ewing-resigns-from-slfl-board

[FairWeatherFan]

It's good to know that perhaps the most controversial decision in the history of the LL has nothing to do with it.

EDIT:

By the way, anyone seen the new sponsor for the Development League

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by FairWeatherFan

[Born To Run]

13 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

It's good to know that perhaps the most controversial decision in the history of the LL has nothing to do with it.

I very rarely post on here these days, but just want to clarify this point.

What I’m referring to is the Daily Mail story that referenced Old Firm B sides getting withdrawn. That isn’t happening.

The boundary is involved, however.

[FairWeatherFan]

5 minutes ago, Born To Run said:

I very rarely post on here these days, but just want to clarify this point.

What I’m referring to is the Daily Mail story that referenced Old Firm B sides getting withdrawn. That isn’t happening.

The boundary is involved, however.

That doesn't need to be said since the article itself has sources from within the SFA saying exactly that.

Quote

SFA sources have dismissed any suggestion of Celtic and Rangers colts teams being stopped from participating in the Lowland League unless the vote goes their way on Monday night, insisting the fears are without foundation.

Nobody cares about since the damage is already done with them being in there.

It's about the SPFL Playoff and being able to nominate if either one of them clinches 1st. Do you want to shoot that part of the story down?

[GNU_Linux]

[emoji102]

After a short but interesting three months, I tendered my resignation from the SLFL Board yesterday. When elected to the board in May, I promised the clubs that I would act with integrity, inclusion and transparency on their behalf to better the league and protect their interests.

Unable to exercise these values, I was left with no choice but to stand down.
Although frustrated, I remain committed to improving our game and believe I have a lot to offer under different circumstances.

Chris EWING

https://www.caledonianbraves.com/news/chris-ewing-resigns-from-slfl-board

There's plenty to give the Braves flack for but fair fucks to Ewing for doing the right thing.

[Born To Run]

4 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:t's about the SPFL Playoff and being able to nominate if either one of them clinches 1st. Do you want to shoot that part of the story down?

I believe that I can, yeah (bare in mind that until it’s rubber stamped, no-one can be more than 99% but the SFA have made the promise). That’s not the thing that is causing problems.

[Bankies Alive]

4 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Different teams means different circumstances which can equal different decisions. I know in the WoSFL if you pass a certain number of players out with proof of positive tests a postponement is allowed.

 

It’s 7 players 

[Ginaro]

6 minutes ago, Born To Run said:

I very rarely post on here these days, but just want to clarify this point.

What I’m referring to is the Daily Mail story that referenced Old Firm B sides getting withdrawn. That isn’t happening.

The boundary is involved, however.

The Daily Mail story first says that "the SFA have still to sign off the change of rules which gave the move the go-ahead." before talking about the colts.

No B teams could play in the LL under the old rules, correct?

So, if the new rules have not been signed off by SFA does that mean they are not in effect? Because if so it would surely follow that the B teams cannot play in the LL - is what I think the Daily Mail is getting at. 

And on a general point, what happens to a league which begins without SFA approval for its new rules? You could get a month or two into a season and then have major changes reverted because the SFA rejected a league's new rules.

[craigkillie]

The worst part of all this over the last 4 months or so for me is that the Lowland League board (and George Fraser in particular) have not brave enough to come out and clarify things themselves, and are instead hiding behind a podcast and using that to put their message out there. Yes the guys behind it should know better than to just do a PR job for Fraser, but it's not fair on them to take all the flak for a decision that's being made by the puppet master.

Edited August 20, 2021 by craigkillie

[badger_whacker]

I love supporters of clubs in the lowland leagues worrying about the integrity of competition and their league because of the presence of B teams. The league was created with a group of franchise sides to provide the likes of Spartans entry into the league system.

The answer to possibly not having a team nominated for playoffs? Be better. And if the answer is that B teams are too good, then stop blocking their admittance to higher divisions and the chance of promotion.

It would be nice if, instead of claiming that you don’t want to play ‘youth sides’, you were just honest and said it’s because it’s the old firm. Keeping in mind Cumbernauld Colts, Glasgow BSC and Caledonian Braves are playing in your league.

[craigkillie]

^^^

The equivalent of overhearing part of a conversation in a pub and just barging over to share your opinion without actually understanding what is being discussed.

[FairWeatherFan]

2 minutes ago, badger_whacker said:

The league was created with a group of franchise sides to provide the likes of Spartans entry into the league system.

Of the 11/12 only East Kilbride could be considered a franchise. It was around the time they were still trying to lure Clyde to EK.

And the pyramid was created more due to the misadventures of the SFL boom and bust clubs. By the time they were replacing Gretna they were scraping the barrel in terms of clubs interested with decent facilities. 

[badger_whacker]

13 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

^^^

The equivalent of overhearing part of a conversation in a pub and just barging over to share your opinion without actually understanding what is being discussed.

I’ve heard plenty of the conversation on this page, previous pages and elsewhere. Maybe the ire and energy should be directed at where the issue is arising: the footballing authorities.

On how many occasions are we going to see them ride roughshod over leagues and clubs to get the outcome they desire?

[Marten]

29 minutes ago, badger_whacker said:

I love supporters of clubs in the lowland leagues worrying about the integrity of competition and their league because of the presence of B teams. The league was created with a group of franchise sides to provide the likes of Spartans entry into the league system.

The answer to possibly not having a team nominated for playoffs? Be better. And if the answer is that B teams are too good, then stop blocking their admittance to higher divisions and the chance of promotion.

It would be nice if, instead of claiming that you don’t want to play ‘youth sides’, you were just honest and said it’s because it’s the old firm. Keeping in mind Cumbernauld Colts, Glasgow BSC and Caledonian Braves are playing in your league.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you that if it wasn't the OF B-teams joining the LL, but instead those of Aberdeen & Dundee United (for example) joining the HL, I would have been just as strongly against. Whatever anyone might think of the likes of Cumbernauld Colts, Broomhill/BSC & Caledonian Braves, they are the first teams of those clubs and rules didn't need to be bent to let them in. The first 2 joined the LL when there wasn't any regular promotion/relegation with tier 6 yet, the latter joined at tier 6 and got promoted. They all played by the rules without the rules needing to be amended to get them in.

[FairWeatherFan]

9 minutes ago, Marten said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you that if it wasn't the OF B-teams joining the LL, but instead those of Aberdeen & Dundee United (for example) joining the HL, I would have been just as strongly against.

You can probably find quotes from around the time of ICT's application to the HL and turning Fort William into a colt team by the backdoor. Pretty sure you were around for that.

[Marten]

16 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

You can probably find quotes from around the time of ICT's application to the HL and turning Fort William into a colt team by the backdoor. Pretty sure you were around for that.

I remember that, but I didn't use it as an example as the case was different imo. ICT tried to get their B-team into what was then the lowest level in the pyramid. Now there is a tier 6 (and in Grampian 7 & 8 ) north of the Tay.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Marten

[bravehearts dad]

1 hour ago, Born To Run said:

I believe that I can, yeah (bare in mind that until it’s rubber stamped, no-one can be more than 99% but the SFA have made the promise). That’s not the thing that is causing problems.

So feel free to inform us what is causing the problems. George 

C’mon The Rose

[Burnieman]

If the board had a shred of integrity, they'd tell the SFA to f*ck off with their wish to discard the boundary (the never ending campaign from Rod Petrie to cause chaos), and if they feel they are being blackmailed by them to do this, expose it, loudly.

From what I hear, Fraser's position is frankly untenable.