Jump to content

Lowland League 2021-22 General Chat


FairWeatherFan

Recommended Posts

I can't understand why so many are assuming VoL voted for no increased relegation and promotion.

They're all but certain to go down THIS season, so it hardly creates a problem for them - if anything, it'd have been to their advantage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ginaro said:

Saw some tweets about both the SPFL and LL needing to change at the same time. Well good luck getting the SPFL to change at the moment, and if the LL doesn't go first it just means the status quo continues! Meanwhile the make up of the LL will change - with at least one new team going up into the league each season - albeit much slower than if there was more relegation.

As much as it would be great for Bonnyrigg to get promoted, for the sake of the pyramid what needs to happen is for the Highland League winner to beat Cowdenbeath. That way you get rid of Gretna and VOL (must assume they voted against more relegation).

Perhaps there could be a another vote at the upcoming AGM - which is usually after the play-offs - which might succeed if the membership changes with two down...?

It's only meant to take a couple of clubs to put forward a motion. At least something like that was said when all this was mentioned last year. If there are 7 votes out there they should be able to get it on the agenda of the AGM.

It would also be beneficial for a united front from the Tier 6 leagues. Especially in light of the ongoing colts issue. It can be argued these clubs are simply trying to line their pockets with the Old Firm's buy in.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Here's hoping, as much as I'm sure Bonnyrigg would have voted for an increase and therefore one of the good guys.

I'm sure they did, sad for them but good for us and it would be an even better title race next season!

Would be funny if Gretna voted against more promotion, only to be relegated come May and then have basically no chance of getting promoted from the SOS for many years under the current three-way play-off.

Just now, FairWeatherFan said:

It would also be beneficial for a united front from the Tier 6 leagues. Especially in light of the ongoing colts issue. It can be argued these clubs are simply trying to line their pockets with the Old Firm's buy in.

Wonder if there is anything tier 6 can do - could they vote to exclude the LL clubs from their local competitions and the South Challenge Cup until they get automatic promotion?

4 minutes ago, archieb said:

I can't understand why so many are assuming VoL voted for no increased relegation and promotion.

They're all but certain to go down THIS season, so it hardly creates a problem for them - if anything, it'd have been to their advantage!

True, we are just assuming - but not sure how it is to their advantage as there is absolutely no chance of them challenging for the EOS title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

This probably isn't any real surprise, the LL had already pissed their credibility against the wall last year, any left has now gone with this self-interested vote.  Wouldn't surprise me if they break out the cigars and vote the B teams back just for the bantz.

The absolute bear face hypocrisy of complaining about no automatic promotion to the SPFL whilst at the same time sticking their fingers up to the 130+ clubs sitting below them seems to be completely lost on them.  Ventilation, ventilation they cry, it's complete bollocks.

Are bears famous for hypocrisy? Or have you personally been a victim of some ursine double-dealing? I think we should be told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

It's only meant to take a couple of clubs to put forward a motion. At least something like that was said when all this was mentioned last year. If there are 7 votes out there they should be able to get it on the agenda of the AGM.

It would also be beneficial for a united front from the Tier 6 leagues. Especially in light of the ongoing colts issue. It can be argued these clubs are simply trying to line their pockets with the Old Firm's buy in.

 

 

I don’t know where you get the idea of clubs trying to line their pockets. The Ugly Sisters Colts have generally not enhanced gate receipts. From what I gather the £25K from each club last season is still in the LL coffers. I would welcome your examples of “lining their pockets” I have made my thoughts known on the Ugly Sisters being in the LL, they have taken the piss.

C’mon The Rose 🌹🌹🌹

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bravehearts dad said:

I don’t know where you get the idea of clubs trying to line their pockets. The Ugly Sisters Colts have generally not enhanced gate receipts. From what I gather the £25K from each club last season is still in the LL coffers. I would welcome your examples of “lining their pockets” I have made my thoughts known on the Ugly Sisters being in the LL, they have taken the piss.

C’mon The Rose 🌹🌹🌹

I believe that was part of their presentation last night, that they have increased gate receipts. I was not given any figures right enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bravehearts dad said:

I don’t know where you get the idea of clubs trying to line their pockets. The Ugly Sisters Colts have generally not enhanced gate receipts. From what I gather the £25K from each club last season is still in the LL coffers. I would welcome your examples of “lining their pockets” I have made my thoughts known on the Ugly Sisters being in the LL, they have taken the piss.

C’mon The Rose 🌹🌹🌹

18 home games instead of 16. The attendance thread is on this forum. You can check for yourself that both attendances are above average when taken into account crowd restirctions. Vale of Leithen if I remember right even bumped up their ticket prices to £10.

Then there's the £50k buy in.

Who knows what has been offered further to tempt clubs to keep them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

The Vice-Chair of Berwick has come out to say that they did not vote for the status quo. Also it was done as a secret ballot. Hopefully could lead to some more public declarations that would help put pressure on clubs and get another vote.

image.png.993ca07c6446b635fa8ba094110e23f8.png

image.png.62232fe7a019bbb09dbb274f2705b653.png

 

Edinburgh University voted against the loathsome B teams, so I think any criticism of them is a bit unfair.

(Think you may have posted in the wrong thread by mistake ma man)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Marshmallo said:

Edinburgh University voted against the loathsome B teams, so I think any criticism of them is a bit unfair.

(Think you may have posted in the wrong thread by mistake ma man)

The 2nd screenshot was some random on Twitter asking the Vice Chair of Berwick Rangers who had voted for the status quo. I included the question to provide context to the response. Which was that it was a secret ballot so nobody knows who voted for what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FairWeatherFan said:

The 2nd screenshot was some random on Twitter asking the Vice Chair of Berwick Rangers who had voted for the status quo. I included the question to provide context to the response. Which was that it was a secret ballot so nobody knows who voted for what.

Ansolutely, but it was in the Bonnyrigg thread so thought I'd reply to you in here.

Edited by Marshmallo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pyramid Watcher said:

Therein lies the problem, they are in a stalemate situation, the LL won’t do anything until the SPFL open up.

The LL has no leverage whatsoever over the SPFL, so their refusal to sort their total nick of a setup is going to achieve nothing.

In fact, it only makes the case stronger for not opening up to B teams and podcast-run outfits in Scotland's national league setup. 

The change can only come from below. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard that two clubs on the night put forward a proposal / caveat that once the vote was done it should not be revisited until the SPFL open up. 
 

anyone heard anything similar or know which clubs put this forward? 
 

 

Edited by It's Me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bravehearts dad said:

I don’t know where you get the idea of clubs trying to line their pockets. The Ugly Sisters Colts have generally not enhanced gate receipts. 

I don't know where you get the idea that that the B teams "have generally not enhanced gate receipts" - a quick look at the attendance thread and you can see most clubs best attended match has been when the OF have visited. Let's not be silly, you can argue against the B teams without posting things which aren't true.

19 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Does anyone know if the Tom Brown having a conversation with the Official Catch Up twitter account is the same Tom Brown that became the new chairman of the league?

Coming out with the usual 'if the Juniors joined 10 years ago' and 'change has to start at the top' lines.

No, see the new sponsor announcement photo (the chairman is Thomas). But looking at an old Twitter account he may well be Tom snr and it seems he's involved with CSS and an ex-LL board member. So they might've voted against a change (were they one of the bad guys as well?)

Edited by Ginaro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Colts teams have increased gates, but not as much as Linlithgow, Pollok, Talbot etc would do if/when they come into the LL.

2-up 2-down (minimum) is far better for the sustainability of the LL than the Colts being in the league. Boot them out, and give two more places next season to current tier 6 sides.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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