BS7
-
Posts
659 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by BS7
-
-
1 hour ago, leftbehind said:
Are you referring to the *Tottie Field* of HOM or Meggatland. when mentioning Tynecastle ? AND is it relevant ?
The point being that there are far worse pitches than Bonnyrigg
1 -
Maybe Berwick will spell out their intentions now, as I’m hearing they don’t plan on going to lowland league.
-1 -
20 hours ago, lithgierose said:
Piss the SFA off.and they will come back with some other ground criteria.ie,seating amount of cover for spectators and pitch gradients etc.
If there was any kind of pitch criteria the tottie field at tynecastle would be the first to suffer.
0 -
Has the make up of the lowland league been decided yet for next season? This is excruciating.
0 -
Looking at the process, there is a right of appeal.
It might get messy, if Bonnyrigg appeal, and the hearing isn't held before the lowland league deadline date. There might be a bit of scope here for Bonnyrigg to play the SFA at their own game.....
0 -
5 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:
It has been pointed out to me that while they had their last review in December, it doesn't mean that's when they were audited etc.
One of the reasons December audits were carried out under 2019 rules was because they were reviewed by the LC in February.
I can see the point you're making, but that would also start to throw up a host of issues in relation to timing - not least being disadvantaged by the embargo, and the timing of the inspections, and the timeline for consideration.
0 -
6 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:26 minutes ago, BS7 said:Civil and Vale of Leithen were inspected in December and given a licence as per:
Club Licence Update April 2019
What are the terms of their derogation? There must be derogation, because the new criteria was in place when the grounds were inspected no?Also, who granted the derogation, the Licence Committee (as per process) or the SFA Board?
You'll have possibly seen this document - I hadn't until today:
https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/4676/scottish-fa-club-licensing-manual-2019.pdf
Something seems not quite right.
0 -
Civil and Vale of Leithen were inspected in December and given a licence as per:
Club Licence Update April 2019
What are the terms of their derogation? There must be derogation, because the new criteria was in place when the grounds were inspected no?
1 -
22 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:
It wasn't in the criteria when they applied. It was altered while they were part-way through the process.
This has then been compounded by not waiving the new requirement or giving a grace period, while giving existing clubs time... and not recognising some applicant clubs are installing lights imminently, while some existing clubs aren't.I think this is the centre of the issue - why the SFA have granted (or will grant) derogations to existing licences, but not to new ones. At worst it will mean the likes of Tranent and Haddington playing in the Scottish Cup next season but not the one after if they don't install lights. Are they trying to set a precedent for all future applications that derogation will not be considered and lights will have to be installed or no licence.
For something that virtually all the east of scotland teams could easily access now for the couple of times a season they would need them, it seems to be putting a great big financial barrier to progress.
It doesn't seem to be a problem for licenced clubs to shift games to other stadium as and when necessary, so this approach seems particularly harsh. I guess until we know the reasoning behind it, we won't know what the SFA agenda is.
2 -
On 08/05/2019 at 09:56, The Informer said:
I am always fascinated by this argument.
The financial landscape in Scottish football is not a healthy one, so what are new clubs to do? Build their on ground or enter into a ground share agreement?
The cost of a new build ground, when taking into account land costs, is probably prohibitive for lower league clubs. The club wants to enter the pyramid and progress, the sensible solution would appear to be ground-share?
The parochial attitude that seems to dominate Scottish football holds us back, and that includes attitudes towards “new clubs”.
We need to look to modernise our thinking, which should include attitudes towards certain club’s infrastructures.
To be clear, I admire clubs like Rose who are ploughing their cash in to upgrade and offer the best possible product on the pitch. However, it’s not the fault of newer clubs that this has happened, that finger of blame points at Hampden.
And at the same time, its mind boggling that if half a dozen clubs in Midlothian want licences then half a dozen sets of floodlights have to be installed. These are community clubs - ground sharing would be the death of them.
If Penicuik, Newtongrange and Easthouses have lights why do Bonnyrigg, Dalkeith etc need them - its crazy to spend £50K a time on this when the money could be invested better.
But I suspect the SFA don't really have a grasp on financials at this level.
2 -
5 minutes ago, gogsy said:
If floodlights are the only thing stopping Bonnyrigg getting a license then surely that's it just delayed for a short period of time until they are installed? Meanwhile next season you will be in the big Scottish and in a league where attendances will probably be bigger than the average Lowland league game and one which you will be favourites to win again.
Feck that - we’ve showed this season we could challenge for lowland league and a place in the play offs for the league
5 -
I hope we appeal
1 -
2 minutes ago, Whitburn Vale said:
The Lowland League could do something about this debacle and give Bonnyrigg their rightful place in the LL.
3 current members don't even have floodlights??
All we are really talking about is a couple of months - if that - access to a licenced ground for midweeks. I’m sure easthouses could oblige for the handful of games required?
Not to advise Bonnyrigg until after they had won promotion us honking. I hope the silence from Bonnyrigg is because all parties are moving towards a solution.
0 -
5 minutes ago, Cumbo said:9 minutes ago, BS7 said:What date did the criteria change? Well after all the clubs joined the eos I’m fairly sure?
The manual for 2019 was sent to applicant clubs on December 11.
Cheers - so the timeline for the embargo and the new criteria is pretty damning in favour of the rejected clubs.
There’s an argument that the sfa didn’t really want the juniors but had to be seen to be promoting the pyramid. I think that this shabby episode would seem to confirm it.
sporting integrity beyond purchase mr Petrie? My arse!
1 -
Also the timing is not a coincidence - first working day after the plays offs?
2 -
Just now, Cumbo said:
Jeanfield have our audit on Friday but with today's announcement it looks like a waste of time.
We have the lights on one side and have permission from council to use lights from a local unused ball park.
Looking back at emails we actually had a visit from SFA on the day the criteria was changed.
It was the lad from SFA who pointed it out when we met him recently.What date did the criteria change? Well after all the clubs joined the eos I’m fairly sure?
0 -
Rod Petrie and Ian Maxwell MUST have known at the eos meeting what the outcome of the applications were.
what a couple of chancers.
3 -
4 minutes ago, Gimme said:
Looks like it's time to regroup and go again next season.
Disappointing outcome but not entirely unexpected.No team would be disadvantaged by the licensing process?
well, we clearly have, as have Broxburn and Penicuik.
0 -
Bonnyriggs application rejected I’ve been told
0 -
3 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:
Yes it was
3 minutes ago, falkirktv said:the application was in before the criteria changed. We had a plan to have them in be end of next season. Really not impressed and disappointed more than I can say.
That’s really poor. I dare say legally challengeable as well.
the timing leads me to suspect that the sfa were waiting to see the outcome of the play off before making their next move. If Bonnyrigg get their licence, I suspect they wouldn’t have if Saturdays result had gone the other way.
but, we’ll never know now.
1 -
5 minutes ago, falkirktv said:
Camelon rejected on grounds of not having floodlights. Very very disappointed.
Was your application in before the change in criteria?
0 -
6 minutes ago, The Moonster said:
Basing the uptake on their home attendance is stupid though, there'll be hundreds more Morton fans who can't get to games due to their location who will be willing to support the club by pledging. Morton's support doesn't just consist of the numbers going through the home turnstile every week.
I admire the ambition and I hope it works out for Morton.
I suspect Inverclyde suffers more than most from people moving away, but I suspect they still retain their affection for Morton. Time will tell.
0 -
@TonClubTogether
0 -
51 minutes ago, Gimme said:
Only if they are actually granted though.
Right from the start the whole licensing debacle has smacked of self preservation but to get to the point where the SFA is basically just closing the doors is wholly unacceptable.I agree - I think that the SFA seems to have been quite happy to play the "juniors don't want to part of the pyramid" because they didn't actually want them. When that shifted they don't know what to do - although the much maligned Stewart Regan probably would have seen this through to a conclusion rather than it sitting in limbo forever.
2
Club Licencing
in East of Scotland Football League
Posted
I wonder how many non league clubs have funded their own floodlights. I’d guess not many?