gaz5
-
Posts
2,083 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by gaz5
-
-
I'm not sure how you figure winning a league, then winning a league playoff, while meeting the requirements of licensing at the time you applied (having had to wait an additional 6 months due to an SFA ban on new applications), is over exuberance.Personally I don’t think they fear them at all I think they are protecting them. Don’t you think you are expecting far too much too quickly? The juniors have made great progress over the last couple of seasons but Rome wasn’t built in a day. I welcome the day former junior clubs visit New Bayview on a regular basis but this can only be achieved by hard working committees as is being shown by Kelty. The pyramid as is stands is not perfect but progress has been made and through time will start to work. I think it’s unfortunate that Bonnyrigg have lost out this season but also reckon their disappointment is partly due to over exuberance.
Particularly when the only thing that has stopped them from getting the licence required and being promoted, on merit, is floodlights and the team that has been reprieved relegation as a result have no floodlights.
Bonnyrigg earned their Lowland League spot, just like Kelty who you give as a "good" example. The only difference between the two clubs is the SFA delayed Bonnyriggs application then shifted the goalposts mid process on them. Had the SFA treated Bonnyrigg like Kelty, they would have been licenced long before the Lowland League deadline and requirement for floodlights coming in.
Bottom line is these mooted changes, if they are in any way accurate in the end up, are nothing more than protectionism and the SFA showing a lack of backbone when it comes to dealing with the SPFL and standing up for their own documented goal of supporting and developing football at all levels of the game.
It's easy to understand why the SPFL clubs don't want any more mouths to feed, but you'd think a governing body who are supposed to preside over all things football in Scotland, of which the SPFL is just one part, would at least be able to deliver against their own articles of association. Clearly they thought 200 members was ok when they put that in there, now less than half of that is enough?6 -
No requirement to have floodlights for Teir 6 any more than there is a requirement to have them in the juniors, as you well know.How are folks getting on with the floodlights gig?
That said, at least if you have them in the EoS you've always been allowed to use them. [emoji85]4 -
Correct.I've heard it said it's not them but the amateurs Dunblane Thistle.0 -
That graphic comes from Dunipace Twitter & Facebook, rather than EoS, but it's an accurate representation of the EoS league format. A few clubs have made their own images to cover the official doc.Very interesting, as extracted from an innovative post from pyramidic (above).
Not seen this published on the EoSL website, or anywhere else on P&B ! Apologies if I have missed it.
There's further info re: cup arrangements and dealing with different relegation/promotion scenarios above in the full doc.
All in all, EoS again stepping up. Looks excellent.0 -
I don't know where the official base was, but I know they played a good few games out of Stirling Uni.Thanks for clarifying that. Do you know where "Dunblane Thistle" used to play their home games ?0 -
I think it's a different Dunblane.Dunblane is a progressive club, and would be an interesting addition to the Juniors or Seniors. However there is nothing on their website which confirms that they have applied to join the Juniors.
Also, does anyone know if the club's ground and facilities meet the required standards for entry ?
Not the "soccer club", who I'm assuming you are referring to, it's the old Thistle who used to be in the fosters central Ams I think.0 -
No, your first instinct was right, it's about £100 a year to be a member, another £100 for the 20's, and for that you get match balls, training balls, all the insurances required plus a host of other things.
£2k is to apply for the licence, which you don't need for EoS.
Whoever has told then it was £2k to join the EoS was at it.3 -
Camelon already have a 20's team. That list is only new teams joining. 20's setup is doing to be excellent next year, as it was this year.I don't see Camelon's name on that list0 -
They still have a licence and presumably whatever period of derrogation the SFA have allowed to get floodlights before losing it if they don't.Surely WW would not be accepted by application as they still dont satisfy the most recent licensing rules e.g no floodlights, or am I getting confused by it all?
Under which circumstances they would be eligible for LL.
Licence is required for LL, rather than floodlights. Floodlights were only recently made a requirement for the licence, which is causing all the problems.2 -
As I said, we both have different interpretations.Bonnyrigg being licensed relegates WW. Leaves the LL at 15 with EK/Berwick playoff being a wash. So there would be a vacancy then.
Mine is that my reading of it is Berwick coming down now relegates Whitehill, leaving the Selkirk vacancy, which Whitehill could apply for and might get.
If Berwick hadn't come down, then Whitehill would have been saved entirely, leaving the Selkirk vacancy.
I'm not trying to convince anyone I know what's going on and I don't have any skin in the game, just my interpretation. I've no problem ending up being completely wrong. [emoji846]0 -
[emoji846]There's nothing that says a vacancy has to be filled by application. Admission is by the combination of both application & promotion/relegation. When the league reaches 16 it's only by promotion/relegation, unless a vacancy arises through resignation or expulsion. In which case it's a combination of application or promotion/relegation again.Promotion and relegation returns the league to 16. So there's no spot to apply for.
I interpret it differently (I think, everything you say is actually the same as I've said, except the last sentence).
Otherwise, had Bonnyrigg been licenced and EK beat Cove, Whitehill also wouldn't have been relegated due to the Selkirk vacancy? We know that's not true because there was no mechanism to make the promoted club fill that vacancy in the rules?
All I'm saying really is that if there was no way to make the promoted club take the vacancy created by Selkirk without changing the rules (which the SFA said couldn't be done mid season) then surely there's also no way to make the relegated club fill that vacancy, using the same rules?
As I say, it's all irrelevant what we think, only how the LL interpret and apply the rules. They've been put in an awkward position by the SFA and there's arguments could be made for any of the possible outcomes the LL could choose.
0 -
I read it the same way as pipedreamer, in that Whitehill were indeed initially reprieved by Bonnyrigg not getting a licence, but would be relegated by Berwick coming down and no LL champion going up, in which case Dalbeattie are the ones reprieved by Bonnyrigg not being licenced.the bottom club is deemed as WW and relegated / replaced by EOS champion in this case there is none ?
Selkirk vacancy is a vacancy to be filled by application, which may well be awarded to Whitehill, which would see them stay in the league but through application, not through the relegation mechanism.
It's more then just what happens below that impacts relegation in the LL.
It will be up to the league obviously and I'm sure they will do the right thing by the rules, this is all just conjecture/personal interpretation on our part.
I don't believe there's anything in the rules which allows Berwick to fill the Selkirk vacancy in a relegation context.
We'll see I guess.0 -
No, you don't relegate second bottom and leave bottom up. I can imagine the seeth at that!! [emoji39]
The lowest placed team not already relegated gets relegated for Berwick. In this instance, because Bonnyrigg not licensed, that's Whitehill. Had Bonnyrigg been licensed, it would have been Dalbeattie. Both were able to apply for Selkirk's vacancy, Dalbeattie would likely have got that on account of circumstances, Whitehill still might.
Again, only my interpretation of the rules and what I think would happen in any other season.0 -
Relegation rules in the LL are more complicated than that though.- LL confirmed that 15th would be considered "bottom" for relegation
unless Bonnyrigg get a license ( as champions) ,,,,,,,,,,,then there will be no relegation as they cant be replaced by another team for the champions spot
just my view on the mine field of rules ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
They would be replaced by Berwick, rather than the EoS champion.
LL relegation isn't just about what happens below, it changes based on what happens above. It's unique in that sense in the pyramid.
It's the only league in which a team can be relegated from the bottom/second bottom based purely on a team above being relegated, regardless of what happens below.
In confirming that 15th would be considered bottom based on the current rules, they confirmed that team would be considered bottom in all relegation scenarios.
In this one, there's no team to come up, so sigh of relief bottom club reprieved. But then the bottom club is back up for relegation now that a team is coming down from L2 (had Bonnyrigg been licenced that would have been second bottom).
As I say, Whitehill may well be re elected through application if they apply within 2 days of Berwick's relegation being confirmed (or the LL confirming that means they are relegated), but I don't believe the rules around relegation mean that Berwick can automatically fill the vacancy created by Selkirk (which is what you are suggesting).
It's been one of those seasons though where who the hell knows. Reason seems to be an afterthought. [emoji846]
1 -
The Lowland League stated at their previous two meetings that the bottom placed team, which is 15th placed Whitehill would by the league rules be relegated. In the event of a vacancy being open then an application process would open to anybody that filled the criteria. It didn't matter if as in this case the champions Bonnyrigg were unlicensed, the rules stipulate bottom placed team is relegated, so now the application process will be dealt with, and it is the league committee that will decide on the best applicant.
While true, that was said, that was under the assumption that a licensed team won the EoS and could be promoted. As that's not the case, I think Whitehill would be safe through that means of relegation. However, Berwick coming down and Cove going up may be Whitehills misfortune.
I have no idea how the LL will handle it in the end, but they are generally a very well run league. My reading of it all is:
- Selkirk went bust, creating a vacancy
- LL confirmed that 15th would be considered "bottom" for relegation
- SFA and LL confirm you can't change rules mid season to stop 15 being considered bottom
- Returning to 16 teams would be done through application, which was advertised in March
- LL confirm relegated clubs can apply for any vacancy within 2 days of relegation (suggesting normal relegstion rules, for EoS/SoS>LL and importantly L2>LL apply)
With Bonnyrigg denied a licence, that means no standard promotion/relegation between EoS/SoS and LL.
Bottom Club (be that 16 in any other season, 15 this) is reprieved from relegation.
UNLESS the Highland champions win the playoff and a Lowland area club is relegated from league 2, in which case bottom Club (second bottom if an EoS/SoS champion was licenced) would be relegated in any other season, through the relegation rules.
I don't believe LL rules allow for Berwick, as the relegated league 2 club, to fill the vacancy created by Selkirk as Selkirk are not considered bottom (or second bottom). There is already a mechanism for relegating league 2 clubs. The vacancy is a separate matter (which the LL seemed to suggest themselves when advertising it)
Had Bonnyrigg got a licence and Whitehill sent that route, Dalbeattie would have gone as well to take in Berwick, but could have applied for the vacancy. When the LL said Dalbeattie wouldn't go down, I believe that they meant they would be accepted back through application as there's no normal season where 14th gets relegated.
Basically, I think relegation and promotion would happen as it normally would regardless of Selkirk, which created a vacancy to be filled by application.
Of course, Whitehill could apply for that vacancy and could well be accepted on that basis, but given cove are going to beat Berwick, if this were a normal season, Selkirk hadn't folfed and the SFA hadn't made an arse of the licencing process, both Selkirk and Whitehill would be getting relegated.
Berwick coming down if anything goes against Whitehills (legitimate up till that point) annoyance at 15th considered bottom.
Just my interpretation of the rules/situation, and absolutely nothing against Whitehill. The politics and mess of this is an issue completely outside of their control, their only issue was finishing bottom of the 15 teams.
1 -
3pm is already the Lowland League standard kick off time.Presumably now the lights are a requirement the LL will be brought into line with the rest of tier 5 and above. Ie kick of at 3.00pm ?
I dont imagine however that a 30 league game season will necessitate a couple of rounds of 7.45pm games ?
Clubs without floodlights kick off at 2, for obvious reasons. That's not going to change for those clubs until they get, if they get, floodlights.0 -
If the West juniors had come on board for at tier six -nine for 2019/20 season then Cumnock and Petershill probably would have their SFA licence by now.
Unfortunately Gogsy, that seems not to be the case. There is a team in the Pyramid being treated the same way as Cumnock and Petershill in terms of their application not being approved and passed to licencing.
As far as I know, Cumnock and Petershill haven't been officially told no? They've just not been told anything since their application?
0 -
Oh I don't doubt it.All your figures still point to a minimum of well over £50 as I indicated to legally pay a pro. Guarantee numerous clubs are legally using paye but paying figures such as £25 a week. That would hardly cover the minimum 3 hours required on a matchday.Still plenty clubs not even using paye. No names but a kid working for me and playing for a superleague team was still getting cash without pay slips [emoji33]I was only pointing out, as someone who has run a budget for two separate teams in the last 5 years, it's quite complicated, you have to consider there are multiple types of contracts and multiple different ways to legally give players money. It's not just as simple as 20 in a squad x £70 a week minimum wage over 40 weeks and that's the teams budget as had been suggested.
There will absolutely be teams flouting the rules knowingly, others probably unknowingly (not that HMRC care of you know or not!), but those doing it properly will likely have a fair mix of contract types, payment methods and players, all of which is perfectly acceptable tax wise.
For what it's worth, attached are my minimum wage calculations based on 2x90 minute training sessions and an average of 4 hours per game over the season (home games 2 and 3/4 hours, away games 5 and a 1/4 hours as an average).
EDIT: Can't upload pics for some reason.
0 -
No problem.Thanks gaz5, a very interesting reply. I hope that your club will be successful. By the way, according to a couple of recent posts above, you shouldn't have mentioned Dunipace here, but you should have used the "EoS forum" to ask about Club Licensing. Keep smiling.......... and posting on either forum.
Unfortunately it appears our application still hasn't been passed to licensing by the SFA.0 -
This is correct.Dunipace are apparently in the same sort of spot that Cumnock are probably in. They have to get their application & £2k fee accepted by the SFA board first before the licensing process begins.
Last thing I saw on the Dunipace front is silence from the SFA.
Applied first week in February, provided documents and cheque, got an acknowledgement from SFA a few days later, radio silence since.
Licensing dept confirmed the SFA have not forwarded to them yet pre the April meeting.
We hoped to hear something this week as obviously our colleagues have had some news, but nothing yet.
Have asked the licensing dept for an update, who are usually very good/helpful, awaiting feedback.2 -
Not quite.Teams can't afford it, you would be paid from the moment you leave the house until you return. Then expenses, its just not viable for most.
You don't get paid traveling time to get to your work unless it's to a location other than your primary workplace for that job.
Travel time to and from training and to and from home games doesn't legally count as paid hours.
The national minimum wage is also different depending on age, so it's not uniform across a squad.
There's also the (perfectly legal) ability to pay up to 45p per mile per week in expenses without paying any "wage".
For some players, if travelling a relatively small distance, the expense entitlement can be more than minimum wage entitlement after tax so it makes more sense to pay expenses only.
Legal entitlement to expenses can also be more than the money some teams could afford to pay individuals as well, meaning non taxable (legitimate, but you have to track and amend payments when sessions missed) expenses are the better option.
For example, a 23 year old who lives 15 miles from the home ground/training park would be entitled to 90*45p per week, (plus an average of travel distance to away games over the league season, which increases that, but we'll ignore for this example).
That player would be entitled to a maximum of £41 in expenses per week by HMRC guidelines. Minimum wage for their age would be around £53.90 per week, but that is liable to tax and NI which would reduce that to roughly £39.35 at 20% tax code. Expenses is non taxable (as actually incurred) so expenses the better option.
The calculation is different for every player, and for many clubs they would likely have a budget that means most players can't be offered more than maximum expenses entitlement anyway.
I would wager that most clubs have a mix of amateur/non contract players on legit expenses and professional players on wages where they command more than what could legitimately be paid as expenses.
It's not quite as simple as £x per week minimum wage X 20 across a squad to work out a budget.7 -
As do I, but unfortunately all the empty rhetoric spouted by Maxwell about grassroots success and social impacts of football study just prove that the top brass in the SFA and the media care little for this level of the game.I also posted this elsewhere. How long do Bonnyrigg realistically have to appeal, and if they do appeal will the LL have to delay confirming promotion/relegation until the appeal is heard?
This could grow arms and legs. I hope the media get all over this.
Maybe if Bonnyrigg adopted some new songs the SFA and media would be interested in the scandal around what most people regarded as a very easy and sensible decision.......0 -
If the SFA were to add playing standards/achievements to the criteria - that would surely be more relevant to the application process
Would it though?
What about the clubs who have diverted all funds from the playing side to develop their club/grounds for the longer term future of the club who then want to apply for a licence once that work is up to licence standard?
Not everyone can afford to put an expensive first team on the park at the same time as developing their ground, for many smaller clubs limiting the achievement of the first team in order to progress off the park is a conscious choice.
More power to clubs who can do both, but you can't discount clubs who need to choose.
The issue here isn't the criteria, it's that the SFA have changed it, at zero notice, while people are in process.
4 -
For already licensed teams without lights, I believe the mechanism for removing licenses is through the annual re-audit. Don't think you can just take them away.
So in theory any club without them has until they are re-audited this year to get them in, at which point of they don't they would lose their licence?
I'm sure I saw someone say that Whitehill weren't due an audit till September time? So they would have the licence to start the season, but not shortly after (as well as CSS, Vale).
It's all a bit messy.
Could mean zero promotion places this season, but 3 (or 4 if someone other than the 3 teams finished bottom) next season.
Feel for the clubs who have been refused on the basis of floodlights only. Poor show.
ETA: We've not heard anything about our application.
0
Bo'ness United 2019-2020
in East of Scotland Football League
Posted
FYI - the contractors at Westfield were very good at running exactly to date.
At one stage we were around 2 weeks ahead of schedule as well, but that was eaten up waiting for the specialist crew coming in to lay the carpet. They are brought in specifically for that bit, apparently that's what they do all over the country.
As they were/are booked solid, they couldn't come to us earlier, only on the initial schedule they were booked for, so we lost the two weeks on the park even though the surrounding work kept going.
Not to say that will be the same at Newton, just letting you know that was our experience given its the same contractors.
All in all, they were excellent and hit the initially scheduled end date.