Jump to content

Conference League Good Guys List


Ray Patterson

Recommended Posts

image.png.a63e2e23e45c1d4275ad4ac31b35c1eb.png



Cove Rangers FC can today confirm that the club will vote against the proposed introduction of the Scottish Conference League

At the Scottish FA AGM on Tuesday June 6, member clubs will be requested to vote on a new fifth-tier division, which will consist of B Teams and representatives of the existing Highland League and Lowland League.

Our Board has discussed the plans ahead of next week’s vote and is of the view that the introduction of B Teams and the Conference League, will not be beneficial to player development.

As a club, we see the player development closely linked to earlier pathways into their first-team and through the successful use of the current loan system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

It's the changes that are needed to the Club 42 playoff rules that mean they can't slide the Conference League in unilaterally.

Correct needs HL and LL agreement but easier to press to get that if the club membership of the SFA has voted in favour 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

As far as I can see online Article 60 is  about Director disqualication whilst 62 is powers of directors.  It states in essence the board can exercise all powers and carry out the objects of the SFA which are not by the articles or by statute expressly required to be done in a general meeting.  Thus is there somewhere in articles something that states a new League can only be created by members vote at GM? 

Sorry you are correct. 62.

62.1 gives the board the power to carry out the functions of the association but they would still need direction or ratification.

That's before we even begin to look at the requiring agreement form the LL, HFl and SPFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Sorry you are correct. 62.

62.1 gives the board the power to carry out the functions of the association but they would still need direction or ratification.

That's before we even begin to look at the requiring agreement form the LL, HFl and SPFL

Where does it say that the board in exercising its agreed powers needs direction and ratification?  Not really a real board if it needs to ask can it do something which it is empowered to do and then subsequently has to get it rubber stamped by the members.  The board  actually are decision makers.  Members may not like their decisions but either have to accept them or subsequently seek to gain agreement to reverse said decision which may require seeking to vote out board members 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

I think I could get my head round the legalities and powers under AoA If I really wanted to. I'd  put my last pound on Maxwell couldn't do it if his life depended on it. I doubt he's ever read any of the rules.

Anyway I don't need to know the rules because the conference is a bad idea in football terms.

Maxwell is utterly out of his depth. He can sound very convincing, so much so that he probably genuinely believes the stuff he comes out with himself. Yet when it gets to the formalities of actually getting it sorted, he has no clue what the procedures are. This was also shown in the "done deal" of the juniors entering the pyramid for example. This shambles really should mean he gets shown the door...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, bullyweehutch said:

https://twitter.com/ClydeFC/status/1665388352252567561?t=uKryMNyFBmwdrgjazWUZ6g&s=19

 

Clyde also voting against this shambles being pushed by the arse cheeks 

The previous statement by the club clearly wanted to push this plan didn't exactly work then. Well done on the fans turning this down with an 88% vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Marten said:

The previous statement by the club clearly wanted to push this plan didn't exactly work then. Well done on the fans turning this down with an 88% vote.

Yeh, fans were never voting for it and tbh majority would love for the board to piss off along with this proposal 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

Excellent stuff from Clyde, now from Hearts that would properly kill it off. 

Curious.....why would Hearts vote against it when they are one of the three clubs that's actually proposing it???  (much to my despair!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^that was already known. The No to B teams tracker is looking quite promising:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZaaVK-gDcjeZX88quxBfxlBL64AGDpViEqwbHTAUvrw/edit#gid=0

but not a lot has been heard from the smaller traditional EoS, SoS and NCL clubs that were full members pre-2018. Hopefully the smaller full member clubs that basically have zero chance of ever getting anywhere near tier 5 will not be swayed by the SFA board on this issue.

Edit: there are SoS clubs declared as being in the NO camp now I look again.

Edited by LongTimeLurker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Bundesliga Boy said:

Curious.....why would Hearts vote against it when they are one of the three clubs that's actually proposing it???  (much to my despair!).

Aberdeen were supposed be on message but publicly rejected the deal along with its rational for developing young footballers. Maybe Hearts think their lads will get some useful experience in the EOSFL the season after next?

 

 

 

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Aberdeen were supposed be on message but publicly rejected the deal along with its rational for developing young footballers. Maybe Hearts think their lads will get some useful experience in the EOSFL the season after next?

 

 

Supposed to be according to whom exactly?  Was all hearsay - nothing official from the club.  They were merely invited to be the fourth club.

Hearts on the other hand have a B team in the pyramid and are one of the three clubs, again, actually proposing the Conference - that's a pretty big difference right there!

Either way, I'm more confident than ever now that this absolute monstrosity will be voted down within the next 48 hours or so.  (personally I'd then kick all 3 out the LL immediately after this farce but that's perhaps my pettiness coming through).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Bundesliga Boy said:

 

Supposed to be according to whom exactly?  Was all hearsay - nothing official from the club.  They were merely invited to be the fourth club.

Hearts on the other hand have a B team in the pyramid and are one of the three clubs, again, actually proposing the Conference - that's a pretty big difference right there!

Either way, I'm more confident than ever now that this absolute monstrosity will be voted down within the next 48 hours or so.  (personally I'd then kick all 3 out the LL immediately after this farce but that's perhaps my pettiness coming through).

Are Hearts actually "proposing" it or just part of the new league if it is approved? I'm 100% against the idea and against B teams in the Lowland League but not sure what our involvement in this is other than being one of the teams. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stanley said:

Are Hearts actually "proposing" it or just part of the new league if it is approved? I'm 100% against the idea and against B teams in the Lowland League but not sure what our involvement in this is other than being one of the teams. 

You don’t accidentally become ‘one of the teams’.   By agreeing to be so you accept the negative consequences and stump up a fee for nothing more than your self-interest,  a poorly analysed self-interest at that.

Formally I don’t see who has proposed this, but my suspicion is the SFA board/Maxwell with the 3/4 scumbag clubs not officially announced, but it would have never have come up without certain shitty clubs wanting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, stanley said:

Are Hearts actually "proposing" it or just part of the new league if it is approved? I'm 100% against the idea and against B teams in the Lowland League but not sure what our involvement in this is other than being one of the teams. 

Your not sure what your involvement is apart from being one of the teams?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

It's the changes that are needed to the Club 42 playoff rules that mean they can't slide the Conference League in unilaterally.

That was the thing the Cowdenbeath fans always ignored. "We had to vote for the B Teams this year cos the SFA would just set up a league for this season". They could in theory set up any league they like but without a mechanism for promotion and relegation into and from the SPFL, SHFL and SLFL there would be no point. Quite why they thought the SFA would be able to railroad the 3 leagues into accepting that is anyone's guess.

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...