Burnieman
-
Posts
3,458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Posts posted by Burnieman
-
-
Fair play to Clyde and McCall, turned it around. Stranraer in a bit of soapy bubble.
1 -
2 minutes ago, Wos-observer said:
Under licensing rules, synthetic pitches are not tested every year, there is a manufacturers certification where a system is passed when they are installed with a certain build up i.e. specified shock pad, specified SBR and then specified carpet. Pitches are not individually tested other than the initial test by the likes of sportslab. The certification is based on a number of hours over a period of times. In most cases clubs far exceed the hours it was designed for in a fraction of the time. It is a system that has FIFA certification not the pitch.
Being involved in the industry for many years there isn't many people with more knowledge of this than me, despite financially benefiting from the product it still doesn't change my opinion that these pitches is being used for this level of game my be independently certified each season to avoid unnecessary injuries.
I can say for sure Holm Park falls below the standards set out in the bronze license for a pitch, Point of install 100% no issues and met all minimum standards.
Not quite true. You need to have a reasonably current FIFA 3g test certificate for Entry level Licence, from the likes of Sportslabs or anyone else certified to carry-out the test, and you'll be asked by the SFA to update it every 2-3 years, which is quite costly;
"ARTIFICIAL SURFACES Any artificial surface must comply with FIFA Quality standards. Any artificial surface must be green in colour. An artificial surface may be subject to tests, at intervals to be decided by the Scottish FA, to ensure compliance to performance standards determined by the Scottish FA, FIFA, UEFA"
For a Bronze Licence and above;
"Any artificial surface must comply with FIFA Quality Pro standards. A club shall be required to demonstrate that its surface continues to meet the required standard on an annual basis, as a minimum. Any artificial surface must be green in colour. An artificial surface may be subject to tests, at intervals to be decided by the Scottish FA, to ensure compliance to performance standards determined by the Scottish FA, FIFA, UEFA or others approved by the Scottish FA."
1 -
8 hours ago, Casey Jones said:
Also. How old are you? I’d imagine either a youngster or an immature adult. Is no one allowed to question your output without you planting a red dot on their post? If you need a replacement dummy, let me know
I thought you had your final word?
Enjoy Musselburgh, or Haddington, or whoever you're leaching off this week.
0 -
Judgement day tomorrow in L2 then......
1 -
1 hour ago, Vanderbilt said:
Davie Moyes brother I believe
Completely pointless waste of space football club.
You have to wonder who they actually exist for and why the financial backers keep the whole charade going.
The link with BSC is long gone, they're gypsies as far as a "home" is concerned and the actual support maybe numbers 10.
They will never get any traction in Dumbarton either.
2 -
1 hour ago, Casey Jones said:
I’ll end my debate here, but for clarity, I’ve never underlined your point once. Try not being so tunnel-visioned all the time. No point in arguing/communicating with stupidity. Cheers.
0 -
1 hour ago, Casey Jones said:
Certainly act as a blazer
Just like you used to be a Musselburgh fan
0 -
6 minutes ago, Wos-observer said:
So when Gartcairn address the food kiosk which I believe is to do with council permission then toilet block is up and running, are you then saying Gartcairn aren't a cage?
The pavilion does not affect the park being a cage. K Park has a capacity of 700.
I think we'll leave it there
0 -
1 minute ago, Wos-observer said:
I would accept Holm Park, Townhead and Barrfields being synthetic grounds that aren't cages, I don't see how K park is any different to Gartcairn as a cage. Yes K Park has a nice club house that doesn't change the park.
What do you mean by "park" ? EK have a proper pavilion housing all the facilities needed, they have a food kiosk, they have seating for 300, covered standing for another 200.
At Gartcairn you need to go to the sports centre for a pish and buy a coffee from the machine, you can only watch the game from one side, and portable goals can get in the way of your view.
If you can't see the difference then I can't help you any more than that.
4 -
5 minutes ago, Wos-observer said:
The have a tiny stand, for me K Park is simply a cage. Perharps not a council cage but certainly not a proper football ground.
It may not be great, but they have a stand and they have covered standing at one end (if they have a Bronze that must mean big enough for 500 overall covered) and more importantly they have a proper pavilion with all the required facilities. It's not a cage.
0 -
Just now, Wos-observer said:
If EK can achieve bronze with the 700 capacity cage they have and the one standing side then how can Gartcairn and Drumchapel be far away? I agree not good venues however look at EK. "But we've got plans for a big fancy stadium" David Kerr commercial manager, until I see it built having plans is just a dream.
EK is much more than just a cage.
1 -
12 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:
How do you know who is or isn't close to a license?
And rechecking Beith's statement on licensing from a little over a year ago. They haven't been in the process because the SFA had already stopped taking new applications.
So instead of blazers trying to help themselves as usual. How about people start targeting the SFA for actively hurting the pyramid. Instead of playing out a series of hypotheticals on teams that aren't even in the division.
Not sure why you're mentioning Beith, and I'm not a blazer either so try and untwist yer knickers a wee bit eh?
As for the clubs I DID mention, Gartcairn, Drumpchapel and Ashfield all play in cages which are a very long way from a licence, so unless they plan to move and share elsewhere, they wont be licenced this time next year. JB are looking to redevelop their ground to get a licence, that wont be happening overnight. The only one of those I mentioned who could get licenced in the next year are St.Cadoc's who share at (licenced) Benburb.
Irvine Meadow are going down, and Glenafton could go down, of the clubs in the running to come up, only Glencairn have a licence.
It's not that difficult to see that there could be another non-licenced winner next season.
0 -
4 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:
They don't block any path because the criteria is league champion. If you haven't won the league there's nothing being blocked.
Who are these teams by the way? Beith were getting pelters a little over a year ago. Then it turned out they were working on their license. You can work on a license and put out a championship winning team. It's not one or the other.
Seems to me there's been more stories of licensed clubs avoiding promotion chances than anything else: Buckie, Darvel, Brora, SCW, W&B
St.Cadocs and Gartcairn are two. It doesn't take a lot of reading on here to understand they are well resourced on the pitch but nowhere near a licence off it. Johnstone Burgh and Drumchapel are two more who are potentially coming up this season, Ashfield another who I understand now play in a cage.
0 -
29 minutes ago, Casey Jones said:
No I didn’t underline your point. I was referring to teams like (again for example, say Ormiston). Don’t think they have a license yet and they may decide they do not with to progress to obtaining a license. It is very unlikely, my thoughts, that due to the size/structure of the club, that they would ever, in foreseeable future win the East Region Premier league.
I thought I was the one that wasn't very clever? Whitburn can go up this season to the Premier, Whitburn don't have a licence, Whitburn can conceivably win the Premier next season. St.Cadocs and Gartcairn don't have licences but put a lot of money into their squads, they can win the WoS next season.
You said clubs not having licences is fine (I agree), which underlines my point that we need contingency to stop these non-licenced clubs from potentially blocking the Pyramid.
1 -
34 minutes ago, Casey Jones said:
Funny guy
Again, try and keep up (another red dot, no doubt, incoming from you!).
I referred to a team as ‘non-league winner’! Beith win league and not licensed. Why should, for example Auchinleck, Pollok who haven’t won the league, then be given the chance of a play off against Broxburn to see who gets promoted?
I've explained why.
0 -
15 hours ago, Shanner said:
They're not a failure if they win the play off.
The horse has bolted a long time ago for the principles you are basing your argument on. Your logic means that only champions can ever be promoted but football at all levels is littered with scenarios where non-champions are promoted or allowed a qualification path of some sort. You get teams that finish fourth in their leagues become European Champions and have a look at how Scotland ended up at the last Euros. With that in mind I'm sure a team that's runner up in the WOS getting a shot at the LL playoff isn't going be setting any more relaxed a precedent than already exists.
Pretty much spot on.
0 -
1 hour ago, Casey Jones said:
There will probably others who don’t want licenses, which is perfectly acceptable, as they are content with their current status.
Should those teams who are perfectly happy without the expense of a licence be able to spend more money on their squads to win the league and block progress? You've just underlined my point.
0 -
17 hours ago, Casey Jones said:
Not the cleverest cookie and not for the 1st time. A non-league winner could put a champion from another region out, in a play off. Teams moving from the Juniors knew they had to get licensed if they wanted to progress.
If you win one of the top leagues and have a license, you have a deserved chance of getting promoted. If you don’t win the league, then right you should wait till the following season and hope you win your respective league (and be licensed) to get such an opportunity.
I appreciate that you're not, but at least try and understand what is being proposed. A League winner without a licence isnt being denied anything as you claimed. However, they do block the path for other clubs who are licenced.
2 -
1 hour ago, Casey Jones said:
Where, anywhere else, does a 2nd, 3rd or 8th team etc get a chance of promotion over a league winner. Nonsense of an idea!
They're not doing the league winner out of a chance, because the league winner wouldn't have a licence so can't enter the play-off anyway. You're not denying anyone of anything.
2 -
We could have a situation next season where St.Cadocs, Whitburn and Creetown are the three Champions.
Creetown automatically promoted as the other two unlicenced. Good for the Pyramid?
2 -
9 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:
In order to change the participant criteria on the LL Playoff. You have to change the Playoff Rules. If you don't think that's changing anytime soon. Why propose minor changes instead of meaningful ones?
Things wrong with the LL Playoff this season:
- A licensed league champion being denied promotion
- 13th in the EoS Premier waiting around to see if they're relegated
- 13th in the EoS First waiting around to see if they're relegated
- 13th in the EoS Second waiting around to see if they're relegated
Things not wrong with the LL Playoff this season
- A second or even third placed team not good enough to win their league being denied participation in 2 games. Games that would decide the entire seasons of a half dozen clubs.
As I said, it's called being pragmatic and making the best of what you have.
The LL are unlikely to change the relegation rules until the SPFL change theirs, hence impass. Will it change because tier 6 want it to? probably not until the balance in LL membership tips more towards former Junior clubs.
In the meantime, the LL probably don't care that much about how tier 6 find a club to be promoted, so that at least can be addressed to try and ensure that three clubs take part in the play-off every year. The WoS is now a damp squib, it may well have been a little more interesting if second place offered a chance in the play-off.
You don't like that idea, fair enough, but others do and helps move the Pyramid forward just a little more.
1 -
16 hours ago, patriot1 said:
St Andrews 7 Blackburn 0
I genuinely thought tonight was a possible banana skin for Saints. With Whitburn and Camelon winning recently the pressure was on to get back into the promotion places.
But Robbie’s men responded with one of their best 45 minutes of the season.
Three wins in our remaining five games will guarantee us promotion. With Vale of Leithen on Saturday it will surely be two from four heading into the big Whitburn clash next Wednesday.
That's a genuinely awful result for Blackburn
3 -
14 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:
It does matter, because it shouldn't be a case of 3 league champions chasing a single solitary promotion place.
That's the issue with the Lowland League Play-off. Yet people want to fiddle with the deck chairs on the Titanic instead. All because Beith look to win an back to back titles. Otherwise no one would have noticed.
And the point about relegation is pretty simple. 2nd in the West win promotion. Edinburgh University down. 13th in the EoS Premier relegated, 13th in the EoS First relegated, 13th in the EoS Second relegated.
So for the sake of one club that couldn't win their own league. Let's screw over two other champions and relegate 3 more clubs.
That's a different matter and one which isn't going to change anytime soon, so perhaps be pragmatic about it and make the best of what is currently on offer to increase promotion opportunities for licenced clubs.
Re relegation, I'm not sure what the issue is with that scenario. If the WoS Champion, second, or third win the play-off makes absolutely no difference.
You place too much emphasis on Champions only being promoted.
0 -
2 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:
Because 4th don't deny a champion the promotion opportunity.
I'm sure the EoS or WoS would be thrilled to hear the prospect of their champion losing out promotion to a 3rd placed team because they never ran up the score against an SoS team and the potential of relegating another 3-4 teams down the divisions for the privilege.
Does it really matter if you play the other two Champions in the play-off, or two third places? Not really. If you're good enough you'll win and go up.
I don't get your point re relegation or running up scores.
0
Second Chance: the EOS Second Division 2023-24
in East of Scotland Football League
Posted
First ever visit to Whitestone Park today for the Peebles Rovers game, who eventually claimed a deserved 2-1 win, attendance of about 35.
A real shame if this venue is consigned to history. Yes it isn't fenced in, and their changing rooms are miles away, but it's a fantastic setting. Has to be a solution rather than another 3g cage which seemingly is the alternative.