RobM

Haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw haw. Arse.

Thinning the herd, another public park for the EoS though. Fair play to Dalkeith though, they're not going to charge through the EoS like Kelty. Good luck to them.

Aye gogsy. Who would that be then?

I suppose that's the point. make it better, nobody really has and the Junior game can still be very enjoyable. We could be the new East Stirling I suppose, there's ambition.

Great game at Hurlford today, EoS or LL games don't really carry the atmosphere that accompanied it. Junior football doesn't have to make any excuses for itself.

https://scottishpyramidnews.yolasite.com/

Scottish Pyramid News is still the best one-stop source for fixture news if you're looking for games getting played over the next month or so. Site's a bit unhinged at times but you can't accuse the guy of not caring.

That all went a bit untoward....

How stretched would those budgets become if you throw in an influx of clubs seeking licencing though and how would the existing financial pot stretch over this? Preston play in a Council facility, good luck getting councils to develop similar elsewhere with their current funding crises. If clubs feel able to meet licencing criteria then I applaud that but then others won't feel they could do it without risk. The benefit of playing Junior football is they don't have to take that risk. More clubs means lower rewards once the division of this takes place. there isn't going to be any huge increase in funds made available by the SFA so it'll simply be spread thinner. Midweek games in the juniors tend, as far as is possible, to be local affairs. Many clubs don't have floodlights as it would again commit them to a huge layout, that isn't going to happen for many.

See this is the problem, licencing and ground improvements creates a glass ceiling for clubs that doesn't exist in the Juniors. Why would clubs push themselves into a set-up which demands substantial financial input when the current set-up doesn't? Clubs aren't going to lay their future on the line to meet criteria they have no real desire to meet.

Well the question you'll be answering soon is the one that needs answering. In moving from the Junior set up to a unified one what expenses would there be for clubs in terms of licencing and ground improvements. At what level would floodlighting become a necessity? If a club has developed a decent playing squad would that have to be broken up to pay for this or would clubs need to borrow to invest and potentially risk the future of the club? Clubs at the Junior level compete on grounds that range from fenced off pubic parks through to more impressive examples at say Linlithgow and Pollock. What money would the SFA be providing to develop infra-stucture and bring grounds to the level they need to be at? In the Junior level any ground can host pretty much any tie in our game, I don't think many want to risk their futures by making their grounds ready for a move few want. We also don't impinge on our players with a great deal of midweek games which may mean players missing games or having to take time off work. Our game fits around its people rather than the other way around. That should pretty much cover both questions.

I've already answered one. Many Junior clubs don't want to move from a competitive set-up to enter one that is top-heavy, why would we? What was the other one and then you can answer the points above?

But that pot would be reduced the more clubs that entered the pyramid though wouldn't it? Would it be enough to raise grounds to the required standards for clubs who would perhaps have to mortgage themselves to meet these?

But how would Kirkcaldy playing in a unified set-up help them attract more? Arniston suffered from the time they spent out of Gorebridge and haven't fully recovered from that, that has impacted more on them than the fact they continue to play in the Juniors. The benefit as I've said in my previous post is that we are playing in a competitive set-up and one which clubs with modest means can push on. That's the benefit for us, why remove ourselves from a set-up that works for us? That would be the question that many in junior football would ask. Why have Easthouses and Craigroyston removed themselves from a potential pyramid set-up though to go Junior? You're not answering that. More examples? Glenafton, Pollock, Auchinleck, Bonnyrigg, Penicuik, Linlithgow......

That structure would be within the period in which we've made that progress in other words, it's suited us well. Again we're only one club but it's the place I know best. I doubt you'd find many in the Musselburgh support who feel 'stifled' by the Junior set-up, it has allowed a modest club like ours to progress. We've played all of these clubs recently or will play them this season, we'll get decent crowds for those games as well. Why would we want to swap a competitive structure for one which is heavily weighted towards the top end clubs as the SPFL is? I'll say this again, even in England the pyramid doesn't function fully, there's little movement from the Northern League to higher levels because clubs are happy there and have a reasonable chance of competing there. That's what the Junior set-up currently offers us and that's why there has been very limited movement from it to the senior game. As I've said in my previous post there have been more clubs moving in the other direction.

OK, now you're going to demonstrate to me that Kirkcaldy was a thriving hotbed of the game at one time. Kirkcaldy are a great little club, run by committed people but they are at the lower level of the game, bumping them into a unified set-up would improve that for them in what way? The one example you did provide that would rightly provoke some concern was Arniston. As a club they have been through hell and high-water in recent years, proposed ground move falling through, having to play games at other clubs grounds, a fall in league placings. All of this has impacted on the club but it is now in recovery, the dip in support has more to do with these factors than the fact that they play in the Junior game. Maybe you could provide a detailed analysis to show us how such events would be better dealt with within a unified set-up? I simply use the example of my own club because it is the one I know best, we have progressed and the Junior game hasn't held us back in any way. Again you reach for the condescension. I've already said that if clubs wish to enter the pyramid I have no issue with that, I wouldn't want to stop them, I don't see any point in attempting to dissuade them, there hasn't been a rush to the gates though has there? Your proposal remains a re-hashing of old ideas which offer little to clubs at our level, you've conveniently ignored the movement of two clubs from the EoS into the Junior game in recent years as well. What is it about the Junior set-up that those clubs preferred to the senior game?

The progress we've made in the last 15-20 years has been huge if you don't want to narrow it down to a shorter time-scale to suit your own argument. Excellent crowd at the recent Tranent v Burgh game.

I wouldn't, if teams feel they want to move on then good luck to them. I'm not necessarily against the integration of the game, you have chosen however to provide solely examples (sketchy ones at that) aimed at the Junior leagues. Dalkeith has never been a hot-bed of the game and you have still refused to acknowledge there have been problems at Arniston which have had an impact which have absolutely nothing to do with the league they play in. You've mentioned teams who perhaps struggle to get people through the gates and you aren't willing to acknowledge there are a number of factors at work here rather you'd twist that towards your viewpoint but that isn't evidence of anything. I'd be interested to see your breakdown of crowds at Glenrothes over say a ten year period which might add some weight to your theory that the junior game is ruining them. I've seen first hand the progress Musselburgh have made within the current structure, crowds are up, we're a better side, we have made progress. You aren't offering anything new, it's simply a rehash of old plans which haven't proven alluring enough in the past to entice clubs like us into a merger. It's not unusual in football for some clubs to rise while some perhaps have a period where they maybe struggle a little. Tranent would be a good example here, they appear to be rebuilding just fine in the Junior game. People aren't losing interest, we're still seeing decent turn-outs at our games after our relegation this year. We're going to need more proof for your theory that people are with more weight than your anecdotal theorising and you need to be looking at other factors impacting on clubs such as Arniston before you claim that your examples are indicative of a decline in the Junior game.

I don't think anybody's afraid, Try approaching it from a positive angle and see what benefits you could offer Junior clubs that differ from previous proposals. Your suggestion is simply a variation on these and won't particularly excite clubs or supporters who are happy with the current format and happy to engineer that to suit within the Junior game. You're very condescending to Junior fans who don't agree with you on occasion.

There's nothing to be afraid of but it doesn't really offer anything particularly exciting or Junior clubs would be all over it. There is the big question you have to ask. Why is that? Arniston have had many problems of late, not related to the set-up they play in. Glenrothes manage fine in the Junior leagues with what they pull in financially, they wouldn't pull in any more for a game against Edusport, Hawick, Whitehill, Selkirk, I could name more. I've been to EoS games where it's basically a public park, there isn't a gate to pay at.

To go back to the original question junior football would in all likelihood still thrive in its current form even if it lost a few more clubs like Kelty.

They would be, 'Junior clubs would be leaving what is largely a healthy set-up, one that isn't broken. Hawick v Stirling Uni it was, the LL is currently a home to them as the senior set-up also is to Edusport and BSC Glasgow. Perhaps it isn't disingenuous to ask why established clubs are loathe to take the plunge and move into a unified set-up? That is certainly the case currently, take up has been minimal. Again we get back to the point that the Junior leagues are largely healthy and there would be a risk inherent in leaving them. I'm sure if Bonnyrigg Rose had any real desire to play Whitehill Welfare then they would've moved over. Why hasn't this happened? I'd argue that Musselburgh have had a better time of it in recent years than Preston, we tend to get more in in the junior game than they did in the LL when they were in there. I did look at your proposal, it's a variation on something I've seen 100 times before.

Kelty will cruise it over the season. 8 games and their goal difference is already 50+, it'll be well into the sixties after they've played Tweedmouth this weekend. Heavily skewed set-up with teams at the lower level who wouldn't win their local amateur leagues playing teams (2 anyway) who are leagues above them. If that isn't farcical I don't know what is. I hugely respect those who keep Tweedmouth running that said, it can't be easy when they are getting hammered regularly but well done to them for trying to build a club in a town with an SPFL team and other teams in the English pyramid.

Tagging Kelty into the EoS is already a farce. They've racked up a 13-0 win already haven't they? I wouldn't want to bet that they don't better that. EoS is a dead rubber this season.