gaz5

Problem with that is that it's 2 months since the initial deadline and a month since those teams who met the initial deadline were accepted and told that everyone would play at teir 6 for at least this transitional season. Those teams have been busy signing (or agreeing to sign) players for next season on that basis, with many of those players signing because of that. They know it will all be the same level for one season and they knew the teams (26 at that point) they would be facing. Shifting the goalposts on those clubs now, potentially impacting the agreements they have made with players and negatively impacting their preparations for a move they've been planning for for some time, in order to suit a number of big clubs who have, at the last minute, panicked and want to move seems unfair on those initial clubs. No one would disagree that as many clubs as possible should be accommodated, but that now has to be at Teir 6 as originally publicised so it doesn't impact those clubs who had the foresight to make this move prior to the initial deadline and have been signing players on that basis since 26th April when they were accepted.

I quite like the idea. Something different with the potential to be interesting at both ends, even if only for a season. I know it's a totally personal thing and I absolutely get why some people don't fancy it (and I may change my mind after a season of seeing how it works) but as I say, I quite like the idea on paper and I'm quite interested in seeing how it works next year. I'm happy to give it a go and see how it works then make a call on it after seeing how it plays out due a season, good or bad.

Two parallel conferences at their 6 is already decided AFAIK, the method of configuring those is to for debate, but the suggestion to seed then to end up with two similarly strong groups seems the most sensible approach.

I honestly think the fairest thing to do is the ERSJFA was coming in for 2019/20 works be a similar setup to what they are looking at this year, so that no clubs are disadvantaged, then run that each year one level down if you really want a linear structure. So, 2018/19 run two parallel leagues at tier 6, seeding the divisions on form/league grin the previous seasons. All teams have a chance at promotion. 26 teams currently, final number not known till June Season 19/20 Assume 26 teams but tweak for whatever number it ends up: ERSJFA moves over, minus the North of the Tay teams as they head north to HL territory. The Superleague teams and as many others from the regions as required to make 3 parallel leagues of 16. 48 teams. Seed it again and create 3 conferences based on performance, all other teams fall in below in a single division. All teams compete for promotion via conferences and end of season playoff. Means no current EoS team penalised by new teams "hopping" them and that the top Juniors can also come in at the same level, rather than have to come in through a league below (which we would all concede would be far did the big sides). Then everyone plays for position based on merit and ALL teams are mixed up/integrated straight away (no Junior/EoS divide). I have to say, I like the two conference idea at the top of EoS, so personally I would say top 9 in the 3 conferences, plus top 3 from league below, plus a playoff between the 3 teams in 10th make up your two conferences (32) for 20/21, with everyone else in a single league below that. Then every season the 2 conferences are seeded at the start of the year, meaning its rarely ever the same teams in the same configuration (keeping it interesting) with end season playoffs for winners/promotion at both ends also adding interest. I realise traditionalists will say "that's upside down, it should be one league splitting out into 2 or more", which it is, but if you put so many decent clubs looking to progress into the same pot and have then ask playing against each other regularly in different configurations, that I think would be genuinely interesting. I'm not a subscriber to the old "there must be one single top league" thinking. It's like something new that captures the imagination. I'm really looking forward to next year for that reason, I thin the two conferences and playoffs is a great idea.

I don't believe you can opt out. Promotion (or entry to the playoffs to play due promotion) is mandatory if you meet the criteria.

Fire was to the old social club, which is actually outside the boundary of the ground (you can see it in the bottom picture, the gray building directly adjacent). It has now been demolished (though the rubble still to be cleared) Over the summer there will be extensive work to the ground, with a new 4G pitch, floodlights, additional changing rooms, perimeter fencing etc.

I agree, Linlithgow would be competitive in the LL over the course of 30 games. They would compete with the top 6 clubs and be of similar standard over the course of a league season. I wouldn't expect them to just pass through it though. What I would say is that (not you) there are many junior fans who think that the top Junior sides would skoosh the LL. I don't believe that would be the case. Some of them would be up there challenging, but teams like EK, Spartans, The Shire, BSC (this season), Cumbernauld, Stirling Uni (though a poor season this year) are not the mugs that many junior sides think them to be. I agree you can't draw many conclusions regards one off cup games, but that is the only reference point you have at the moment (Kelty will hopefully provide a yardstick next season), but saying Linlithgow (regarded as one of the top East Juniors) have had plenty to spare in those games against LL teams cuts both ways. Talbot, I believe, have played 5 games against LL opposition and have only won through once? I saw the Cumbernauld game, and on that day Colts won with plenty to spare. Now that point isn't to talk down Talbot or Linlithgow, they are both fantastic clubs with fantastic teams who are hugely successful on the park. Of course they would compete in the LL. The point I'm trying to make is that the LL, particularly at the top end contains teams equally as good a the top end of both junior superleagues. Impression often given by junior fans is that the LL is full of teams not as good as the juniors and they just deserve to be at that level because the LL is rubbish. That's just not the case and doesnt help any discussion when that is often what comes across as a starting point.

It is a requirement of licensing criteria that the ground appears to be a football ground and that certain things are "within" the boundary fence, including cover for a minimum of 100. I suspect that those provisions are in there to avoid the cage scenario, which I agree with you isn't particularly spectator friendly, it's more of a training facility "feel". I suspect all the teams moving to the EoS who have these facilities and are looking at licensing know this, so it is likely to be less of an issue for them.

Point of interest, had none of the new clubs applied (many of which are closer than the existing clubs in EoS) Dunipace's increase in travel over staying in the west (with that league restructure) was an average of 7 miles per round trip, but that was with 4 really long trips, the majority were shorter than going west. With the new clubs (which were unknown when that was calculated) it is conceivable that (depending on what division they end up in with it likely the borders teams will now be split so not 4 long trips), their average travel for this move could actually reduce. Also, Stirling Uni and Camelon are 9 and about 3 miles respectively. Closest games in the west was just under 30 (from memory), so there's actually potential for some local games that the club has never really had. This may have been one of the many things considered.

1. Why do they need to be at the same level, legally, when there will be no "Junior" grade once all in the pyramid? It will just be "non league", all clubs equal. 2. Why do the SJFA need to be involved in the East at all? Why is the concession not that the SJFA run the feeder in the West and North, where they can come in at Tier 6, with the concession that the EoS retain the East, with any East Junior clubs joining that setup? Remembering that once these changes happen there will be no "Juniors" it will all be part of the Senior pyramid and ask these clubs will be "non league clubs " theres no requirement for the SJFA to run in the East at all, other than self preservation. TBH, I think that is the only logical outcome where both sides make concessions to get the job done and get a workable solution. I may be proven wrong, but in my opinion as we already have an East feeder talk of the entire SJFA dropping in at the same level is fantasy. West (with negotiation with SoS) and North, yes, the SJFA can run those feeders at Tier 6, East clubs join the EoS which is already the feeder there. Job done. 2 East feeders would just be silly. I agree though, the current license "month off" seems pointless. It does suit one party at this point though.

There is no license embargo. Its a one month deferral to allow the PWG to meet to discuss the junior proposals. Those proposals I suspect will not gain consensus at that meeting without being significantly changed, given the East Elephant in the room. West and North straightforward for season 2019/20, but its be amazed if any agreement was reached over the East. The SJFA would need to be willing to make concessions to gain consensus, given they are 5 years late to the party (and seem to be treating the EoS and SoS with some degree of contempt). I can't see them being willing to make any such concessions, given the rhetoric thus far? Either way, none of it should really make a difference to those who have applied for next year anyway, unless I've missed something.

[emoji106] http://www.dunipacefc.com or Facebook, for the full statement.

Clubs will have their own reasons for being for or against EoS and the Pyramid, and that's fair enough, but trying to find reasons that don't exist dont do whatever side of the argument you are on any good. LTHV are 1 team among 44 in the SoS, EoS & LL (same guy does them all and had done fur a decade) having fixture issues because they have issues with their council putting the park off. It is an issue, no doubt, and one that is a difficult one for them. But trying to sell that as "fixture lists published at the start of the season are a work of fiction" removes any credibility for whatever argument you are trying to make. I can tell you, having spent nearly 3 years in one of those leagues, fixture lists are not only achievable at that level, they're brilliant for someone with a family trying to plan their season. LTHV are the exception, not the rule.

Wow. "I have a third hand source who says an interim CEO, who conveniently can't be reached today for confirmation, in his first major act in his interim post is going to ride roughshod over the 4 leagues/associations who have shown an ongoing commitment to the pyramid since inception in favour of the one who have treated it with utter contempt until 5 minutes ago. Not only that, they are going to implement it, including all the rule changes that would require drafting, legalising and review prior to being accepted at all 5 AGM's (June) in time for next season, but even having "got it done" there will still be an embargo on license applications in order to let the Juniors catch up with their senior counterparts, thereby nullifying the entire point of Tier 6 (promotion/relegation) for an unspecified period as a result" Top stuff. Anyone else think the conversation was as follows: "Ho big fella, welcome into post. We want Juniors in at tier 6. What say ye?" Interim CEO (slightly confused): "Eh, aye, OK, whatever" "We're in lads, Tier 6 it is" Nothing would surprise me in Scottish football, but I'd be absolutely astounded if any of this came to pass. I think there would be a lot of unhappy people if it did, without any sort of consultation.

I see there are a couple of people in the Juniors forum talking about a "licence embargo until further notice". Doesn't seem to say any such thing on the SFA licensing site, assume this is not actually true?

£3k (P) + £3k (P) + £4k (R1) + £5k (R2) + £6k (R3) I believe, for getting to R3 from the prelims. Plus share of gate receipts.

South Challenge and EoS Football Nation Q Cup? Need to be licensed by March 31st I believe to be eligible for the Scottish Cup the season after.

Ground is only 1 of the 4 areas that make up the license requirements. Clubs are reviewed on set items relating to: Ground Criteria First Team Football Criteria Youth Team Football Criteria Legal, Administration, Finance and Codes of Practice Criteria Ground Criteria alone actually makes up less than 50% of the license requirement, in terms of action points. 18 of 37 individual requirements are park / ground specific. When you take the time to read through it, it appears there's been a lot of undue scaremongering about licensing. Entry level appears to be a fairly low bar of good minimum standards that it makes sense, in this day and age, to aspire to.

Might not be too far off there, though they may also look at the teams within each seeding group and try and pair them if there are, for example, potential derby matches which would be good for interest /the league. They may want to make sure those teams are in the same section at Tier 6. Of the teams rumoured so far theres potential for at least one (new) derby match, if they end up being accurate.

This. I would expect that at the very least those who have applied and were in attendance last night would also be looking to attend the EoS meeting to compare and contrast, doing their due diligence on both options. Would be surprising if any of the clubs who have applied were swayed at this stage by only listening to one side of the debate. Perhaps suggests they weren't fully on board pre application to begin with and maybe looking for reasons to hold off. Which is fair enough I guess, but you'd hope that anyone applying had already looked at the pros and cons well in advance and had applied based on those, in which case the meetings don't really change anything.

In fairness, I think this post is, in 5 lines, a fair reflection of both sides of this debate. From the Junior non movers and naysayers, it seems all about the here and now: The current quality of the first team on the park, today. For the teams moving and those that support the pyramid it seems far more about what they hope the club (all encompassing) will be and could be in the future, by making the move. Where they are more likely to fulfil their ambitions. Take Blackburn as a good example of that. Not a club from the Superleague, but they have worked tirelessly for years to put the infrastructure and process in place to grow their club. They had already started and they are doing well on the park this year, despite being in a lower league. People can poo poo their application based on their current league position all they want, but surely they are in a great position, because of the work they have done behind the scenes and the infrastructure they have put in place to grow and improve quickly in the EoS league? Theres more to this, in my opinion, than simply how good a team is on the park in the here and now, because that can change (and quickly - it does in most leagues on a regular basis, look at Albert's success in the West so far this year, or Ashfield relatively recent rise and fall from bottom to top back to bottom, or Selkirk in the LL sitting fifth from second bottom (I think) the season before). Success/quality of first teams is, generally, cyclical. This seems more about the vision that clubs have for themselves in the future and where they see the best chance of that vision being realised. I think there's more to judging any of these teams than just their current form on the park. Id say this is more about applicant clubs, as an entire package, than applicant first teams in isolation.

St Bernard's, who have been suggested, sign Derek Riorden today.........

Standard for new build community facilities these days is usually 252 lux, which satisfies the recommendation. But its only a recommendation, not a requirement, like it is to have 300 lux for Bronze. You wouldn't not get the license for only having 100 lux say, as floodlights are not a requirement at all for Entry level (currently).

Or they have applied already in order to meet the deadline and the meetings are to either ratify the decision or withdraw the application prior to the EoS AGM?

Hawick and Vale would go into South of Scotland would they not, rather then East of Scotland? Like Threave did?