EdinburghBlue Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 Latest SFA update on licenses is still showing you (and Kelty) as Entry. What's your take on this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde01 Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 2 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said: Latest SFA update on licenses is still showing you (and Kelty) as Entry. What's your take on this? Interesting to note, after reading the last few pages of the thread, that ground is one of the issues? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyMonc Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 3 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said: Latest SFA update on licenses is still showing you (and Kelty) as Entry. What's your take on this? I think our case was always likely to take the longest, suspect the others were very simple. If, as I believe, it's just the audited accounts from the previous regime then I think we'll be fine and we'll come to an agreement. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllyMonc Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 35 minutes ago, Clyde01 said: Interesting to note, after reading the last few pages of the thread, that ground is one of the issues? I don't think the ground is an issue. The bronze requirements are minimal in this case. I don't think Meadowbank is good enough for this level of football to be honest but I'm pretty sure it's able to get to Bronze. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 The Bronze level entry requirements for ground are, I'm led to believe, not actually that strict. It's all the other off the field stuff. Given that the previous board seem to have been by all appearances a bunch of shysters it's likely the accounts are holding things up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 4 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said: Latest SFA update on licenses is still showing you (and Kelty) as Entry. What's your take on this? They remain Entry on all three categories, which doesn't look good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 1 hour ago, AllyMonc said: I don't think the ground is an issue. The bronze requirements are minimal in this case. I don't think Meadowbank is good enough for this level of football to be honest but I'm pretty sure it's able to get to Bronze. 18 minutes ago, tamthebam said: The Bronze level entry requirements for ground are, I'm led to believe, not actually that strict. It's all the other off the field stuff. Given that the previous board seem to have been by all appearances a bunch of shysters it's likely the accounts are holding things up. One of the Bronze Licensing requirements for the ground is, as someone said on this thread yesterday I think, that there be 500 covered spectator places (and from 2025 at least 100 of them must be seated). My understanding is that Meadowbank (deliberately) has 499 seats in the stand as 500 seats has Safety Certificate ramifications. Whilst you've obviously got loads of standing room around the track, none of it is covered. I assume you'll have to somehow install another covered seat to comply (or get some sort of derogation meantime but a derogation can only be granted if there's a plan to resolve it, you can't get it permanently just because you are one short). Also, no idea what your covered wheelchair provision is? I assume as a new build it's probably compliant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said: One of the Bronze Licensing requirements for the ground is, as someone said on this thread yesterday I think, that there be 500 covered spectator places (and from 2025 at least 100 of them must be seated). My understanding is that Meadowbank (deliberately) has 499 seats in the stand as 500 seats has Safety Certificate ramifications. Whilst you've obviously got loads of standing room around the track, none of it is covered. I assume you'll have to somehow install another covered seat to comply (or get some sort of derogation meantime but a derogation can only be granted if there's a plan to resolve it, you can't get it permanently just because you are one short). Also, no idea what your covered wheelchair provision is? I assume as a new build it's probably compliant. 500 covered spectator places. There are at least two covered wheelchair places plus 499 seats. OK it's a fiddle but don't they count as spectators? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 1 hour ago, tamthebam said: 500 covered spectator places. There are at least two covered wheelchair places plus 499 seats. OK it's a fiddle but don't they count as spectators? Are the covered wheelchair spaces separate from the main build of the stand? I didn't see any evidence of that last season, therefore they must be part of the 499 cap of the stand. If they were in there then the fire saftey requirements for being over 500 cap would apply 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 15 Share Posted May 15 Council clearly have 499 seats to avoid a separate safety certificate - Gala did the same years ago IIRC - but if that was an issue City would just set up a bus shelter to attain 2+ standing places? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghBlue Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 7 hours ago, HibeeJibee said: Council clearly have 499 seats to avoid a separate safety certificate - Gala did the same years ago IIRC - but if that was an issue City would just set up a bus shelter to attain 2+ standing places? If this was the difference between success and failure in the licensing application it would make a mockery of the system. (As an aside, what already makes a mockery of it is that clubs can be technically insolvent but get away with it on the basis of assurances from directors that they’ll pay the bills if necessary or that loans won’t immediately be called in.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 10 hours ago, tamthebam said: 500 covered spectator places. There are at least two covered wheelchair places plus 499 seats. OK it's a fiddle but don't they count as spectators? They would, IF the 499 doesn't already count them. I'd have assumed it does, but I don't know that. I'm presuming that they'd count all along as part of a Safety Certificate so would be part of the existing 499 as @parsforlife suggests. 8 hours ago, HibeeJibee said: Council clearly have 499 seats to avoid a separate safety certificate - Gala did the same years ago IIRC - but if that was an issue City would just set up a bus shelter to attain 2+ standing places? Yes, that's the obvious solution. However, it's not their ground and I don't know how easily they'd get permission to set up a stupid looking 'bus shelter' somewhere round the track. It may need to be temporary and removable after every match so that not there for other hires perhaps? 16 minutes ago, EdinburghBlue said: If this was the difference between success and failure in the licensing application it would make a mockery of the system. (As an aside, what already makes a mockery of it is that clubs can be technically insolvent but get away with it on the basis of assurances from directors that they’ll pay the bills if necessary or that loans won’t immediately be called in.) Not sure why it makes a mockery of the system. The existence of Licensing Awards makes perfectly good sense. You can debate the numbers they set within it if you like but they've been set for a long time, well before Meadowbank was built. A line has to be drawn somewhere and it was clearly deliberately drawn at a level where the stadium in question had to also have a Safety Certificate.. It's hardly the SFA's fault that Edinburgh Council deliberately built a facility with one seat less. The insistence on a Bronze licence to operate in the SPFL is a new requirement right enough but that's an SPFL decision not directly related to the actual licence conditions. There are legitimate reasons to criticise the SPFL for aspects of that perhaps, letting clubs dodge the provision of a safety certificate doesn't strike me as one of them. You either comply or you don't. You don't get a free pass for "nearly complying". If that were the case where is the line. What if the next club has 480 seats, etc? I'm not sure what else you could do with the accounting side of it to be honest. I don't disagree it's unsatisfactory but if the accounts are legally compliant for valid trade I'm not really sure how you could set something different from the League / SFA. Almost every club in the country will have had some sort of Going Concern caveat at some point or another. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artemis Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 Is section 5.2 of the ground criteria where it says “The ‘football ground’ must give an overall appearance and impression of being a football ground” an issue? I know that is subjective and “It is a matter for the Licensing Committee to determine whether a ground meets this requirement” but you’d think Meadowbank would struggle to meet that condition. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 (edited) 4 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said: A line has to be drawn somewhere and it was clearly deliberately drawn at a level where the stadium in question had to also have a Safety Certificate.. SPFL clubs are required to have a safety certificate, but this is not a new rule. H22 All Clubs must have a valid and current safety certificate for its Registered Ground prior to the start of each Season and must maintain such certificate in full force and effect for the duration of each Season Edited May 16 by Ginaro 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 1 hour ago, Artemis said: Is section 5.2 of the ground criteria where it says “The ‘football ground’ must give an overall appearance and impression of being a football ground” an issue? I know that is subjective and “It is a matter for the Licensing Committee to determine whether a ground meets this requirement” but you’d think Meadowbank would struggle to meet that condition. Meadowbank is patently a football stadium: it has a football pitch, a grandstand (unpopular but extant), toilets, turnstiles, tannoy, and so on. There are plenty licensed grounds further down the pyramid with less football 'apparatus' or odd features. Down at Coldstream only cover is behind corner flag... at Civil Service Strollers the seating is in 2 recycled RBS bike-sheds... at Caledonian Braves they have 2 tiny 50 seat stands. This at Golspie supposedly lets 100 people to watch the game under cover: Schoolkids maybe - arranged in height order! 5 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said: Yes, that's the obvious solution. However, it's not their ground and I don't know how easily they'd get permission to set up a stupid looking 'bus shelter' somewhere round the track. It may need to be temporary and removable after every match so that not there for other hires perhaps? Put it on castors? Hire a gazebo? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 I think the dugouts are already currently movable, buy an extra one of those. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artemis Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 57 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said: Meadowbank is patently a football stadium: it has a football pitch, a grandstand (unpopular but extant), toilets, turnstiles, tannoy, and so on. There are plenty licensed grounds further down the pyramid with less football 'apparatus' or odd features. Down at Coldstream only cover is behind corner flag... at Civil Service Strollers the seating is in 2 recycled RBS bike-sheds... at Caledonian Braves they have 2 tiny 50 seat stands. This at Golspie supposedly lets 100 people to watch the game under cover: Schoolkids maybe - arranged in height order! Put it on castors? Hire a gazebo? The condition doesn’t say it should have all the apparatus of a football stadium. It says it should give the overall impression and appearance of being a football ground. To me Meadowbank has the overall impression and appearance of being a public athletics facility, especially if there are fans standing on the running track. I may have got that part wrong, though. The ones you mention look like not very good football grounds but they still look like football grounds. However, if just having the facilities that allow football to take place is sufficient then fair enough. I’m really not sure why they have a subjective provision about overall impression and appearance instead of just leaving it at listing all the things you need to have. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WattersIsGod Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 It's hardly the first stadium to have another primary purpose but have a football pitch in the middle. Shawfield was a much better dog track than football stadium and Cowdenbeath was more suitable for speedway. Any licensing conditions should be specific and measurable. Nothing should be open to interpretation. It should be a list of conditions that need to be met. I don't like it as a place to watch football but i sympathise with the EC fans. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 3 hours ago, Artemis said: Is section 5.2 of the ground criteria where it says “The ‘football ground’ must give an overall appearance and impression of being a football ground” an issue? I know that is subjective and “It is a matter for the Licensing Committee to determine whether a ground meets this requirement” but you’d think Meadowbank would struggle to meet that condition. No because if it was an issue then you wouldn't even get an Entry licence... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artemis Posted May 16 Share Posted May 16 15 minutes ago, Ginaro said: No because if it was an issue then you wouldn't even get an Entry licence... Fair enough. Have to confess I’ve not been keeping up and didn’t read the thread back very far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.