Lowerleaguelover
-
Posts
26 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Lowerleaguelover
-
-
48 minutes ago, LowerLeagueFC said:
see Hill of Beath have appointed former Oakley and Camelon manager Stewart Kenny.
Are there any clubs left still to appoint someone for the new season?
Jeanfield and Luncarty
1 -
A few management changes for next season in the premier league it would seem. The Haws looking for a new manager, Jeanfield and assuming Luncarty come up, all 3 will have new teams in place.
0 -
This has definately been one of my favourite divisions in many years. Such a good league this year and still can’t call the winner. Dunbar arguably in poll with 2 to go. Glenrothes have some tough games but also a number of games. What a season!
0 -
Has the promotion situation been clarified? With Rose winning the premier league, are there 4 places or 3 places up for grabs?
0 -
Luncarty dominated the west side, start to finish. Huge for them, given where they have come from.
1 -
1 hour ago, Anychance said:
for me its Dunbar the favourite's as they have the points on the board
luncarty got some amount of games to play in 7 weeks - seen they have 2 games in a cup winners cup ??????
Glenrothes got a lot of games to play also
think those 3 will get promoted though star and kinnoull to fall away
Good point on Dunbar having the points. Glens don’t appear to be slowing up at the moment and have momentum. Number of games will definitely become a factor. Availability of players starts to come into play with midweek fixtures.
Dunbar and Glenrothes are as good as up. One place remaining as I see it.
0 -
Another big weekend in the race for promotion with 4 of the teams in the mix facing off on Saturday. Glenrothes looking favourites for the title for me.
1 -
This league is shaping up to be one of the most competitive in years. Twists and turns a plenty and expect a few more.
1 -
Have Whitehill let him go?
0 -
7 minutes ago, PastyMan said:
Just on that point surely one thing we have learned from the past 2 seasons is to expect the unexpected. What if we have further lockdowns in Winter 2021/22? Or what if there are any unexpected and unanticipated interruptions to next season? The chances of reaching 50% of fixtures next season should surely be a very strong consideration for the start date of 21/22 season?
I’d hope with the vax programme rolled out that’s not going to be the case but of course things can change. The season started in October this year, starting in august would still see us in a better position than we are now and if we have a ‘what if next season’ mindset then why bother starting?
Assume an august start, we could prioritise league games and be not far off 50% before winter hits. What is certain there is no ideal scenario but we started and we made it this far with hard work, let’s see it through then nobody can cry foul.
1 -
The call it early decision was based on uncertainty, stability is more prevalent than it was at that point (thus with vaccines, LL decision taken) and the timescales can work if we want them to.
hypothetical option;
- 8th April - communicate that the league will play out to 50%
5 weeks to get match readyish to May 17 (every club in same position)- if required further 1 or two weeks contact training/friendly matches, takes us to 31st May
- 3/4 weeks to get to 50% threshold, 26 June.
Depending on how many weeks break teams feel appropriate at end of season, push start date into august (why the rush to start in July, allows time for more clarity on pandemic progress before new season starts). Personally I don’t think a big break is required after the 13 months of large breaks/stop start (unless of course some are desperate to spend their week queueing at the click and collect garden centres) but take a vote on what is appropriate.
If there’s a debate about congested fixtures, happens every year, if there’s a debate about spending anti lockdown time in football, June is still part of the football calendar every year, it’s a small extension. Fairness and transparency, winners win and losers lose.
Clubs may have agreed to contingency, not an imposed date on that contingency when a workable solution exists.
2 -
2 minutes ago, Burnieman said:
We can't kick a ball in training until 17th May.
We can kick a ball now, non contact. Fitness can be resumed. Contact begins May 17th as it stands.
Genuine solution could be pause, if we are viewing this as early in the season then carry on from July. Bring in the cups, place the new teams in a new bottom tier. Sorted!
3 minutes ago, Burnieman said:We can't kick a ball in training until 17th
0 -
5 minutes ago, Burnieman said:
You're going a strange way about not getting personal, maybe stop having a pop at clubs behind a cloak of anonymity then. To repeat, no club in the EoS are at fault for being in this position, but all clubs know what the contingency was, which was set last year and reiterated only a few weeks ago with no objections.
Let's go with those contingencies set by the board. Many clubs have played less than 10 games, some only 7 or 8. Null and voiding is hardly a devastating move.I’ll agree to disagree. Good luck to your club.
0 -
1 minute ago, Burnieman said:
Ah here we go, mask slipping. None of this is any clubs doing, we're all victims of the pandemic and we all go along with the guidance and recommendations of the EoS board and the SFA. We all had a say when these proposals were tabled. Not a single club objected to these contingencies. None.
To have a pop at clubs in these circumstances behind an anonymous ID is pretty pathetic.I’m not getting personal with you, so can you try to do the same. Whether ‘my mask is slipping’, and your agenda certainly is, the dundonald proposal looks pretty neutral to me and worthy of consideration without a witch hunt. There should be parity across tiers in approach as a minimum. Personally I’d be open to alternatives also but null and void is the worst outcome for everyone who made sacrifices (and did a hell of a job I might add) to get where we are, In my opinion.
1 -
2 minutes ago, Burnieman said:
If having an agenda is pointing out that contingencies were put in place at the start if the season by the board to deal with this situation - as agreed by all clubs - then I guess I do have one.
You have just registered to push your own agenda but a little coy about what clubs agenda you want to push. Hey ho.
If the season can be sensibly played out to a conclusion then we'll do that, but it needs the 17th May date brought forward and that isn't happening.I’ve been consistent in my opinions. Equally consistent is the run of 11 defeats in 12 your team suffered, you want a 3rd crack at survival while punishing the teams at the top end??
Why should you benefit again but the top end don’t?Here’s another option resume the new season where we left off?
2 -
2 minutes ago, Burnieman said:
You claimed nothing would significantly change re vaccinations, I pointed out that's completely false. the first dose provides the majority of the protection.
So, what club are you involved with? I'm Blackburn United, what skin in the game do you have or do you just want to hide behind a newly registed ID?
My opinion is my one and isn’t representative of an official club position, it’s ok to give one here isn’t it?
My position remains, I would like a return and 50% played. I’m sorry if that differs to yours. I support a pyramid and not benefits handed to selected teams, like those getting play off opportunities and those avoiding looming relegation, more than once
I’ve nothing against your club, great set up, but I think the outcome you prefer suits your agenda, maybe the outcome I support suits mine, but I believe in dialogue to find a better answer than null and void
1 -
21 minutes ago, Burnieman said:
We're on course to have offered every adult a first vaccine by the start of July (perhaps a wee bit earlier). That is significantly different from mid-May. So if some peoples concerns are about playing/volunteering whilst unvaccinated, then it's a valid concern that would lessen come July.
One month after the start of the return to training, some will have had one dose.
5 minutes ago, Burnieman said:I'm preaching we abide by contingencies that all clubs agreed to at the start of the season and again in February. My conscience is clear, I'm not sure yours is.
If well-being is genuinely an issue, a new season shouldn’t start till sep/Oct.
But it’s not really what you are concerned about is it...
1 -
25 minutes ago, Malty Guy said:
You clearly don’t appreciate anyone’s circumstances or the severity of the situation.
I hope that you haven’t been personally affected and that things stay that way for you.
However I don’t think you should be firing off ultimatums to others.
For you or others who have well-being concerns then I feel for you. If that’s your concern with the situation, come early June when pre season demands 3 times per week attendance, the pandemic landscape will not have significantly changed in terms of all players and officials being vaccinated. If that view is shared with a large number then we are not ready for a new season and we have bigger concerns than the current campaign.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Black & Red Socks said:
Both the WoSFL and the SoSFL have already declared season 2020/21 null and void - no procrastination, no delay just a pragmatic decision made in the interests of all - so “the very grain of pyramid integrity” that you seem to believe the EoSFL must protect above all else by backing out of previously made decisions has already been damaged.
Priority should quite clearly be given to the welfare of all those you seem to wish to see thrown back into a Saturday-Wednesday-Saturday playing routine (not to mention training commitments and all organisational, management and testing commitments) to the detriment of re-establishing a proper balance to their lives with their friends, family and work demands.
Goodness, there is even a post from a player in this thread voicing his angst at the very thought of what you ask. He may or may not be in the majority but he will, at the very least, represent a sizeable minority who must be listened to. The stresses and strains brought about by what you ask may very well be intolerable for many.Fair enough, if the well-being is a concern for some I understand. The well-being of those not playing and wish to do so is an alternative perspective (expressed by many on many social platforms).
0 -
9 minutes ago, Burnieman said:
That has little to do with the EoS. It may come as a surprise, but each league within the Pyramid is run by its members and makes it's own decisions, and just like the LL had a contingency to null and void if 50% isn't reached then so does the EoS, except the LL's hand was forced.
Regarding playing to get to 50%, unless the date of 17th May is brought forward then that isn't achievable either (as the EoS has communucated to clubs) and as has been pointed out by others a few pages back, is exceptionally unfair to those involved with clubs to expect them to give up the first two months of their non-lockdown lives in order to play football. A 17th May resumption would effectively set off a year long run of football with few breaks, as if the season concluded on 30th June you'd then be into a pre-season run of friendlies for a few weeks and then the following season kicks-off.
Some common sense needs to be applied here.
In what will be 15 months,there has been little football played. In my experience a large number of players are desperate to return, perhaps you see a different opinion (football is not a burden on anti-lockdown life in many peoples eyes).
With regards to members running the league, perhaps a vote will ensue. I respect your alternative opinions. I have an opinion that null and void suits those who want a reset because of the performances to date and where they lie in the table and those who don’t find the team at the top very attractive.
2 -
2 minutes ago, Burnieman said:
If you're so concerned about integrity, then trying to undermine contingencies that were put in place and agreed to by all clubs at the start of the season should be your primary concern. What the LL decided (or were forced) to do has little bearing on the EoS, the WoS have already N&V. Nothing has changed in the interm to justify an about turn of the agreed contingencies.
Nothing has changed apart from declaring a ppg champion in the very league that the east teams aim to join through promotion...To detach the Lowland from the East like they are an unrelated entity is to detach the concept of a pyramid.
You missed the part about the priority being to achieve the very contingency you reference, presumably you are in support of that part.
0 -
4 minutes ago, Burnieman said:
Let's take a look at that. Both the LL and HL would have went down the road of declaring null and void, the LL had the same plans in place as the EoS.
Their hand was forced by the SFA to declare on PPG if they wanted to enter a club in the SPFL play-off, that is the only reason they did not N&V, so the comparison is false as the EoS are under no such pressure.
So then we have a back door proposal which not only relegates and promotes clubs who haven't even reached 50% of games played - Luncarty promoted after only 7 league games & Leith after 9, Jeanfield Champions after 9 - we have clubs who just fall above and below the qualifying line when it comes to forming the new First Division, some "condemned" to tier 8 on goal difference. Then there is the Dunbar/Tranent/Crossgates situation which is far from clear with Dunbar having played Tranent twice. These clubs are unable to react to the situation on the pitch.
I understand that clubs may not be happy with potentially 13-14 new clubs coming into the structure alongside them next season. I think the EoS should follow what the WoS are likely to do and restrict those new clubs ability to get promotion to the Premier and place them all in a Second Division Conference with only First Division spots available to them for season 2022-23. That then allows existing Conference clubs the same shot at Premier promotion as they had this season.
Whilst I get the point you make, I don’t see the relevance in the ‘why’ the ll/HL made the decision. The point is, they did and to be selective of where it’s appropriate now goes against the very grain of pyramid integrity. Brora played 3 games, all of our leagues are beyond that stage. My challenge with this is and I don’t begrudge those two teams getting opportunity in a, hopefully, one off circumstance, is that we should not place elevated importance on ‘the big guns’ whilst diminish the efforts of the lower tiers. If it’s ppg, it should cascade to all tiers. If that’s promotion and relegation, all tiers, if that’s promotion only, all tiers.
The teams who are in that position deserve to be (their form was better than anyone else over the available fixture set). Null and void gives those outside of promotion and relegation no upside, it does however give an escape door to those in trouble.
Priority 1 should be trying to fit the remainder of games to 50%. It’s possible.
0 -
30 minutes ago, TheGeneral10 said:
Your point is fair and well put. However I still can’t agree as the proposing club should contact all other member clubs to inform them of their proposal. That’s the bit that I take issue with (and the statement about forcing an EGM if necessary tbh).
I spent some time unofficially supporting the committee a few years ago and know the work that goes in to every club just to keep the doors open and the light on. Won’t be any different at Dundonald - so why not just be up front and contact all clubs? At least you can then hold your head up. It’s left a bitter taste.
I stand by the attempt the clubs involved have made to look at a solution, especially given it doesn’t seem to be self serving.
I can see your point however and Perhaps a mail round all clubs could have avoided the view of underhand approach. I get your frustration on that.
As I said, me personally, have no desire to enforce relegation, but I do believe the decision in lowland/highland means the minimum outcome has to be all tiers receive that reward (integrity of pyramid).
0 -
9 minutes ago, TheGeneral10 said:
I will go back to my previous point here - if not malicious and/ or underhand then why only send the email to certain clubs and at the same time ask if these clubs know of others who would support the proposal?
Whatever way you look at it, the content of the email is undeniable - it’s underhand and disrespectful to every club not included in the ‘send list’ and even more disrespectful to the EoS Board and their position. Suggesting they can force an EGM
. If that’s not underhand then I don’t know what is tbh.
It’s not unusual for clubs to create proposals and ask whether clubs support it before proposing to league committees at any level. The club proposing it don’t gain from it other than it solves a structural problem.
Those in relegation positions through ppg will clearly oppose it, but those who either live with the conferences or lose the good work at the top end of the table lose out from null and void, no approach suits all.
The outcome for your team is understandably why you are passionate about the subject but making it personal about the proposer whose club isn’t really gaining advantage is not fair. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture, a highland league team has won the title having played 3 games - to say that is nothing to do with the east is not correct - it results in them getting a shot at promotion, the lowland and east leagues filter up to the same pyramid. I do think relegating is very harsh, interested to see what league structures and numbers stands as the alternative options.
2
First Among Equals: EOSL First Division 2022-23
in East of Scotland Football League
Posted · Edited by Lowerleaguelover
It’s been the most competitive league I can remember with the situations top and bottom. I hope lochore stay up . Dunbar have to win for me, Kinnoull will beat Preston, unsure how Glens v Star will go, expect it to be close.