Lowland League 2021-22 General Chat

[RampantFM]

7 hours ago, craigkillie said:

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.

I don't think we've went as far as doing a PR job, but I actually agree with what you've said, in some respects.

[Shannon]

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.
 
 

As has been said now Brechin is in the Highland League I really don't get who would be pushing for a boundary change? Just Rod Petrie being a d#ck..?

Arbroath and Montrose are both well away from League 2 and very good part time clubs. Forfar look like promotion contenders in League 2.

Would the Highland League not also be unhappy if a "League 3" or expanded Lowland League is formed?

[bravehearts dad]

17 hours ago, Ginaro said:

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.

So if the rules have not been signed off what effect does that have on all the money that the SFA have collected from disciplinary issues within the LL . They sure will have collected a few bob from red/yellow cards.

C’mon The Rose

[Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, Shannon said:

As has been said now Brechin is in the Highland League I really don't get who would be pushing for a boundary change? Just Rod Petrie being a d#ck..?

Arbroath and Montrose are both well away from League 2 and very good part time clubs. Forfar look like promotion contenders in League 2.

Would the Highland League not also be unhappy if a "League 3" or expanded Lowland League is formed?
 

The Highland League, as well as the SFA and SPFL support the principle of clubs being allowed to express a preference for which league they are relegated to if they are Club 42. The initial proposal was that Club 42 chose their league but the SLFL negotiated that they could only express a preference and the decision will be made by a joint meeting of the SLFL, SHFL, SPFL and SFA. The conspiracy theories that, for example, Elgin City had a right to play in the SLFL (if relegated) are utter nonsense.

The stories about the league being blackmailed and the OF being booted out if we don't agree to the changes are rubbish. I am astonished at the anti-democratic stance taken by those opposing change, including two former Board members. They want to dictate where clubs go whereas the proposal allows clubs to express a preference - and the SLFL to say "no". 

 

[gaz5]

So if the rules have not been signed off what effect does that have on all the money that the SFA have collected from disciplinary issues within the LL . They sure will have collected a few bob from red/yellow cards.
C’mon The Rose [emoji257][emoji257][emoji257]

Unless it's changed recently, that was only a junior thing. There have never been financial penalties imposed by senior leagues for red and yellow cards.

[BS7]

8 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

The Highland League, as well as the SFA and SPFL support the principle of clubs being allowed to express a preference for which league they are relegated to if they are Club 42. The initial proposal was that Club 42 chose their league but the SLFL negotiated that they could only express a preference and the decision will be made by a joint meeting of the SLFL, SHFL, SPFL and SFA. The conspiracy theories that, for example, Elgin City had a right to play in the SLFL (if relegated) are utter nonsense.

The stories about the league being blackmailed and the OF being booted out if we don't agree to the changes are rubbish. I am astonished at the anti-democratic stance taken by those opposing change, including two former Board members. They want to dictate where clubs go whereas the proposal allows clubs to express a preference - and the SLFL to say "no". 

 

Why is it important for clubs to express a preference? Who is asking for it? Which clubs might it impact.

we can dance around this, but unless Forfar, Montrose or Arbroath would prefer to go lowland then this argument is pointless. To me, anyway.

[FairWeatherFan]

1 minute ago, BS7 said:

Why is it important for clubs to express a preference? Who is asking for it? Which clubs might it impact.

we can dance around this, but unless Forfar, Montrose or Arbroath would prefer to go lowland then this argument is pointless. To me, anyway.

It does seem pointless with Brechin City now in the HL and the Midlands League in the Highland Playoff. By the time an Angus club gets relegated as Club 42 decent chance there would be some Dundee area teams in the HL.

Only makes sense as an issue if there's further changes beyond it.

[Ginaro]

Given the current standings you could have Stranraer and Auchinleck instead of Bonnyrigg and VOL in the LL next year, adding more miles for any Tayside club 42 looking at the LL (not that there's likely to be any in the immediate future).

Edited August 21, 2021 by Ginaro

[cowdenbeath]

14 hours ago, Ginaro said:

Given the current standings you could have Stranraer and Auchinleck instead of Bonnyrigg and VOL in the LL next year, adding more miles for any Tayside club 42 looking at the LL (not that there's likely to be any in the immediate future).

Their used to going to Stranraer anyway so I doubt that would bother them and Auchinleck is much nearer than that.

Like Brechin before them they mostly recruit from south of the Tay.

[Burnieman]

On 21/08/2021 at 10:15, Voice of Reason said:

The Highland League, as well as the SFA and SPFL support the principle of clubs being allowed to express a preference for which league they are relegated to if they are Club 42. The initial proposal was that Club 42 chose their league but the SLFL negotiated that they could only express a preference and the decision will be made by a joint meeting of the SLFL, SHFL, SPFL and SFA. The conspiracy theories that, for example, Elgin City had a right to play in the SLFL (if relegated) are utter nonsense.

The stories about the league being blackmailed and the OF being booted out if we don't agree to the changes are rubbish. I am astonished at the anti-democratic stance taken by those opposing change, including two former Board members. They want to dictate where clubs go whereas the proposal allows clubs to express a preference - and the SLFL to say "no". 

 

No, the league/clubs is being blackmailed and Fraser is dancing to their tune, you can gloss over it all you want but everyone know this.   Agree to remove the boundary and we'll sign-off your rule changes. Blackmail in anyone's book and good on those who have resigned from the board, they know what integrity is.

Allowing clubs to "choose" where they are relegated to is clearly an utter nonsense, this is all based solely on the premise that the Angus clubs rely on players from the central belt (and even train there) and fear losing them if they go to the HL.  That is entirely their problem and no way to run a pyramid system, or a club really.

This also impacts the lower levels when Dundee clubs are already hooked up with the HL, what happens when the boundary is removed?  The pyramid is already heavily imbalanced, removing the boundary will only add to this long term.  You'll end up with HL and North "Juniors", with everyone else in the LL and its feeders.  Crazy.

Rod Petrie has had a bee in his bonnet about this for years, ever since the EoS clubs handed his arse to him on a plate at a meeting at Easter Road. He clearly is out for what he would see as "revenge".  Charlatans, the lot of them.

 

[LongTimeLurker]

...they're aw oot o step except oor Jock.

[GordonS]

Just catching up on all this now. FFS.

Are the LL currently playing in a league that doesn't have formally constituted rules in place? If so it's hard to think of anything more incompetent. The implications are hard to envisage but the first thing that comes to mind is the cash that the OF paid to join the league. What was the basis on which that was paid? 

The HL have a veto right over the promotion play-off rules, which says they are for the "League Champions". Could any interpretation of that really mean a club that finished second or third? If the SPFL and LL push ahead without properly amending the SPFL play-off rules, a future HL champion or Club 42 could object to being required to play a team that didn't win the LL - which is not difficult to envisage. If Brechin had had a legitimate route to object to playing Kelty they would have taken it, and rightly so.

From the Daily Heil report: "With Rangers and Celtic B teams barred from promotion, however, the SPFL still have the option of blocking the highest placed non guest club from participating in the pyramid play-off."

The SPFL don't have the "option" of doing that; as the rules stand, the LL champion is the club that finishes with the most points, and only the champion is eligible for the promotion play-off. There's no "option" about it - only the club that gets the most points in the LL is eligible for the play-off.

What an absolute shit-show.

 

[bravehearts dad]

I can’t believe that there are no comments from last night’s meeting. We’re all the clubs made to sign a confidentiality agreement as not to upset the SPFL?

C’mon The Rose

[LongTimeLurker]

we should have more info soon:

 

[Dev]

"If" rule changes need to be OK'd by the SFA then the SFA has a duty of care to deal with the matter in reasonable time. Failure to do so implies negligence doesn't it and the Head of the SFA would, logically, be the person ultimately responsible. Therefore that person's head should roll should it not?

This assumes that SFA approval is required (is it?) and, if so, the rule changes approved by the Lowland League were referred on to the SFA in the usual manner in good time (were they?).

The irony of all this is that the Pyramid is now in place despite the failings of the SFA over many years to meaningfully progress the matter.

If it hadn't been for the original EoS clubs, making up the bulk of the original Lowland League, and clubs such as Kelty Hearts and Dalkeith, making things happen, then it would still be as things were before the Lowland League was formed. 

It's as though there are some at the SFA who are interested in game playing more than playing football matches.

 

[It's Me]

I was told that 12 clubs voted against the new proposal and 2 clubs voted for it. 
 

[FairWeatherFan]

7 minutes ago, It's Me said:

I was told that 12 clubs voted against the new proposal and 2 clubs voted for it. 
 

It would be helpful to know exactly what the proposal was? 

[BS7]

1 hour ago, FairWeatherFan said:

It would be helpful to know exactly what the proposal was? 

And which clubs voted for, against, and abstained.

I guess the bsc Glasgow Alloa Broomhill and East Kilbride franchises voted for.

Edited August 24, 2021 by BS7

[Ginaro]

11 hours ago, GordonS said:

Are the LL currently playing in a league that doesn't have formally constituted rules in place?

Presumably the previous rules (which don't allow B teams) are still in place? Though I'd really like to know long a league can continue to run playing under rules that haven't approved by the SFA, seems to me like they are effectively playing under appeal.

[Kirk St Moritz]

1 hour ago, BS7 said:

And which clubs voted for, against, and abstained.

I guess the bsc Glasgow Alloa Broomhill and East Kilbride franchises voted for.

According to what I was told last week,  East Kilbride were strongly against it, and wanted the Tay boundary to remain   No idea who voted in favour, but pretty conclusive against, if what is quoted above is accurate.

Edited August 24, 2021 by Kirk St Moritz