Jump to content

New clubs in the East of Scotland


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Pyramidic said:

There are reserve/development sides in Steps 5 and 6 of the English Pyramid (Levels 9 & 10) and I am not aware that they are causing any problems at all.  Their inclusion in the EoSL would at the present time create uniformity in the league structure and possibly even offer a little more kudos. I concur with FairWeatherFan that there is a tendency for such sides to drop out after a few seasons. But does that matter? They would not be holding back other EoSL clubs or potential applicants.

The reality is they are nothing more than a team, no committee  and obviously they don't have any followers.  Stirling Uni Reserves visited us but only had the manager, no other coaching staff and no committee, we had to provide two linesmen.  In the return fixture, again nobody really around at all and hardly anyone watching.  They don't benefit the league other than pad out numbers (although to be fair Stirling Uni Reserves are a decent team and beat us twice) and we need to move away from that. 

If we suppose that the EoS are looking to attract more Junior clubs in future, filling the bottom division with reserve sides would do more harm than good.  However as already pointed out, where are these applications anyway, certainly none for next season? they'd be better served in the Lowland Development U20 league.

Edited by Burnie_man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

The reality is they are nothing more than a team, no committee  and obviously they don't have any followers.  Stirling Uni Reserves visited us but only had the manager, no other coaching staff and no committee, we had to provide two linesmen.  In the return fixture, again nobody really around at all and hardly anyone watching.  They don't benefit the league other than pad out numbers (although to be fair Stirling Uni Reserves are a decent team and beat us twice) and we need to move away from that. 

If we suppose that the EoS are looking to attract more Junior clubs in future, filling the bottom division with reserve sides would do more harm than good.  However as already pointed out, where are these applications anyway, certainly none for next season? they'd be better served in the Lowland Development U20 league.

I acknowledge that University reserve sides may be light on supporting personnel. In the case of normal development /reserve sides there is likely to be stronger local interest. Dads for example following the development of their youngster.

Sadly Junior clubs like Fauldhouse United appear to have missed the boat and JC1 & co could well be looking at Tier 8 in the future, irrespective of whether there would be a few development sides in the EoSL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Enigma said:

What’s the logic behind two conferences if it’s not even going to be regionalised?

To try and balance out the two on merit to ultimately form a league wide first division.

Right now you divvy up the 25 prospective teams and you're fiddling around how to split Edinburgh and which is 13 and 12.

Edit: below is what things could of looked like after Saturday

image.png.936db6d875358430b7d6a126f6b69270.png

Edited by FairWeatherFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Marshmallo said:

Why not just do the middle third of this season's finishers in the second tier, and the bottom third and new applicants in the third tier?

Because it wasn't agreed that would happen at the start of the season, you can't change it after, it would be unfair to clubs who just miss out on the second tier because they weren't expecting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FairWeatherFan said:

 

To try and balance out the two on merit to ultimately form a league wide first division.

Right now you divvy up the 25 prospective teams and you're fiddling around how to split Edinburgh and which is 13 and 12.

Edit: below is what things could of looked like after Saturday

image.png.936db6d875358430b7d6a126f6b69270.png

You could do a wee bit of geographical tweaking by committing not to put St Andrews in the same Conference as Tweedmouth / Coldstream / Eyemouth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ShrimpLok said:

You could do a wee bit of geographical tweaking by committing not to put St Andrews in the same Conference as Tweedmouth / Coldstream / Eyemouth

I'd also have both Glenrothes sides in the same conference, would be good for a couple of derbies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pyramidic said:

It seems highly likely that with the addition of Glenrothes Juniors, Glenrothes Strollers and Syngenta the EoSL will operate with 41 clubs next season with 16 teams in the EoSL Premier and 12 and 13 teams in the two respective Division 1 Conferences (regionalised or seeded as appropriate).

I will put my head above the parapet and suggest there would be considerable benefit for the League to offer three vacancies to development sides for SPFL or Lowland league clubs.  This would enable the Division 1 Conferences to be rounded up to 14 clubs in each.

I would add the proviso (using appropriate rules) that the Development sides would not qualify for promotion or block other sides getting promotion (Stranraer Reserves fashion in the SoSL). Surely there would be positive benefits in permitting say Stirling Albion Development, Stenhousemuir Development, Alloa Athletic Development, Kelty Hearts Development etc to participate in these circumstances. Have the Stirling University EoSL side caused any problems this season? I think not.

The development sides could operate at U20, U23 or be basically reserve sides.  It would also enable clubs like Kelty Hearts (if they wish) to keep their talented U20 players when they reach the age limit.

Food for thought before tomorrow's EGM!

Or even up and coming Community sides from Bo'ness and Linlithgow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShrimpLok said:

You could do a wee bit of geographical tweaking by committing not to put St Andrews in the same Conference as Tweedmouth / Coldstream / Eyemouth

Twedmouth and Eyemouth are already guaranteed worst and 2nd worst overall record. So you're only going to get one or the other in a seeded draw. So that limits things slightly. One team you never factored in though was Hawick, who would present the same sort of travel distance problem.

They might get at worst 3 then and its not quite the same but Oakley managed this year with Coldstream, Hawick and Tweedmouth all in the same Conference. Not sure it would warrant a special rule. Depends on how much fuss is made. I think it could well be a split opinion on regional or seeded but seeded as the majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pyramidic said:

It seems highly likely that with the addition of Glenrothes Juniors, Glenrothes Strollers and Syngenta the EoSL will operate with 41 clubs next season with 16 teams in the EoSL Premier and 12 and 13 teams in the two respective Division 1 Conferences (regionalised or seeded as appropriate).

I will put my head above the parapet and suggest there would be considerable benefit for the League to offer three vacancies to development sides for SPFL or Lowland league clubs.  This would enable the Division 1 Conferences to be rounded up to 14 clubs in each.

I would add the proviso (using appropriate rules) that the Development sides would not qualify for promotion or block other sides getting promotion (Stranraer Reserves fashion in the SoSL). Surely there would be positive benefits in permitting say Stirling Albion Development, Stenhousemuir Development, Alloa Athletic Development, Kelty Hearts Development etc to participate in these circumstances. Have the Stirling University EoSL side caused any problems this season? I think not.

The development sides could operate at U20, U23 or be basically reserve sides.  It would also enable clubs like Kelty Hearts (if they wish) to keep their talented U20 players when they reach the age limit.

Food for thought before tomorrow's EGM!

IMO there's a difference between the Uni 2nds and other reserves. The Unis try to give football to every matriculated student that wants a game. Those in the 2nds (or lower on Wednesdays) aren't being developed to play in the 1sts, for the great majority of them it's the highest they'll play and they wouldn't necessarily fancy playing in the LL among better players anyway. So the priority in any particular match they play is to win it. That's their team and they're doing their best.

That's not the case for development teams, where the priority is the development of players for the 1st team, and the result of the match is much less important. I have absolutely no interest in seeing my club be human training cones for the young players of a bigger club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ShrimpLok said:

You could do a wee bit of geographical tweaking by committing not to put St Andrews in the same Conference as Tweedmouth / Coldstream / Eyemouth

If they were do alternating seeding based on league position they'd be in with Eyemouth with the possibility of Coldstream depending on how they finish. They'd get Oakley United but miss out on Inverkeithing.

image.png.38cf81f8b63bb23cfb6e506bfb6cb553.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 16/04/2019 at 17:10, Robert James said:
On 20/04/2019 at 23:07, Robert James said:

 

 

 

5 hours ago, ShrimpLok said:

You could do a wee bit of geographical tweaking by committing not to put St Andrews in the same Conference as Tweedmouth / Coldstream / Eyemouth

I've said it before and I'll say it again. St Andrews do not have a problem with travelling to play a game of football.

There's no point us slagging off the East region juniors for going back to local leagues and then doing the same with the EOS. Leagues should be selected on merit not location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, patriot1 said:

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again. St Andrews do not have a problem with travelling to play a game of football.

There's no point us slagging off the East region juniors for going back to local leagues and then doing the same with the EOS. Leagues should be selected on merit not location.

I don't think anyone was slagging St Andrews. Burntisland made those trips to the borders for years, Oakley have had to do it this year. So St Andrews can more than handle the travel, they've been playing region wide leagues in the Juniors for years. It was more appreciating the fact they face the most travel in the Conferences next year.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can recall, the EoS gave a pledge that there would be two First Division conferences in 2019/20, so that

* no existing clubs would drop 2 tiers from 6 to 8, and

* any further influx of Juniors would be guaranteed entry at tier 7 

Barring any late applications go join the EoS, which we don't know about (Clydebank ?), only 1 junior club (Glenrothes) has applied, so the EGM meeting could overturn this 'pledge', if the majority of those clubs  not promoted into the new EoS Premier Division for next season, decided that they wanted a hierarchical structure, rather than another year of conferences.  If so, the positions at the end of the current season, would determine  which clubs would be in the First Division (tier 7), and which would be in the Second Division (tier 8). However, I am aware that a lot of  clubs have enjoyed the conferences this season,  as they have considered them to have been fair to all clubs concerned.

As an aside, if Glenrothes (juniors) applied to join the EoS on the basis of a tier 7 'pledge', they could be offered the 13th place in the First Division,  but only if the other clubs agreed. This would mean a 16/13/12 club structure for 2019/20, one year earlier than previously envisaged.

Please note that I am NOT advocating a hierarchical structure, rather than having two conferences at tier 7. I am only suggesting that a majority of the 25 clubs, which will not be in the new EoS Premier Division in 2019/20, may prefer this option, and could (should ?)  be given a choice.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EOS said months ago that they planned on conferences for next season with a hierarchical set up from the 2020/2021 season. I don't see how you can change the set up at the end of the season given that teams weren't aware that they if they finished in the bottom four this season they would end up in tier 8. For that reason we have to stick with the intended set up.

The invitation to tonight's meeting states that there are three applications to consider, Glenrothes, the Strollers and Syngenta. Bar any last minute changes that will be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, patriot1 said:

The EOS said months ago that they planned on conferences for next season with a hierarchical set up from the 2020/2021 season. I don't see how you can change the set up at the end of the season given that teams weren't aware that they if they finished in the bottom four this season they would end up in tier 8. For that reason we have to stick with the intended set up.

The invitation to tonight's meeting states that there are three applications to consider, Glenrothes, the Strollers and Syngenta. Bar any last minute changes that will be it.

I have no problem with your view about 2 EoS conferences for tier 7 next season, which will probably be the outcome tonight.  It may however be worth considering as an alternative structure ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a new post on the Juniors forum, summarising the outcome of tonight's WRJFA meeting. 
They won't like it when someone summarises the EoS meeting and what Mr Petrie told the 80 or so people in the room.

Heads gone incoming I reckon.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/04/2019 at 13:08, FairWeatherFan said:

The EoS has had a history of accepting reserve sides from national league sides including the likes of Hibs and Berwick Rangers most recently. It's not a new thing.

Berwick have done away with the first team and are playing the reserves in SPFL 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

They won't like it when someone summarises the EoS meeting and what Mr Petrie told the 80 or so people in the room.

Heads gone incoming I reckon.....

Ignoring Mr Petrie for the moment, did all three new clubs get accepted into the EoS for next season ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...