Auld Heid

You are spot on. Kelty have shown the proper manner on how things should work. Not sure every team planning to move will bring the same commitment as Kelty have shown. Always felt it would be interesting how much due diligence the EoS apply to new applicants and in particular their ability to meet required standards.

Why are we better off without them? As someone who isn't the greatest fan of the Pyramid and who has tried and failed to find any reason for staying - I genuinely would be interested in hearing your reasoning?

Clearly waiting for Linlithgow to have their AGM. No show in the East without the main event being involved. Can't wait to be part of the Super League - junior pioneers.....!!!! Meanwhile back in the real world.

Just half that seasons playing budget should sort the replacement.....!! [emoji56] [emoji56]

We have invested in Prestonfield over a long period and have an infrastructure widely acknowledged by all. Something which we are very proud off. Unfortunately it now feels like dressing up for the wedding and deciding to wait for the video.

Unfortunately that's what we are faced with. Currently the loudest voices are influencing negative opinions. When we entered the super league the proposal was put to supporters and members. Our decision was influenced by that discussion. Large numbers of our members have no concept of what is being proposed or consequences of staying put. Without proper discussion we will turn up at AGM and the loud voices will shout down reason. We have invested £000's on our infrastructure based on progression - we were miles ahead of Kelty. Now they have bypassed us by some distance.

Lol at this rate we will be premier league by 2023. Champions league by 2024....!!!

TJ sits on all the right committees in the SFA. If true can only be an old pals act. Or is he trying to put the wind up all these clubs who are moving?

Good piece by Reporting Scotland on Kelty. Bit unfortunate it didn't expand beyond just Kelty.

Our biggest hurdle is many of our members believe the Pyramid involves playing Elgin away on a Tuesday evening. Not sure without an EGM that our AGM alone would be enough to change such views. As someone who is totally against the Pyramid - it has taken a lot of discussion for me to admit that it's also our only viable option going forwards. Hence my concerns in my opening sentences.

Private being more restrictive than a community club The other clubs you refer to - German football clubs, the Foundation of Hearts, the Well Society developed from a sense of wishing to improve their already established club survive/thrive. How it benefits the wider community - is difficult to see when its a private club (restrictive) and given they play 40 miles away for home games. I appreciate they aren't setting out to harm or upset anyone. It just seems an odd way to go about things and more business orientated than football.

Linlithgow (committee) have indicated support of a pyramid system via the recent SJFA poll to members. A decision still to be ratified by the180 odd members entitled to vote on any final decision. As you say we applied before it was a requirement to enter a pyramid system - albeit a caveat was added at the end that requirement could be added at a future date. The SFA so far as I'm aware have not applied this caveat.

Hardly a credible league where the council not a ref is putting games off.

Totally agree with this

The big difference, Rob Roy are an established club who had their own park to start with and once everything is sorted will again. BSC and other teams are starting up without their own facilities and being allowed to join leagues. They are licensed on the back of others facilities and not their own. LTHV are based at Saughton and are working towards their licence - a situation that stopped their possible promotion last season. By allowing these clubs to piggy back themselves into leagues based upon others facilities how is that fair on existing clubs who are incurring costs required to bring their grounds up to standards for licensing.

Allowing teams to dictate when they play isn't exactly fair either. Imagine two teams tied and one changes to a later kick-off so they know what's required. Do their fixtures have a * next to them to state games played when a suitable park is available. This highlights a lot of my personal concerns that teams are abusing rules/loopholes because these leagues are more interested in numbers. The SFA seem content to sit back and ignore the chaos.

I appreciate there are various examples of ground share - but this is hardly the same as the 2 Milan/Rome clubs sharing. The difference we have teams starting from scratch hiring parks to suit - or selling their parks and not replacing. (A Glasgow team playing out of Alloa) This allows them to bypass established teams, who are developing their park incurring all the associated costs but can't progress because they are still trying to get it up to scratch.

It's still not their ground to which they can make decisions upon. If Stirling Albion have a fixture clearly that would take precedence and would see the Uni having to play an alternative kick off from the scheduled time and all the knock on effects that can cause. This isn't a unique situation and quite a few teams are nomads - for me this is not right. Teams are spending fortunes on their grounds to improve standards and obtain licences etc. These nomads incur a fraction of the costs, incurring ground expenses as required. Would be interesting to see how closely the rules are being followed/enforced by the Association.

Makes a bit of a mockery of things - when clubs are hiring grounds to play games. That's what they do in pub leagues - all scramble on a Monday to hire a park. Surely there must be some sort of guarantee that a club is able to fulfill fixtures at a prescribed date/time. Although the cost to hire for a game may be expensive that only occurs when they are at home. Clubs with their own facilities incur overheads 52 weeks of a year.

How can you licence a park that's unplayable more often than not. Hardly a glowing reference

She will be devastated

Communication is vital - we don't communicate whatsoever with our supporters. A tannoy announcement on fixtures. Not every supporter uses social media or website. Our local paper recently announced JFK had been shot. So that is hardly a reliable source. The loudest voice informing most is totally against change and fuelling the negativity. See above if you don't engage and inform people they will listen to the loudest voice that informs them. We are simply not engaging with people or canvassing support. I'm against the whole concept but since engaging in discussion I have put aside my view and realise that we need to embrace and change.

A large part of our support equate the pyramid to excessive travel. Indeed who wants to play Elgin away on a Tuesday evening cropped up yesterday. It's very clear from the conversations I had we are a million miles from convincing our members. Pure and simply because we haven't engaged with them to address their concerns.

For that to happen we would need to see a drive to encourage such growth. We have a mixed bag of an ageing committee/support set in their ways - and others who are willing to look beyond the past. Personally I don't think we market ourselves as well as we could NO - a sore point for me. Communications need to improve and thinking beyond AGM is the time for your say and leave it to us otherwise approach Purely personal opinion - I'm not claiming to be right or logical in my opinions but honest enough to voice how I feel

My own personal view is Scottish football has far to many teams already playing at a level beyond their means and capabilities with little or no support from their wider community. Whilst I acknowledge the idea of a pyramid has plenty of merit - the realities to me are we encouraging teams to false levels. I believe my own club has reached it's natural level and the danger of chasing the next step is a step to far. That said - despite my reservations, I have acknowledged my personal utopia isn't the consensus and as such I have admitted the need to embrace change. Unfortunately - my reservations are mild compared to many members at Linlithgow - who have not been engaged with other than negatively by vociferous Nay Sayers.