Khufu2

The east juniors form a minority of all junior clubs. The place to discuss junior clubs is here, not in the EoS section. That would make no sense.

Why on earth would you move a thread about the Juniors' future to the EoS section? You make no sense.

How does Glasgow Uni participate in the SFA system?

Indeed. The purpose of licensing should be to ensure standards. Nothing else. Clubs which choose to be members of the SJFA, because they have no interest in playing in a pyramid, should be able to be licensed if they meet those standards too. Licensing should be divorced from any requirement to participate in a flawed pyramid.

Your initial post was nonsense because it was posted after I had edited mine. These things happen - anyone with any modicum of intelligence would know these things happen. And your post where you mounted your high horse and accused me of changing my post in response to yours was wrong. I still don't understand why you are still flogging this dead horse. Give it a rest. You are just making a fool of yourself.

Licensing should be there to ensure clubs meet the required standards of administration, provision of facilities as set down by the SFA. It should not be used as a stick with which to beat clubs into participating in leagues they have no interest in joining.

I deleted at 1758. You replied at 1759 and then got on your high horse, accusing me of removing the errant quote after you had replied. I removed it before you replied. Your accusation was unfounded. You got it wrong.

Licensing should be determined by the ability of a club to meet administration, facility requirements. Not a commitment to join any particular grouping of clubs. You might well be right that if a WoSFL is set up junior clubs will lose their entry into the Scottish. It seems a bit harsh on the North champions (other than BoD) where nothing will have changed.

BoD and LR received their licences before the SFA picked up their ball and went home. Thereafter the SFA stated they would only issue licences to clubs committed to the pyramid.

Oh dear. Let me spell it out for you as simply as I can. 1. I posted a reply to burnieman and inadvertently included a quote of yours. 2. At 1758 I edited my reply to burnieman to remove the inadvertent quote. 3 At 1759 You replied to me. Your reply was a bit odd, but that was no great surprise. 4 You then got on your high horse and claimed I had altered the original post after your reply. 5 You were wrong. What a pity you don't have the balls to admit it. 6. The one having the 'mare is you. So up yourself that you think I would actually take the trouble to alter a post having read some unfathomable stuff from you. 7. I hope all that is simple enough for you to understand.

LOL!!!! I edited my post to remove the extraneous quote before you replied. My edit 1758. Your reply posted at 1759.

What on earth are you havering about? Burnieman made a point which merited a response. I've provided one.

The SFA does not countenance the licensing of SJFA members. Had it done so the shambles in the East would not have happened.

So now we're down to something said by someone at a football match.

Another delusional soul.

Oh dear. So you rely purely on hearsay. So tell us more about what someone who knows someone who knows someone who attended the meeting said about this "constant slagging at East meetings." At how many meetings did this "constant slagging occur"? What form did this "constant slagging" take?

So it's hearsay, from those that have a vested interest in denigrating TJ and the SJFA, that you rely on. LOL! No minutes then?

What do you rely on? Telepathy?

How many East meetings have you attended in the past 12 months?

Which takes us back where we began and the extent to which the'glass ceiling' has been removed. Until there are 32 LL clubs covering the whole of central and southern Scotland and 4 promotion places available to the LL the bottleneck will continue to exist.

Now that many of the better clubs have left (as well as many of the poorer clubs) there is no denying in the long term the standard of football (which is your definition of level) will generally be higher at the top of of the EOSFL than at the top of the East Juniors. It's such an obvious point that it's hardly worth making. However, the real issue is what will be the standard relative to what it would have been had the ex-juniors not done their lemming impression. Next season it will be lower in terms of the quality of opposition faced by the better clubs. Bonnyrigg, for example, will end up in a division of quite a few dud teams. The following season it might be much of a muchness, although Bonnyrigg might well have moved on by then, diluting the quality of opposition for the rest of the top teams.

Another delusional soul. What is it about these people, that posters less than 100% impressed by the shambles of the east part of the pyramid must be one and the same person. They're off their trolleys.

Must be delusional.

You're going to have to define "playing level", because this doesn't make much sense. Do you mean position in the pyramid or quality of football?

Oh dear. Why are you incapable of understanding plain English? No one is comparing the quality next season of those who have gone with those who remain. The argument was that from next season ex-junior clubs will be playing at a higher level in the EoS (in terms of quality of opposition) than they had done previously. Next season the top clubs will be playing a ragbag of ex-Superleague, ex-Premier, ex-South and EoS teams. A decline in quality of opposition. The following season the top division will probably include clubs which in SJFA East days were pretty mediocre Premier Division sides. Again, a decline in quality of opposition. Put simply, they have left behind some good opposition to be replaced by some pretty mediocre opposition.