gaz5

And yet you can't answer the question as to what the SJFA have contributed or conceded to in negotiations. Telling. I would like to build 4 new houses in your street. One of them will be in your garden. The local council said this would be acceptable to them, but I have to clear it with you and your wife/husband/significant other first. I now have a directive to build 4 houses, including one in your garden and if you don't let me your are being obstructive. The other 3 would actually raise the value of your property. Do you: a. Say "no, f**k off you can't build any houses" b. Say "ok, you can build the other 3, but not the one in my garden" c. Aye crack on, whack then in and stick a house on my front grass. That is essentially your stance here, put into the most ridiculous example I can think of. You think the EoS should answer c), you are claiming they are answering a), when in reality what they are saying is "we'll compromise, it's b). As they say that, you think it's entirely ok for the other party to insist on c) and claim the EoS is being obstructive to the juniors. [emoji846] The reality is opposing a stupid idea and having an alternative middle ground isn't obstructive. The other party but being willing to acknowledge that the idea is batshit crazy and compromise for everyone, including their own members, benefit, is obstructive.

Ok, even though we all know that's not true (given the plan is the one the SJFA asked they're member clubs to vote on before the SFA board were even engaged) I'll play. So, you're strive is that the EoS are blocking and movement of the juniors. In reality, the EoS have agreed to put 3 of the 4 distinct sets of Juniors in at Teir 6, (West, North and Tayside) asking the Juniors to make a common sense concession for the small fourth subset for the good of the game because there's already a league in that geographical area. The EoS then called and chaired a meeting with the SJFA, presumably to discuss this and by all accounts the SJFA and ERSJFA weren't interested in a compromise (hearsay based on yourself and others heading reports of the meeting) So we are in a position where the "SFA board directive", which coincidentally happens to be the same as the option selected when the SJFA asked teams to vote on pyramid entry, had been 75% agreed by the EoS, but it can't be passed because the SJFA want 100%. This is generally how proposals work. Someone has an initial stab, people yeah and agree what is actually most common sense, the plan is reviewed and agreed then implemented. And you are trying to sell that as the EoS being the obstruction. It's pure fantasy. As far as I can tell, the EoS are not only the only people trying to make it happen, they are they only people looking at it from a common sense perspective calling the batshit crazy as batshit crazy. Tell us: what concessions have the SJFA made or solutions have they suggested to make the plan palatable? Zero. It gets then scaly what they want, despite knowing it's nuts, for all the reasons listed, so their position comes across as "we're in, f**k you".

EoS: Accepted 26 former Juniors into their league in 2018 and in 2019 have made it clear they are happy to accept West Region at Teir 6, North region at Teir 6, support creation of Tayside league at Teir 6 for teams north of the LL line and to accept remaining East region junior teams South of the line into their structure. SJFA: We want East Juniors in system at the same level as EoS in a competing geographical area that would see teams single digit miles apart in a separate league structure, we want our own disciplinary process so we can collect fines, we want North of the Tay teams who can't play Lowland League included in the South of the Tay structure in the overlapping geographical area, competing with teams for a promotion spot they can't take and we don't give a f**k about the North juniors. Yep, defo sounds like it's the EoS being unreasonable and employing blocking tactics with regards the juniors. [emoji2] [emoji2] Guid yin, what's your next line: "SNP turn down offer of Scottish Independence and £100 billion from Westminster".

Always been part of the plans, but slowly, slowly catchy monkey as we do it sustainably. [emoji846] Wee bit here, wee bit there. Plus ours has heaters. [emoji846] More exciting changes coming soon though, through the hard work of the CEC and help from local business who support what we're trying to do, watch this space.[emoji6]

Anyone coming to Dunipace on Friday night, new hospitality and veiwing deck will be open for the first time! Limited availability, £15 per person, includes 6 drinks. First come, first served for available places. [emoji106]

I think in your ignorance you have unsurprisingly missed the point. This isn't a good deal for anyone, the juniors included. Talbot, for example, have 0.25 promotion spots available to their league and will have to fight for that spot against teams from above the Tay boundary who can't be promoted to LL under current rules (which this proposal doesn't address changing). The West gets 0.25 promotion spots, the East 0.5 (on account of having two league's in the same geography). Teams in the East now have two options. Let's say Whitehill get Relegated by finishing bottom. They look at the EoS premier and the ERSJFA south league. So they get to choose? Because of they want a chance at coming back up quickly they ain't choosing EoS. How's that fair to clubs in the West? Or what if one of the top Ams teams in the East decide to try their arm. Where do they go? Do they get to choose and pick the league they think will be easier to navigate? Take your association tinted specs off. This proposal, unless I'm missing something, is good for no one in the long run, East and West juniors included, for many, many reasons.

TBH I find it quite apt that the SFA, from the very top, with all of the possible solutions available to them to put in place positive and lasting change in non league football, have picked the worst "solution" they possibly could have to push to proposal. 0.25 promotion places to each of the longstanding pyramid feeders, 0.5 promotion spots for the incoming juniors, which includes a bunch of teams that can't even be promoted based on the pyramid rules, with two league's covering the same geographical area and 50% of the feeders running a separate disciplinary system based on making money to pay the wages of the only person that seems to benefit from this. It is an abomination of an idea which needs to get in the fucking sea. The answer here has been so simple from the off even a half competent leadership at the SFA could have got it over the line. West comes in at Teir 6, North of Tay in a new league (as the ERSJFA have already proposed) until the boundary question is answered, get ERSJFA and EoS round a table to agree a controlled merger that doesn't negatively impact any clubs from either association even if that needs another transition season of all in conferences at Teir 6 to work out Teir 6, 7 and 8 places the season after. Clear plan of who goes where needed on performance so everyone knows what they are playing for. Job done. In any normal walk of life, the role of the SFA here should have been that of arbitration, to mediate all sides who, naturally, would be looking out for their own interests, in order to get the right solution. Christ even a workable solution! It appears they have picked a side, and the side they've picked is the one who declined to enter discussions at the outset 5 years ago and up until a few clubs broke ranks in the East were openly disparaging about the pyramid they now want to force their way into on their own terms. This could end up an absolute clusterfuck that in the end only really benefits one man. And the frustrating thing, as with most things in Scottish football, it's been made so much harder than it had to be. It's clear both Junior and Senior want some solution, which is a start. Doesn't seem to be much in the way of negotiation or concession on either side though. Concession from each for a fair solution should have been Maxwell's role. Not pushing the agenda of one side, regardless of which side that was.

Yep, I know your agree mate, we've had this discussion a few times. [emoji846] It was a different forum and replying for everyone else to Bluebells post. We finally seen to be making good progress. Finally. Hopefully..[emoji846]

The structure in the long term, yes. For next season, no, would be hugely counterproductive and I think more than a few clubs would be furious at a last minute shifting of the goalposts. Needs to be conferences at Teir 7 next year to get the league's below sorted fairly for 20/21. As has been said on many occasions, Relegating clubs 2 teirs who are only expecting to drop 1 isn't on. We can't shift the goalposts with next to no games to play. Needs to be fair for all, like it had this season. Including the incoming juniors. EoS Premier as planned, conferences at Teir 7 for 1 session to let everyone win their place in the structure for the season after. Has worked well this year.

Depends what the question was and what the criteria is they were talking about. In order to move EoS games from the registered home venue it needs to be to another EoS approved ground (essentially an EoS member club). Camelon generously put us up for a couple of games. Maybe the criteria that meant the EoS (I can't see why Bo'ness would ask the SFA, they don't have a licence and won't be in the Scottish next year) said no was that it wasn't currently an EoS approved ground? Would be interesting to follow the theory through and ask, what if Eyemouth need a hand for a few games and asked Peebles, a ground farther from meeting the criteria than Little Kerse (but still perfectly fine for Teir 7 and below)? I honestly don't see any issue with Little Kerse until they want to start climbing upwards. Obviously no one can second guess anyone, but in my opinion I'd be amazed if they said no on the grounds of Little Kerse being unsuitable. Unless there's some issue we aren't aware of, of course.

Starting to come across like you have something against Syngenta.... [emoji846] Thankfully it only needs to be majority vote, not unanimous. I'd amazed if it were anything other than a yes.

I can't find it (which means I may be wrong) but I was sure I had seen in EoS minutes that Syngenta had, at the very least, been discussing with the EoS. I did think they had said they applied. It's strange if they don't have some assurances at the very least given: - They appointed a first team manager for their EoS team (Gary Sibbald) in July last year. He left his current side to take the role. - Appointed an Under 20's manager the week later. - Appointed an assistant manager for the EoS team the week after that. - Are still advertising that they will be EoS next year Strange things to do if they are not under the impression they are definitely coming in for next year. I know they have also talked to players about signing for the EoS team as well. I genuinely don't understand the opposition to them coming in though, especially from larger clubs (or their fans) in the area who are unlikely to be impacted by it. I'd have thought that if anyone were going to be opposed it would more likely be us, given we will be in direct competition with them for players as we're seen as the "smallest" other ex Junior club in the locale. But we're happy to add another strong club to the mix. Their ground is perfectly suitable for Teir 7 and below right now, it's better than many equivalents that would be second teir in the East Juniors next season. If they want to get promoted to Teir 6 and get a license, work to do, but what's the problem with them doing that on the inside? The EoS proved last year they are a pragmatic, open, welcoming league and have continued to do so throughout the season. It's been a breathe of fresh air. Who are any of us incoming clubs, who benefited from that last season, to suggest pragmatism no longer the way forward.

Nope. Can apply whenever you want, but as far as I'm aware can't be ratified till a vote at the AGM, which they applied a few months after last year I believe. And as they weren't applying to join till this year anyway, that vote won't happen till this year's AGM, during which time the criteria in your view have moved on. They applied and announced it just before the start of the season. I only know the timing because the man they announced as manager of the EoS team at the time was managing one of our preseason friendly opponents and the game was cancelled, leaving me to find another team for our friendly. They applied, from memory (and I'm sure this was minuted at an EoS regular meeting as well) around July 2018, for the 2019/20 season. So I ask again, under those circumstances should they get derrogation for the change in criteria, or should they need to meet them all now before they are accepted as members?

They applied last year, before the start of the season, before the criteria 'moved on'. Should they get derrogation against those changes, as they applied in good faith, or should they have to meet them all before being accepted given they have changed before they become EoS members. And yes, I have worded that to draw parallels with the current arguments being made around licenses as it seems there are people who think different logic should be applied in each case.

Peebles maybe the best comparison. Been there twice this season. Couple of minutes walk from the changing rooms in the sports centre to the park for players and officials, park is an open park with no controlled access. There's no difference at all between Little Kerse and Peebles, other than the 4G versus grass. TBH, I don't see any issues with Syngenta at Little Kerse (or Peebles) until they start moving through the levels. Certainly not suitable for a license and thus Teir 5, and potentially in the long term Teir 6 may become a licensed league as well, but for next season in the EoS at Teir 7 - I think they will be fine.

I suspect there will be a number of clubs who have applied from both grades, just not as vocally.

Official removal of the license maybe, so if a club comes back under the guise they can't claim access to it?

Spot on Burnie, only thing I would add is that clubs not in the premier for next year, expecting to be in Teir 7, also won't be happy if others come in above them and they end up from nowhere bring relegated 2 levels. Dropping two league's, rather than the one we are expecting would severely impact us as a club. I doubt we'd be the only ones who feel that way. I don't see the EoS agreeing to that, they are too well run and far too sensible. I'm all in favour of accepting the ERSJFA teams into the fold, but that can't be to the detriment of any of the clubs currently in the picture and to be fair, wherever possible not to the detriment of the ERSJFA either. Given there's currently no promotion available from ERSJFA super, strip out all north of the dividing line clubs and everyone in the East who doesn't qualify for the premier comes in at Teir 7, including ERSJFA and new applicants. Run conferences with as many teams in each to make it even (as close to 16 as possible), probably equate to 3 conferences again. 3 up/3 down, with a playoff place for fourth bottom and the second placed teams in each conference. Relegated teams and any Top fives that don't go up via playoffs, championship for the season after, plus whatever else required to make 16, with the others regional underneath. Another season of conferences underneath the premier to sort out what comes the season after is the only way to get it done without properly shafting any of the current clubs. If it is a merger, and clubs will be displaced more than expected based on positions, that needs to be laid out prior to next season starting so that clubs know what they are playing for and can plan accordingly for 2020/21. And that's clubs in both organisations knowing what they are playing for.

No. You are relegating some clubs 2 divisions there, moving the goalposts after the season has started. Complete non starter just to go right to that structure. The structure itself, which is something similar to what Burnie suggested a while back, is fine as a proposal. But you need interim stages to get the teams where they deserve there, like the EoS have done this season, you can't just go straight to it or it unjustly impacts on a number of clubs. Some get to come in at the same level they are at now but others, mainly current EoS clubs who you cos argue have been at the forefront of driving change in the game, get bumped down 2 league's instead of the 1 they expected at the start of the season. That would be a worse shafting to those clubs who had the vision to try to move themselves forward than Colts teams in a shitty SPFL3. [emoji846]

While I agree that allowances should be made for ET and penalties in caste cup ties, I don't think that's always down to the home club to be fair, as the only way it could be done is bringing the KO forward. That could be done when they are caste as the issue is already "known". Rather than caste a 19:45 or 20:00 cup fixture and leave it to the clubs to negotiate (what if the away club didn't agree to the time change, for example) make 19:15 the kickoff for winter cup ties across the board? Most 4G facilities that host games on a Friday night will have a hard stop of 22:00, where the home team have no control over the lights, even if it is their own ground. Certainly anyone with a 4G which has received funding will have lights that even if switched on at the switches will cut off at 22:00 on an internal timer that you have no access to and not come back on til 09:00 as part of the planning regulations. Its not like they can say "we'll book an extra half hour at the end to account for it", the lights would still go off and there's nothing at all they can do. Maybe that's an unknown for the league this year with so many teams and it's certainly not a criticism for what it's a superbly run competition. Maybe just a learning point for everyone for next season that across the board all cup ties should be caste as 19:15 kickoffs rather than 19:45 (would get ET but unlikely pens) or 20:00 (wont to get either)?

Don't think that's a confirmed list, just a speculative one. Final list may well be different.

Maybe you did, maybe you didn't..[emoji6]

Agreed. I can't for the life of me see any reason why any of the clubs would "move back". The EoS has been a far better setup for everyone involved and promises to continue to be going forward. If, for speculation sake, Sauchie have applied, I'd also doubt it was anything to do with on park form in the EoS. They lost their manager before the move to EoS for non football reasons, he was going either way, lost a lot of their key players (Morgan and Syme most notably) who were going anyway and in all likelihood they would have struggled in the East Juniors this season anyway had they stayed. It was always going to be a transition season for them regardless of EoS and in many ways, given the volume of player change, I actually think the new manager has done pretty well in the toughest of the 3 conferences by some margin, getting some good results.

I see what he's trying to do, but if the suggestion is to start with that set up from next session, effectively bringing teams from the ERJFA in and placing them above teams currently in the EoS league and relegating current EoS teams 2 levels instead of the 1 they are all expecting, then it's a complete non starter. If all we are talking about is a structure, where all teams below the premier play in conferences for another season next year to sort out who goes where, then it could work.

PS4. I'm not into online. PES I universally play master league, it's why I buy the game every year. Played about 50 games now (nearly at the end of second season of master league having turned off without saving a few times), so I've given it a decent chance. [emoji846]