stulch Posted July 4, 2021 Share Posted July 4, 2021 So a graphic correction then. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stulch Posted July 4, 2021 Share Posted July 4, 2021 So no net change in numbers terms in the West once Annbank are factored in: https://www.nonleaguematters.co.uk/forums/index.php?threads/scottish-junior-cup-2021-22.4858/#post-101201 Interesting to see how many West clubs retained their SJFA membership - it seems to be 52 out of 63 with a question mark over Annbank who have sat this season out. The ten clubs who have not are: WoS Premier - Clydebank, Darvel, Kilwinning Rangers, Rutherglen Glencairn WoS Conf A - Bellshill Athletic, Forth Wanderers WoS Conf B - Port Glasgow Juniors, Royal Albert WoS Conf C - Neilston, Vale of Clyde So as was deduced in earlier posts Darvel and Vale of Clyde have left since last season but Newmains and Cambuslang Rangers have rejoined.So not many in the Strathclyde cup then? If the Strathclyde cup is only for non Junior Cup entries and non-SFA members. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted July 4, 2021 Author Share Posted July 4, 2021 2 minutes ago, stulch said: 1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said: So a graphic correction then. That's my understanding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesel1994 Posted July 4, 2021 Share Posted July 4, 2021 3 minutes ago, stulch said: So a graphic correction then. Yes - because six ties have completely changed. The original draw WAS correct, but not what was read out. Girvan should have been number 55 not 64. But as it was the 64 one that was read out they had to change to that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted July 4, 2021 Author Share Posted July 4, 2021 4 minutes ago, stulch said: So not many in the Strathclyde cup then? The list below is lifted from WoS subforum. Darvel and Clydebank will be licensed so 8 that used to be in the SJFA plus St Cadoc's, Drumchapel United and the eight new Division 4 teams are the probable Strathclyde Cup entrants. Bellshill Athletic Bonnyton Thistle BSC Glasgow Campbeltown Pupils Drumchapel United Finnart Forth Wanderers Glenvale Harmony Row Kilsyth Athletic Kilwinning Rangers Neilston Port Glasgow Juniors Royal Albert Rutherglen Glencairn St Cadoc's St. Peters Vale of Clyde 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stulch Posted July 4, 2021 Share Posted July 4, 2021 The list below is lifted from WoS subforum. Darvel and Clydebank will be licensed so 8 that used to be in the SJFA plus St Cadoc's, Drumchapel United and the eight new Division 4 teams are the probable Strathclyde Cup entrants. Bellshill Athletic Bonnyton Thistle BSC Glasgow Campbeltown Pupils Drumchapel United Finnart Forth Wanderers Glenvale Harmony Row Kilsyth Athletic Kilwinning Rangers Neilston Port Glasgow Juniors Royal Albert Rutherglen Glencairn St Cadoc's St. Peters Vale of Clyde I was forgetting about the new development West division and how they aren't SJA members, at least yet. Not too bad a number then and they'll still need to beat the winners of the East and South versions to get the cup entry. Still a nice trophy if they just get to the 'finals' though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted July 4, 2021 Share Posted July 4, 2021 6 hours ago, theesel1994 said: Yes - because six ties have completely changed. The original draw WAS correct, but not what was read out. Girvan should have been number 55 not 64. But as it was the 64 one that was read out they had to change to that. Actually, it's even more complicated than that. Reading between the lines, it seems that after drawing 46 ties in R1, the teams given byes in should have been listed alphabetically and allocated new numbers 47 to 64. However, somehow Girvan were missed out and tagged on at the end as #64. Meanwhile, whoever made up the graphic originally posted on social media used the NUMBERS drawn together with a list with a DIFFERENT mistake, where Maryhill had been missed out alphabetically and tagged on as #64! Consequently, all the teams with numbers 55 to 59, plus #64, were placed differently in the graphic to what was drawn (and now confirmed as the actual ties to be played). So the current SJFA blazership is almost as incompetent as Johnstone & co were (who, a few seasons back, drew the wrong number of ties and byes in Round 1!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theesel1994 Posted July 4, 2021 Share Posted July 4, 2021 I think if the draw hadn't been read out loud. Just the numbers drawn. In the correct order. 1-46 (first round winners) 47-64 clubs that were given a bye in alphabetical order. The draw that appeared in the 1st graphic would probably have been correct (minus the Burghead/Winton duplication). I still think they were working off two lists - a numbered printed list (wrong) at the table and a spreadsheet using rows 1-64 . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted July 5, 2021 Share Posted July 5, 2021 On 04/07/2021 at 19:55, theesel1994 said: I think if the draw hadn't been read out loud. Just the numbers drawn. In the correct order. 1-46 (first round winners) 47-64 clubs that were given a bye in alphabetical order. The draw that appeared in the 1st graphic would probably have been correct (minus the Burghead/Winton duplication). I still think they were working off two lists - a numbered printed list (wrong) at the table and a spreadsheet using rows 1-64 . At least two lists, BOTH wrong. Or else how do you explain Maryhill at #64? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted July 8, 2021 Author Share Posted July 8, 2021 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted July 11, 2021 Author Share Posted July 11, 2021 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted July 19, 2021 Share Posted July 19, 2021 (edited) Realised that the rules say those competing in the senior Scottish Cup get a bye in the first round draw, so Auchinleck, Banks O' Dee and Irvine Meadow shouldn't really playing be in the first round. Edited July 19, 2021 by Ginaro 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archieb Posted July 21, 2021 Share Posted July 21, 2021 On 19/07/2021 at 09:35, Ginaro said: Realised that the rules say those competing in the senior Scottish Cup get a bye in the first round draw, so Auchinleck, Banks O' Dee and Irvine Meadow shouldn't really playing be in the first round. A bit much, expecting the SJFA beaks to know their own rules lol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted August 16, 2021 Author Share Posted August 16, 2021 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted August 18, 2021 Share Posted August 18, 2021 First casualty of a scheduling clash involving a Junior Cup game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted August 18, 2021 Share Posted August 18, 2021 2 hours ago, Ginaro said: First casualty of a scheduling clash involving a Junior Cup game. Armadale Thistle have also pulled out now. On Bathgate Thistle's facebook post on their withdrawal there is a comment from the SJFA's chief. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted August 18, 2021 Share Posted August 18, 2021 22 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said: Armadale Thistle have also pulled out now. On Bathgate Thistle's facebook post on their withdrawal there is a comment from the SJFA's chief. In a way they have forced it - by putting the Junior Cup rounds 1 and 2 the week before the Scottish Cup. If they'd put it on the same date you could've had Scottish/Junior/Alex Jack all together, no clashes in the east as you can only enter one competition. However the five SJFA members also competing in the senior cup would then face issues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted August 18, 2021 Share Posted August 18, 2021 11 minutes ago, Ginaro said: In a way they have forced it - by putting the Junior Cup rounds 1 and 2 the week before the Scottish Cup. If they'd put it on the same date you could've had Scottish/Junior/Alex Jack all together, no clashes in the east as you can only enter one competition. However the five SJFA members also competing in the senior cup would then face issues. It has been known that on entering the pyramid league fixtures etc would take a priority. So it's no real surprise. To have gotten to this stage you would have thought there would have been some forethought to get it sorted. However, you're now dealing with the SJFA, potentially two different league bodies, and opponent's that might not be willing to accomodate ties being rearranged. I don't think anyone is blameless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted August 18, 2021 Author Share Posted August 18, 2021 (edited) How did the SJFA seriously expect EoS clubs to participate if the EoS fixture secretary wasn't going to be coordinating this with them? Were they naive enough to think the EoS would play nice over this if presented with a fait accompli? Lunatic blazer politics continues unabated. Edited August 18, 2021 by LongTimeLurker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy25 Posted August 18, 2021 Share Posted August 18, 2021 Is it straight to penalties or does it go to a replay? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.