peasy23 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Therefore travel costs for fans and clubs will double Possibly even more than that. Our cheapest bus this year was £140 (Clydebank & Shotts), the most expensive £235 (45 miles) And we get them at a really cheap price compared to what others will be paying. The price rises quite sharply for every little bit further you go. Parsforlife touches on my first big concern in his post above. The stuff that was circulated before made it clear that clubs would be invited to join based on things like ground condition, fanbase etc. The moment we start deciding who plays in what league depending on anything other than performances on the pitch then the game is f*cked IMO. Another concern is what this does to the rest of the Junior game in the East & West. If this came to pass then it would only be for the benefit (and even that's highly debatable) of a small percentage of clubs, and leave the rest with reduced gates and less prestigous league fixtures to try and attract sponsors etc for. The SJFA should be doing more for the benefit of all clubs IMO, with the first job to be to find a sponsor for their premier tourney. I do think the West need to have a look at the league set up, a bigger top league would be a help for a start, but I can understand some clubs resistance to that as it would mean losing local derbies from their league cup sections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 as it stands then,we would save miles as carnoustie and probably dundee are longer journeys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 ...or with Talbot out the way more clubs would have a shot at winning the league in the west. The east and west superleagues have been getting a bit monotonous at the top in recent seasons. Maybe I was reading too much between the lines but the extra criteria for membership looked like a convenient way to bring in club licensing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wile E Coyote Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 ...or with Talbot out the way more clubs would have a shot at winning the league in the west. The east and west superleagues have been getting a bit monotonous at the top in recent seasons. Maybe I was reading too much between the lines but the extra criteria for membership looked like a convenient way to bring in club licensing to me. Talbot have won 3 Superleagues out of a possible 12. They may or may not win it again this year, hardly old firm levels of dominance. Pollok dominated the first six years of the Superleague, now they are not in the top division. Things change naturally in Junior football, teams fall and rise all the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Why would Troon be so much more than Meadow? They always go the long way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hertha_BJFC Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Say for example meadow , talbot , Cumnock , Troon , glenafton and kilbirnie left the west super leagues and went into this west /east league setup . All things being normal and excluding the strange high level of the Scottish championship this season then that would equate to Celtic , rangers, hearts, hibs, Dundee United and Aberdeen leaving the Scottish premier league to go elsewhere. Yes another team could win the leagues but is it that much of a good standard without the better teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Parsforlife touches on my first big concern in his post above. The stuff that was circulated before made it clear that clubs would be invited to join based on things like ground condition, fanbase etc. The moment we start deciding who plays in what league depending on anything other than performances on the pitch then the game is f*cked IMO.I actually don't mind ground condition being a matter to be judged on. I think it's reasonable to expect Clubs in higher Leagues to have better off-field standards. But the other stuff suggested were crazy. Too far away or too wee of club are completely unreasonable. Entry needs to be on measurable standards, how close the club is to licensing etc would be ok, but not having the right rivals etc is completely immeasurable and unacceptable. ...or with Talbot out the way more clubs would have a shot at winning the league in the west. The east and west superleagues have been getting a bit monotonous at the top in recent seasons. Maybe I was reading too much between the lines but the extra criteria for membership looked like a convenient way to bring in club licensing to me. I don't think it will happen, at least initially, to me the 'standards' were/are only in place so that the "right clubs" can be cherry picked for the League and others won't have anything to complain about because there was criteria in place before hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bul21402 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 If somebody has already posted the following, I apologise. The proposal I heard about was a similar set up to the existing Super league Premier ( 1st division) and a Super league (2nd division) with a split of west and east teams in each. The bit I found a bit weird was that the top division at its inception was to be 8 teams from the East and 6 from the West, with the next division being the opposite i. e. 6 East and 8 West Which begs the question --- WHY ???? It's not as if the East region is by far superior, arguably it's the opposite . Why not 7 & 7 in each league ???? If somebody can give us the answers to the following questions , then I will back the proposal, if not , then let's stay with the current position and try and improve what we have. 1) does the new league have a prospective sponsor 2) will the club's get more money out of the league than they currently get 3) will the cost of officials be more as well 4) can we be assured that the current problem with issuing fixtures for a full season, or at least for many weeks in advance will happen, so the extra travelling costs etc will not be as big a problem as clubs can hopefully get more regular sponsors for their home games as they can plan better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 The latest proposal seems to be one combined superleague of 12 presumably six from each region but maybe skewed slightly more to the west if they are using a set of selection criteria? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Parsforlife touches on my first big concern in his post above. The stuff that was circulated before made it clear that clubs would be invited to join based on things like ground condition, fanbase etc. The moment we start deciding who plays in what league depending on anything other than performances on the pitch then the game is f*cked IMO. I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more insofar as the Juniors are concerned. For far too long clubs have been effectively punished for spending money on anything other than the best players they can & to hell with the poor suffering fans. Irvine Meadow were for decades the only ones that had a football ground which wasn't a throwback to the pre-WW1 era. Somewhere this madness has to stop. Somewhere the Juniors have to realise being British football's equivalent of the Amish is no longer acceptable to the paying public or prospective talent, without whom they have no purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 The proposal I heard about was a similar set up to the existing Super league Premier ( 1st division) and a Super league (2nd division) with a split of west and east teams in each. The bit I found a bit weird was that the top division at its inception was to be 8 teams from the East and 6 from the West, with the next division being the opposite i. e. 6 East and 8 West Which begs the question --- WHY ???? It's not as if the East region is by far superior, arguably it's the opposite . Why not 7 & 7 in each league ???? Not quite, plan had/has 6 West & 8 East clubs in both 'Super Superleagues'. That's just because East Region expanded their top division from 12 > 16 last season. It would divide the West Super Premier halfway [top 6/bottom 6], ditto the East Super League [top 8/bottom 8], then the tops and bottoms form a Super Superleague Premier [6+8 = 14] and a Super Superleague First [6+8 = 14]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clash city rocker Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Not quite, plan had/has 6 West & 8 East clubs in both 'Super Superleagues'. That's just because East Region expanded their top division from 12 > 16 last season. It would divide the West Super Premier halfway [top 6/bottom 6], ditto the East Super League [top 8/bottom 8], then the tops and bottoms form a Super Superleague Premier [6+8 = 14] and a Super Superleague First [6+8 = 14]. Eh!!!!...so if the East had went for 20 top league rather than 16,they would get 10 teams in the superduper league and the West 4 ?. West should do the same as Argentina and have a 30 team top league before this nonsense becomes reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I actually noted that before: if it came to pass and West Region had their head screwed-on, they'd expand to 16 before the Super Superleagues started, then both would presumably get 8 clubs each in 16-team Super Superleague Premier & First divisions. In your example it would be 6 West & 10 East making 16, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bul21402 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 What does it matter how many are in the respective leagues. If you construct a league which has " the best" in the East and West then the top 6 from each ( if it's a 12 team league) should be the teams that get in as each of the respective leagues they are leaving would need some kind of reorganising in any event. Would it be a major shock to find out that the main voices behind last season's league restructure in the East are almost certainly the same ones pushing this, or would that be cynical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted January 18, 2015 Author Share Posted January 18, 2015 What does it matter how many are in the respective leagues. If you construct a league which has " the best" in the East and West then the top 6 from each ( if it's a 12 team league) should be the teams that get in as each of the respective leagues they are leaving would need some kind of reorganising in any event. Would it be a major shock to find out that the main voices behind last season's league restructure in the East are almost certainly the same ones pushing this, or would that be cynical I'd be astonished if that were the case. The restructure in the East was about creating a more progressive structure for those in the bottom divisions by opening up the potential for more promotion opportunities. And it was about getting meaningful games when the weather was decent by getting shot of league cup training sessions. Finally it was about creating greater variety of opposition than a 12 team structure allowed - at the same time increasing the true merit of winning the league over a greater number of games which in turn meant that you were not completely hamstrung by suffering from a shite start. There are disadvantages to most league structures but 16 teams requiring greater stamina from the winners, no league cup sectionals and a better sub-structure beneath the top flight looked like good reasons to me. Most of the Super League teams didn't vote for the above though so if anyone is pushing this in the east it almost certainly isn't the same group as before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The people pushing this in the East are more likely to have been those clubs opposed to the restructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 each of the respective leagues they are leaving would need some kind of reorganising in any event. Tbf, it won't be coincidental that it entails 14-14 made-up of a pair of 6+8s. That doesn't require further reorganising, the respective current top levels would just disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Could be an interesting meeting, wonder how many representatives will attend with the views of their respective clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Not sure why the 14-14 format from last year is still being discussed, so much on this page. The latest in The Sun on the weekend was a single east-west superleague division of 12, which is much more realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Fury 1 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Not sure why the 14-14 format from last year is still being discussed, so much on this page. The latest in The Sun on the weekend was a single east-west superleague division of 12, which is much more realistic.Nought very realistic about leaving 6 premier and 14 first division teams in the West. 20 is too much for one division and splitting it into 2 x 10 is too small. It will therefore impact on the current set up in the District Leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.