FairWeatherFan Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 3 minutes ago, Burnieman said: The very last time the LL invited applications, didn't they stipulate that clubs had to be south of the HL/LL line? That allied to their recent rejection of moving that line northwards to facilitate Brechin would suggest the addition of Tayside clubs into their half of the Pyramid would be problematic. They even called it the Lowland League catchment area. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 31 minutes ago, glensmad said: I don't think the SFA are a party to the agreement. Checked and they are: http://slfl.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Lower-Pyramid-play-off-rules-version-1.1.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 Just now, FairWeatherFan said: You said there's no room for the LL to set additional conditions, and they can if they want to as you've noted above. As it's the LL rules it does not require the consent of the other leagues. That's your opinion but I wouldn't want to have to argue it in front of an SFA tribunal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 Just now, glensmad said: I stand corrected. No worries. Despite how useless they are, I guess they make sure they're involved in all these things as an indepedent voice in discusions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 1 minute ago, FairWeatherFan said: They even called it the Lowland League catchment area. They can set whatever conditions they like for filling vacancies by application, but the catchment isn't in their rules at present. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 Just now, GordonS said: They can set whatever conditions they like for filling vacancies by application, but the catchment isn't in their rules at present. And they can set whatever rules they wish. Just like the EoSFL can do what they like. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malty Guy Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 10 minutes ago, GordonS said: Yes, and the membership critieria are set in the LL rules: B - MEMBERSHIP OF THE LEAGUE B1 All clubs must, on the Completion Date, be licensed, full members of the Scottish FA. The maximum number of clubs will normally be sixteen (16) but may be increased temporarily to a maximum of eighteen (18) at the sole discretion of the Board. B2 No club can have more than one team playing in the League or any other League which comes under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA Professional Game Board. B3 It is mandatory as a condition of membership that clubs purchase group insurance organised by the league. Clubs will be invoiced by the treasurer when payment of premium is due. On top of that there are rules about finance, like paying dues on time. Nothing about location. They could of course change the rules, but as they stand they are required to take the winner of the EOSFL wherever they play, so long as they are licensed. And arguably, introducing a location requirement could be a change to the rules that would require the agreement of all the parties. http://slfl.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/SLFL-Rules-Version-13.pdf That’s quite a bit of detail. Can accept those criteria. im just wondering - where do the actual fans get an input or be quoted . I know it’s through the Club committee,,, but that’s another story. Does anyone anywhere have an accurate number of actual spectator attendance across the various leagues? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyramidic Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said: Checked and they are: http://slfl.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Lower-Pyramid-play-off-rules-version-1.1.pdf No reference to the WOSFL in these rules. Clydebank's promotion hopes scuttled? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 Just now, Pyramidic said: No reference to the WOSFL in these rules. Clydebank's promotion hopes scuttled? That's the old version of the rules. If you go on the website there's a specific rules tab that has the current version. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyramidic Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 Just now, FairWeatherFan said: That's the old version of the rules. If you go on the website there's a specific rules tab that has the current version. I was just being flippant! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclizine Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 (edited) I'm glad one of clubs definitively North of the Line™ has put their head above the parapet. Will be interesting to see how this pans out, but at least there's some movement on the matter. Edited March 16, 2021 by Cyclizine 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 32 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said: And they can set whatever rules they wish. Just like the EoSFL can do what they like. They can't set whatever rules they like if it changes the play-offs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 Just now, Cyclizine said: I'm glad one of clubs definitively North of the Line™ has put their head above the parapet. Will be interesting to see how this pans out, but at least there's some movement on the matter. Yup, this is the test case we've been needing. It's a pity we don't have an agreement instead, but this will force the issue - and individual clubs taking matters into their own hands (eg Kelty) is the only reason we've got this far. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 2 minutes ago, Cyclizine said: North of the Line™ Opportunity there for Tayside clubs, would make cool t-shirts. Luncarty could pile in as well, just for the banter. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 Just now, GordonS said: They can't set whatever rules they like if it changes the play-offs. Yes they can. They're on version 13 of their rules in their 8th season, they've changed how they've handled relegation even though impacts the lower leagues. Especially if it's just enforcing something that has been known since the start and only broken by the EoSFL. The LL signed up the EoSFL to the play-off at a time when they only claimed territory over Stirling & Fife. They sat in PWG meetings with them where the EoSFL advocated for a Tayside as it was territory they didn't cover. Now the EoSFL potentially comes along and breaks that undermining the SPFL Playoff. The ones in the wrong wouldn't be the LL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 3 minutes ago, GordonS said: They can't set whatever rules they like if it changes the play-offs. They could change rule B7 Registered Ground to say "no club may register a ground which is located north of the Tay Bridge [insert co-ordinates here] without consent of the board". It wouldn't change the play-off rules but it would prevent Tayside clubs from playing north of the line. This could be done at the upcoming AGM so that it affects the end of the 2021/22 season. Now that may not matter to Forfar WE as they aren't likely to be licensed or champions any time soon. But then the ball would be firmly in the EOS' court whether they want to expand their geographical footprint. (Maybe with this newly found east/west relationship the WOS could agree to absorb the SOS if the EOS allows Tayside in...) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dev Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 (edited) The main point appears to be that every League can make its' own rules and regulations. This is the key and it prevents e.g. a Lowland zone club (maybe Tayport?) from entering any Play-Offs which may soon appear for Highland Zone promotion to Tier 5 i.e. if the club was licenced and won any new Tayside Senior League participating within the Highland Zone at Tier 6.. The line of latitude through the mid-point of the Tay Bridge defines the boundary between the Highland and Lowland zones. Wrestle with that as much as you like but that's how it is. The only way it might change is if there is enough incentive for the Tier 5 leagues to go along with a proposal from above (SPFL) for change - as they would be getting "incentivised" from above wouldn't they if this were to happen? There is nothing, apparently, which prevents any League from Tier 6 downwards (and beyond the Pyramid) from straddling the boundary between the Highland and Lowland zones. However, clubs in Tier 6 and below Pyramid Leagues need to be aware that this could lead to an "out of zone club" winning the league and blocking the League from having a club in the end of season Play-Offs for promotion to the Tier 5 Lowland League or the Highland League. In theory the EoS could take in a club which is north of the Tay Bridge line and that club could get licenced and win the league. Oh! They have taken in a club which, in theory, could do just that. I bet the EoS clubs are hoping that scenario doesn't work out any time soon. Would they extend the possibility of this happening by taking in any more clubs from north of the Tay Bridge line? Maybe Yes, provided that they were reasonably confident that the club wouldn't block access to the Play-Offs in the foreseeable future. That's one possible reason why one or more Perthshire clubs from north of the "Line" could apply and get into the EoS at some time in the future. Letham AFC are south of the line as are Tayport and Scone Thistle so they couldn't justifiably be rejected on the grounds of location anyway. Edited March 16, 2021 by Dev . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 5 minutes ago, Dev said: ....There is nothing, apparently, which prevents any League from Tier 6 downwards (and beyond the Pyramid) from straddling the boundary between the Highland and Lowland zones..... There is no fixed boundary between HL and LL zones. The only thing that has ever been agreed is where Club 42 gets relegated to and most of the parties involved want that modified. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 14 minutes ago, Ginaro said: They could change rule B7 Registered Ground to say "no club may register a ground which is located north of the Tay Bridge [insert co-ordinates here] without consent of the board". It wouldn't change the play-off rules but it would prevent Tayside clubs from playing north of the line. This could be done at the upcoming AGM so that it affects the end of the 2021/22 season. Now that may not matter to Forfar WE as they aren't likely to be licensed or champions any time soon. But then the ball would be firmly in the EOS' court whether they want to expand their geographical footprint. (Maybe with this newly found east/west relationship the WOS could agree to absorb the SOS if the EOS allows Tayside in...) I think a rule change like that could be taken as a de facto alteration of the LL play-off rules, and if that was challenged at an SFA tribunal (or even in court) by someone like Lochee then it could definitely go either way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonS Posted March 16, 2021 Share Posted March 16, 2021 I think supporters of a lot of clubs - Linlithgow Rose included - would be pretty peeved if their club finished runner-up in the EoS to a club that was never going to be allowed into the promotion play-offs because of their location. This needs to be resolved in agreement with the LL and others, and not just left to the EoS to guess what might happen in future, to make sure more nonsense anomalies aren't thrown up. 4 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.