gaz5

I was sat in the room. I heard it directly from the Vice President of the SFA. It's not second hand or possibly misconstrued information, that is direct from those who apparently run the game. Where did the WRSJFA info come from? RP or TJ? Unless RP was lying to the 80 or so delegates, which despite his unwillingness to answer many questions I don't believe he was, either something has changed or the WRJFA have a bad source. He offered that information as part of his presentation, he wasn't pushed for it at all. And he repeated it half a dozen times or more.

I agree, the takeway for RP and IM, which they seemed to get, was that there should be one league/setup in each geography, North, West, South, East. The examples used to illustrate why allowing the East Juniors to sit at the same level as an existing league in the East was thus: We allow East and West Juniors into Teir 6 alongside the EoS and SoS. There are two structures in the East now because "if clubs want to join as part of their own structure, why shouldn't they?" (RP). OK, so when the Central AFL want to join the pyramid, they join at Teir 6 alongside the West Region juniors, because we should allow structures to join under their own current setup when there's already a league in that Geography? Or any other league? Everyone comes in at Teir 6 whenever they want, even if there's already a structure in that area? At that point, I think they realised what they were actually proposing was unworkable in the East. They also confirmed there was no option to split the East and West juniors, it was either both or neither so the current proposal was neither at Teir 6. The room unanimously rejected that idea, making it clear that they wanted the West juniors in for next year. The support for the West was confirmed on at least 3 occasions. It seems the EoS support the introduction of the West more than the SJFA do, to be honest.

"The juniors are not in Teir 6 next season" That is a direct quote, repeated multiple times, by Rod Petrie. When asked he confirmed that was West and East. So someone had the wrong information. I would hope it's not the Chief Exec and Vice President, but honestly who the hell knows. [emoji846]

Athletics events for 3-4 months of the season I believe meaning the facility unavailable as required for matches.

Fair play, I personally didn't see that one coming, but there were things I was unaware of. Interesting to see where they go next, given they Appointed a senior manager, assistant and under 20's manager 9 months ago and those guys have been prepping for the season in the EoS and LL apparently.

Which is absolutely fine. The issue here though is that a year ago Maxwell and Petrie attended an EoS meeting to talk about Licensing, invited everyone present to pursue licensing, espoused the benefits of it and that they were nowhere near the 200 member club limit and never raised an issue. You now have 18 EoS clubs, plus another 2 in the juniors, who have taken them at their word and they are shifting the goalposts at the 11th hour after a. taking these teams application money and b. inviting their applications on the first place and c. those clubs spending large sums of money, in many cases that they didn't need to (example given last night was replacing goalposts for socketed versions with box nets as requested by auditors). That's not right.

I think it's worth pointing out that RP, who did all of the talking, didn't appear to be aware that an SFA rule existed marking the Lowland and Highland league boundary. For some reason he thought the people in the room were trying to decide what league's teams could play in, when in fact everyone was trying to point out that the rules had already been defined by the SFA themselves. Either he was suggesting the rules don't matter and we ignore it, or more likely in my view he doesn't know the rule exists.

He did an overview of the year for the SFA, highs and lows, spoke for about 5 minutes, no one had any questions about that stuff, he said very little else other then a closing remark 2 hours later that he understood everyone's frustration (and there was plenty of that). On your point about Ian Maxwell selecting either superleague team to take part in the playoffs, that's only if the LL change the playoff rules to say that playoffs are not governed by sporting merit then licencing as they are now for EoS and SoS, but that they be based on licensing and whoever the SFA CE chooses should take part. Given that it's a bonkers idea that you let the CE choose who goes for promotion rather than it clearly be the Teir 6 licensed league winners, I'd be surprised if the relevant league's involved agreed to that rule change. Plus even if everyone did agree it was made clear you finish the season with the rules you start and that precedent had been set by the SFA themselves this season re: Whitehill so having that done for the end of the year as defined in "the new plan" would mean it took effect the season after next, not next season. In terms of licencing, I'm not going to summarise that conversation because there was a lot to it, but be assured there was plenty of challenge from the room, none of which either representative had anything approaching a reasonable answer for. Quite frankly, the attitude towards licensing had an odour about it.

And I've been around for years if you meant me as the other one. [emoji6]

No, it doesn't unfortunately. It's pretty much as you were with the Juniors having a year to conform to the rules and regulations of the pyramid (including discipline which is to be administered by the SFA, not the SJFA) for all competitions, including the Junior Cup. Presumably at that point we have this same sorry debate again. Reference was made to the LL being asked to amend the playoff rules before 31/12/19 to make provision for the possibility of 2, 3 or 4 teams entering the LL playoff, but the feedback was that, as per Whitehill relegation and that proposed mid season rule change, you can't change the rules mid season. You finish with the rules you start with. So next season, for all intents and purposes, it's as you were if RP is to be believed it would seem. He did also confirm later that the SJFA had been told that the East Region would not be accepted at Teir 6 ever with a split league. Had to be one superleague in the East, not two. Apparently they were told that a while ago.

It was indeed, on both counts, by RP There's a new back of a fag packet plan, which was different to the one discussed at the PWG apparently. He stated on at least half a dozen occasions that this plan meant "the juniors will not be at Teir 6 next season". He was questioned on it and confirmed.

That's not what the EoS was told tonight, or what the SJFA have apparently already been told (which is likely why the WRSJFA mentioned it tonight at their meeting). Top league's only at Teir 6 from next season forward. One of many interesting discussion points.

The EoS will inform the clubs in question and it will be in those clubs gift to communicate. Not something anyone should be putting on here, sorry, sure you understand. [emoji106]

They won't like it when someone summarises the EoS meeting and what Mr Petrie told the 80 or so people in the room. Heads gone incoming I reckon.....

Cheers Burnie. I asked because we've been told nothing from the SFA re: our application. [emoji853]

It's that "official" Burnie? Have clubs been given feedback today?

While I understand what you mean in a world driven by logic and common sense, I don't think clubs deciding not to go public yet is the issue, more that they have nothing to go public with....

Exactly. They do that approval at an SFA board meeting, which we didn't appreciate till the licensing guys told us last week. Licensing guys have been really helpful to be fair, explained where it's at and that if it is approved this week we should be able to get it done for June meeting hopefully. It's always been June we were aiming for, for obvious reasons, so fingers crossed it's approved on Thursday.

Unfortunately, we need to be on the list for Thursday too in order to then be able to be heard in June. [emoji853] We were supposed to be in front of the cancelled March board to approve our initial application and pass to licensing to carry out the audit etc. As that was cancelled, the licensing guys can't progress our application (5th February) to audit yet, they need the OK from the SFA board. We're hoping to get that OK on Thursday so that we can start the audit with a view to hopefully being OK to go back for June. Any applicant who applied after the January meeting will be in the same boat, needing the board to approve the application before the process can officially start..[emoji853]

Dunipace.

They have said, on numerous occasions, they are happy for the West, North and Tayside league's to come in at Teir 6. You know this, however often you suggest otherwise.

We always welcome visitors. Get yourself into the new hospitality best game and watch from the balcony, it's a great view. [emoji846] It really has been a phenomenal year. The work around the place in terms of infrastructure and all the things behind the scenes that people don't see has been unreal and the CEC deserve huge credit not only for having the vision but being able to deliver it. Hopefully just the start as we keep building year on year. On the park it was always going to be difficult getting pitched into this conference as we prioritised the off field work that people are now starting to see, but the lads have done well for the most part, considering the established teams that we have been up against. And I hope no one would say it's been boring to watch. [emoji846] There's a long term plan, we're a significantly better side now than a year ago and we hope to improve again in the summer as we take another gradual step forward next season. Needs to be sustainable for us, that's the key. But looking positive so far and hopefully over the next few years we can progress the facility and the football operation at all levels, not just the first team.

Cheers. Lots of hard work from a lot of people around the club. Hoping we get through it ok. As an aside, Given I've written/updated a lot of policy docs for our website the last few months, I'd say that's where to look for potential applicants. [emoji846] When you see all the policies appearing on official sites, probably the first tell tale an application is pending. [emoji846]

Aye, cover and disabled cover, plus a few wee bits and bobs inside the changing rooms. Covered enclosure was ordered weeks ago (can't remember exactly date) and is en route, disabled cover being sorted just now and the internal work will get done after our last home game on Saturday (couple of extra showers and a urinal in each dressing room, nothing big). Screen fencing arrived last week and is sitting behind the hospitality ready to go up. Then we should meet all requirements, including floodlights, pending any feedback/actions we get from the auditor once they visit.

Assuming that has auto corrected from Oakley? [emoji846] Can't speak for them, but we applied in February, have paid our money and have had our EoS endorsement. Auditor confirmed application received with a visit date in March someone due to volume of work they had on, but we've not heard yet (we know they're busy at the licensing department just now!!). We've a few things to finish off, but all ordered and paid for pending delivery, should be completed soon, certainly in time for the June SFA board meeting deadline.