LongTimeLurker

Did you fail to notice that I wrote, "(although the SJFA's lack of flexibility on a region-by-region approach is definitely still part of what created the impasse)"? Did you fail to understand that my point was about who the SFA Board are likely to blame rather than who I blame personally? The complete absence of basic English language comprehension skills on here is breathtaking at times.

If clubs will soon need to be licensed to gain entry through winning a competition, it implies that having a licence is probably no longer enough to get into the preliminary rounds of the Scottish Cup at the community board level of the game. The change you are claiming is on the cards could also be aimed at stopping EoS clubs like Broxburn and Penicuik from having a big pay day.

Will be interesting to see what the SFA Board's attitude will be on junior clubs getting licensed in the months and years ahead. They wanted the SJFA in the pyramid and are walking away from the PWG process now that isn't happening, so they probably don't see the SJFA as being the main culprit at this point (although the SJFA's lack of flexibility on a region-by-region approach is definitely still part of what created the impasse). The floodlights requirement means there will be no massive influx if they accept applications at this point, and the associate membership that was brought in at the last AGM means there would be no voting rights for junior clubs and that the financial benefits that go with full SFA membership can easily be curtailed. All a license amounts to at that point is a test of whether clubs can cope with a midweek replay under floodlights so there is no danger of the Lochee vs Ayr scenario. At least 12 clubs need to be interested in a breakaway league and the LL, EoS or SoS may have to be willing to facilitate it, so don't think the Scottish Cup issue is what breaks the impasse and it remains to be seen if anything can/will be done on a short timeline now the SFA have walked away. The time to make a difference will be at the next WRSJFA and SJFA AGMs. The clubs need to instruct their officeholders that they must adopt a different approach on pyramid entry. If they fail to kick up a fuss at that point things could easily stumble on as they are now for another 5-10 years.

^^^ probably in genuine need of psychiatric help.

Not in the least surprising that he would take that posture after Option Z was blocked given the PWG meetings were directed by the SFA board to facilitate SJFA entry and have now reached a complete impasse on doing so. He probably has better things to do with his time. After blocking Option Z, the onus is now on the LL to add extra divisions to its structure to cover the west. If all the LL did was say there should be a WoSFL with no suggestion that they would be the ones actually launching it, that's a wee bit different from what was being peddled on here in recent days.

We'll be logical when it suits us on the ERSJFA and expedient when it suits us on the SoS, and apply rigid boundaries at the Tay bridge when it suits us, but suddenly not care about having boundaries when it suits us and any mention of the SJFA leads to this sort of thing: even though all the SJFA actually really does is organise a national cup competition that is highly unlikely to remain intact for long in its current form once the clubs involved are in the pyramid. Feel sorry for Rod Petrie. Explaining the advantages of Option Z to some of the people involved is probably as futile as explaining quantum physics to a goldfish.

The core SoS catchment has a population of around 150,000 and already has QoS, Stranraer, Annan, Gretna and Dalbeattie playing in higher tiers meaning there's not much left that isn't basically public park amateur sort of level. There is nothing clear and logical about a three-way split on that basis when the other two envisaged catchments are an order of magnitude larger in population terms. The rational way to do it with no overlapping feeders would be a straight two-way east-west split centred on Glasgow and Edinburgh as the two largest cities rather than a three-way one centred on Glasgow, Edinburgh and Dumfries.

Given the ongoing hysterics from the LL and EoS over the idea of having two parallel feeders in the east it seems unlikely. Their vision clearly revolves around one east feeder, one west feeder and one south feeder.

Not the way it is being done so far in a Scottish context. The German way of doing things (i.e fixed boundaries and relegating extra clubs further down the pyramid to even up the numbers) is what happens on the Club 42 playoff.

Given it's the LL that would be taking the lead on this, I'd be surprised if any West Lothian or Falkirk area clubs would fall under a new WoS setup as that's now established to be EoS territory. The application process is already open for south section ERSJFA clubs plus Scone Thistle and Tayport where the EoS is concerned and that would no doubt be part of the message to junior clubs from the LL on what happens next if Option Z falls by the wayside. The part that Burnie_man wasn't sure about in an earlier post was the rest of the north section ERSJFA as it sounded like there might be a boundary shift so that falls under the LL and EoS moving forward if the HL and LL decide they are not that bothered about that and it gets shifted presumably to keep Brechin and the Angus SPFL clubs happy.

If I had to bet on it then I would be placing my money on your info being accurate, but it's not officially in the public domain yet.

Think it needs to be made clear that all 63 WRSJFA clubs are welcome to hop on board ASAP under this scenario.

^^^simply didn't understand the previous posts like several others. If the LL is willing to split or can be split by the SFA, Option Z is viable and could easily happen. If the LL is remaining as is, then the Burnie_man scenario is readily doable given the way the playoff rules were drafted so flexibly.

There are no existing clubs to accomodate unlike the EoS scenario so if this unfolds as you have described they could use the final tables for this season's to guide the creation of divisions, if it's only WRSJFA clubs. Things get more complicated if SoS clubs (Bonnyton Thistle would be prime suspects), Glasgow Uni and some amateur and/or youth clubs apply, so guess that could justify the use of parallel conferences for year one if numbers were > 18.

Something to bear in mind was that people were trying to peddle the scare story that the EoS couldn't possibly accomodate more than 32 clubs when the mass defection of ERSJFA clubs happened only for a three conference format to be brought in. If they invite applications, think the only issue would be that there would need to be a minimum number to make it viable. Once that's reached a way can be found to make any number of clubs work one way or another.

The issue with the Selkirk situation was that LL clubs wanted to ignore how their own constitution was worded, because they didn't like its implications. The playoff format rule has been worded in a way that gives them a level of flexibility that they didn't have on that.

^^^how on earth can anyone reading that think I'm arguing something for the "sjfa's good" when I am pointing out that the LL have the ability to add a west division at tier 6 without needing the SFA, EoS and SoS to sign off on any changes? Know from first hand experience that one of the main problems on getting anything concrete done at a league or association meeting is that many of the people who will represent clubs at meetings like that will lack the IQ level needed to understand most of what is going on.

The flexibility of the playoff format rules means the SFA are likely to be facing a fait accompli on this if Burnie_man's information is accurate. Going into Rab McGlinchey mode that means they cannae stop it.

Your point appears to be that the LL acknowledge that a new agreement would have to be made. That's nothing more than what you want to be the case. The actual rules as written point in another direction on intent in that regard. The rules I highlighted show that the playoff format was deliberately future proofed when it was drafted in a way that gives the LL and its board, as opposed to the SFA, EoS and SoS, all kinds of flexibility if the initial envisaged set of circumstances are changed in some way or an unusual set of circumstances arise. There is nothing specific about it applying to pro/rel to and from tier 5 since the wording only refers to pro/rel from the EoS/SoS into the LL, so things are nothing like as clear cut as you were claiming above in that regard. There is nothing specific about licensing being an LL requirement given the "in circumstances where it is required to do so as the Candidate Club in terms of the SLFL Rules " phrasing. That leaves scope for a future unilateral change in the SLFL Rules by the SLFL on whether that is even required or not. Why phrase things that way rather than stating that the Candidate Club must have entry level licensing to be able to enter tier 5, if it wasn't to make an LL2 at the community board level potentially doable? They even have a phrasing that "the relevant club in the SLFL will retain its place " where they could have easily just stated the bottom placed club in the LL if they hadn't wanted to give the SLFL flexibility on that point as well. That arguably means the LL potentially still has scope to make a second agreement of this type with another league/association just as long as it's a different "relevant club" that is involved.

Try actually reading the rules. They have clearly been deliberately been drafted to provide the LL with lots of future flexibility. These sections for example: i) A club which is found to have infringed these Pyramid Play-Off Rules, may be ordered to replay the Pyramid Play-Off Match in question, ata time and venue and subject to whatever conditions (including as to allocation and/or indemnification of financial benefits and liabilities) as deemed appropriate by SLFL board in its absolute discretion; c) notwithstanding the terms above, the SLFLhas the power to investigate any matter pursuant to the operation of the Pyramid Play-Off Competitiond) No appeals shall be permissible from a SLFLdecision inrelation to an infringement of these Pyramid Play-Off Rules. d) No appeals shall be permissible from a SLFLdecision inrelation to an infringement of these Pyramid Play-Off Rules. and this: e) In the event that neither the Champion Club of the EoSFLnor of the SoSFLcomplies with the Membership Criteria(By 31stMarch each year)in circumstances where it is required to do so as the Candidate Club in terms of the SLFLRules, and the SLFLBoard has not granted any waiver, relaxationor period of grace in respect of both Clubs' requirement to comply with the relevant part of the Membership Criteria, there will be no lower Pyramid Play-Off Competition at the end of the relevant Season and the relevant clubin the SLFLwill retain its place in the SLFLin the immediately succeeding Season.

^^^The LL are already exploring the possibility of having an LL2 at the suggestion of Civil Service Strollers so they clearly don't see it as being about tier 5 rather than being about promotion into whatever is the lowest LL tier. If you read the text of the rules, it's even not clear that this playoff agreement would automatically preclude a separate agreement being made with the SJFA, if the LL were so inclined and agreed internally to open up a second relegation place, which means Gaz did have a point that the opposition of both the EoS and the LL was important last season.

The rules for the playoff no longer appear to be accessible online. Does anyone have access to the actual text so we can check whether there is a specific mention of tier 5? [Edit: found them] http://slfl.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Lower-Pyramid-play-off-rules-version-1.1.pdf "Lower Pyramid Play-Off Competition"means the competition at the end of the season to determine which Club, if any, is to be relegated from theScottish Lowland Football League(“SLFL”)to the East of Scotland Football League("EoSFL") or the South of Scotland Football League("SoSFL”) and which Club, if any, is to be promoted from the EoSFLor the SoSFLto the SLFL; I don't see anything about tier 5.

If the LL adds extra tiers with the goal of taking in all semi-professional clubs with enclosed grounds below whatever the boundary with the HL winds up being, the argument could be that pro/rel is no longer applicable anyway as any EoS or SoS club that wants to join can do so through application.

The LL is already talking about having an LL2. If that was split into east and west sections and became the new tier 6, WRSJFA clubs could be invited to apply to fill 16 places for that, if more than that applied there could be an LL3 west etc. It's no different from the EoS adding extra conference divisions as a second tier to accomodate new members from the ERSJFA, basically. We are the Borg you will be assimilated....