Guest Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 At the risk of mentioning crowds ... Isa's particular focus is probably not helpful. Crowds are a moment in time thing for clubs at this level. I've done a lot of reading about my club as I'm sure you have about yours Dipple. My club wasn't always well supported. On the other hand, Blantyre Vics, Cambuslang and New Blackburn have been at times but are not now. Should clubs be excluded for this? And as for Edinburgh City not having a community base, is it not a requirement to be a community club to hold a licence? And at least they have a base. The admission of BSC to the Lowland League was a desperate move by its organisers in my view. Ground standards are supposed to be a major part of the assessment criteria but they don't have one. I know those already in the LL think differently but the concept has been devalued by the sfa failing to persuade the best of the juniors. On the other hand, I can't see much point to establishing a rival league unless there is a genuine purpose to it within the wider football umbrella. My club have been thee quintessential community club for decades, without a piece of paper to prove it although have that document now. In short the people of the town and surrounding district embrace the club, support it in all aspects. Loads of clubs have their community status but have no such relationship with the local population. Meadowbank would no doubt pass all criteria for a ground licence, perhaps even at Gold level and on paper is much better than Beechwood. Therefore, City are probably technically placed better within the whole current pyramid set up than Talbot, on paper. However, as is sometimes the case, the reality is different! Anomalies abound! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 What people seem to forget is that the LL is supposed to be in the 5th tier of professional football in the country. Tbf, there is no "supposed" about it, it is. My comments regarding City and other LL outfits are not designed as a sneer or condescending. My point is that I can't for the life of me understand the almost obsessive nature and yearning to join the big boys, if that is indeed an accurate description for many in that set up. Using Edinburgh City or Spartans as an example, why do they want this so bad? Your previous comments about City being a bunch of amateurs would fall pretty squarely into the bracket of 'sneer or condescending' and so would this? It isn't "an obsessive nature and yearning" - nor do they "want it so bad", more than any other club wants its desires. They want to make the best of themselves and play at the highest level possible. I know your position is a sort of 'clubs should know their place' thing, but that's your own view (and it is especially easy for a fan of Talbot to say that as the status quo suits you better than almost any non-leaguer). You cannot understand it, but to many others it is perfectly natural. I say that we should have looked at reorganising non league first with this the main agenda and a workable pyramid would have materialised by default. The system that appears to be getting forced into place is flawed in the extreme. Someone like OldNortherner may have the exact phrasing but surely any 'non-league-first' approach was always made difficult bordering impossible by the SJFA's position that their own sphere remain unchanged? Coupled with their stance to now having been pyramid-sceptic (even anti-pyramid). That said it is by no means too late. No door seems to have been closed on the Junior leagues joining the pyramid. In the north the link-up could be pretty easily arranged. In the south the Juniors would clearly be the dominant partner in any assimilation with EOS/SOS. The argument that clubs should find there level without a glass ceiling is sound, this is not what is happening! It is, just without the Juniors (thusfar). City are probably technically placed better within the whole current pyramid set up than Talbot, on paper. However, as is sometimes the case, the reality is different! They are, again no "probably" about it. City are licensed and in LL. Talbot are neither licensed nor in a league which is currently part of the pyramid. In some areas Talbot clearly are better-placed than City: attendances, for example. In others people will debate it: stadium, for example. At the question of the pyramid set-up then City clearly are better-placed that Talbot: as they're in it, and sitting in tier 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shannon Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 Who would East Stirling and Queens Park rather have coming in to their league? Talbot or Edinburgh City. Even although I am not a fan of Talbot they would provide so much more to the league than Edinburgh City in terms of good challenge, decent away support and great ground to visit for 2nd Division clubs. Talbot like many Junior clubs don't want trips to Peterhead, Elgin and Annan and what many rightly or wrongly think they could get in 5 years time or less if they join a Lowland League and do well. If was a regionalised league below League One then would be far more attractive for Junior teams plus the EOS and SOS teams now have been quick off the mark so mostly be teams from there plus EK and fake Ashfield so Lowland League is now not attractive at all for any top Junior team but for an ambitious East team or Rob Roy for instance it could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted October 11, 2014 Share Posted October 11, 2014 If was a regionalised league below League One then would be far more attractive for Junior teams plus the EOS and SOS teams now have been quick off the mark so mostly be teams from there plus EK and fake Ashfield so Lowland League is now not attractive at all for any top Junior team but for an ambitious East team or Rob Roy for instance it could be. Whilst I think regionalisation at that level wouldn't be a bad thing at all, it would, for any successful club, merely defer the feared long away trips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthepink Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Just a general query to the fans of Junior teams. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that the general attitude to the LL/pyramid has changed over the past year. A year or so ago, junior fans were saying they didn't want to be part of the pyramid for various reasons, such as; following bigger teams, travel, local derbies and wanting to keep the Junior bubble. Now it seems a common comment is that the pyramid was rushed and flawed and that it wasn't regionalised right. Now, to me, it seems from that that you'd be happy to be part of the pyramid if it was set out differently! Does that mean you lot are starting to want to be part of a pyramid, or still just want to keep juniors separate? Wants the general consensus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted October 17, 2014 Author Share Posted October 17, 2014 It would get a better press if it had been done properly. That said, we're talking about the need to split the South into East and West whilst the sjfa are talking about amalgamation of East and West at the top end in the South. Not easy to work out. But my sense is that the sjfa and its member clubs want to retain the responsibility they currently have for "organising" the game at this level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthepink Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 It would get a better press if it had been done properly. That said, we're talking about the need to split the South into East and West whilst the sjfa are talking about amalgamation of East and West at the top end in the South. Not easy to work out. But my sense is that the sjfa and its member clubs want to retain the responsibility they currently have for "organising" the game at this level. I understand both sides to the n/s divide and the n/sw/se divide but personally speaking I think north/south is the best way to go. But, theoretically speaking, if there was a non league pyramid run by the SJFA but overseen by the SFA, would you take that and be happy to be a part of pyramid that way or, apart from the west/east divide, would there be any other reasons why you wouldn't want to be in it? Once again not trying to stir up a pro pyramid v non pyramid discussion/slag fest I'm just curious of what yous think now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr V Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 The chattering classes on message boards want a pyramid. From many years attending junior games I can count on 1 hand it ever coming up as part of a conversation . If I go into the Rose club after a game the topic is not about the Lowland league/pyramid, it is when we play Bo"Ness, when is the Scottish drawn and who's car are we going in next week. I have seen only a handful of people at Rose games talk about pyramids and most of them are on here. There is no appetite for it IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 How much Rose chatter did Scottish Cup slots generate 8-10yrs ago? Or licensing/SFA membership 2-5yrs ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 The chattering classes on message boards want a pyramid. From many years attending junior games I can count on 1 hand it ever coming up as part of a conversation . If I go into the Rose club after a game the topic is not about the Lowland league/pyramid, it is when we play Bo"Ness, when is the Scottish drawn and who's car are we going in next week. I have seen only a handful of people at Rose games talk about pyramids and most of them are on here. There is no appetite for it IMO How's the chatter about the Raith Rovers game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Specky Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I think DR V was meaning the Junior Scottish which is essentially our biggest prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killiepiyo Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Winner of the west plays winner of the east, winner of that plays the winner of the LL champs vs Highland league champions for a place in league two? License automatically granted through footballing merit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted October 18, 2014 Author Share Posted October 18, 2014 Winner of the west plays winner of the east, winner of that plays the winner of the LL champs vs Highland league champions for a place in league two? License automatically granted through footballing merit Absolutely no chance of that happening. There is no way that the sfa will entertain any club reaching that stage unless they are licenced. The fact that any non licenced clubs will be removed from LL or HL makes that clear. At some point the top leagues in the Juniors are going to have to start conforming to these licence criteria. It's an indictment on the game at this level to se so few licenced clubs whilst the LL clubs just get on and deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Complaining about licensing is silly, we aren't going to see it disappear and i'd fully support extending it( with a reduction of requirements for further down the "pyramid".) Lets be honest , the requirements are really not that much at entry level. They are as already too lenient IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killiepiyo Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Absolutely no chance of that happening. There is no way that the sfa will entertain any club reaching that stage unless they are licenced. The fact that any non licenced clubs will be removed from LL or HL makes that clear. At some point the top leagues in the Juniors are going to have to start conforming to these licence criteria. It's an indictment on the game at this level to se so few licenced clubs whilst the LL clubs just get on and deal with it. Stranger things have happened, Ford beating two top highland league sides on the pitch that are ahead of us off it. Something needs to give otherwise the 'upstarts' that are the juniors will continue to surprise. License seems to depend on the £££££ you can chuck at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted October 18, 2014 Author Share Posted October 18, 2014 Stranger things have happened, Ford beating two top highland league sides on the pitch that are ahead of us off it. Something needs to give otherwise the 'upstarts' that are the juniors will continue to surprise. License seems to depend on the £££££ you can chuck at it. On the contrary Dalbeattie Star are licenced and so are Selkirk - both of whom lost heavily to Junior teams. Many would argue that clubs like yours are throwing money at players and paying no heed to the recommendations of the governing body in terms of facilities for players and spectators, relevant standards in terms of policies and community engagement. As long as folk want to continue that approach there will be a growing clamour to remove access to competition beyond the Junior grade. I know it was rejected in the summer but I suspect this will continue to be an issue going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthurlie1981 Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 On the contrary Dalbeattie Star are licenced and so are Selkirk - both of whom lost heavily to Junior teams. Many would argue that clubs like yours are throwing money at players and paying no heed to the recommendations of the governing body in terms of facilities for players and spectators, relevant standards in terms of policies and community engagement. As long as folk want to continue that approach there will be a growing clamour to remove access to competition beyond the Junior grade. I know it was rejected in the summer but I suspect this will continue to be an issue going forward. Slightly disagree with your points. It is time for junior clubs to stop looking at the short term and start looking at the long term but clubs like Hurlford are looking at their youths etc and there are many clubs doing the same thing but there needs to be easier access to funding to assist clubs to improve their facilities. We have set up a decent youth setup behind the junior team and it is already bearing fruit but to improve our ground (which we want to do) is not that easy. Also I ask the question; I know of at least 2 'Senior' clubs who have scrapped their youth setups but there is little or no punishment for that but we are told by local and national organisations that if we don't have youth setups we won't receive funding. Is that not where all the licensing stuff falls down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killiepiyo Posted October 19, 2014 Share Posted October 19, 2014 Many would argue that clubs like yours are throwing money at players and paying no heed to the recommendations of the governing body in terms of facilities for players and spectators, relevant standards in terms of policies and community engagement. You clearly know f**k all about Hurlford then.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted October 19, 2014 Author Share Posted October 19, 2014 You clearly know f**k all about Hurlford then.. Accepted and apologies for stereotyping. Why no licence then? But to add, you said it was all about chucking ££££ at it. Yet most LL and HL clubs have managed this whereas in the juniors, 2 out of 165 have done it. Does that not seem odd to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted October 19, 2014 Author Share Posted October 19, 2014 Slightly disagree with your points. It is time for junior clubs to stop looking at the short term and start looking at the long term but clubs like Hurlford are looking at their youths etc and there are many clubs doing the same thing but there needs to be easier access to funding to assist clubs to improve their facilities. We have set up a decent youth setup behind the junior team and it is already bearing fruit but to improve our ground (which we want to do) is not that easy. Also I ask the question; I know of at least 2 'Senior' clubs who have scrapped their youth setups but there is little or no punishment for that but we are told by local and national organisations that if we don't have youth setups we won't receive funding. Is that not where all the licensing stuff falls down? Our links are with the community club - we don't have a youth set up. We have something of a partnership approach with shared goals. In terms of funding, do you think the LL teams are getting access to funding that Junior teams are not? If so, why? I don't know whether they do our they don't but if they do then maybe it's because they're signing up to the governing body's vision for the game whilst the Juniors seem determined to set their stall out in a different direction. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we play in a system where it costs most clubs money to be part of the grade's premier competition. If you finish mid table in SPFL2 you secure "prize" money of £40k. Being part of an alternative to the LL isn't going to change how much funding can be accessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.