Junior football, what is the future?

[FairWeatherFan]

2 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

That's the situation in a nutshell. I suspect they are still referring to the ERSJFA given the HL feeder meetings stopped happening after the first one and the rest of what they are talking about refers to what's happening with the LL, but it's ambiguous.

I still think they're only talking about the Lowland side of things. Which is why they tried to suggest a North of Tay clubs choosing HL/LL if they won the playoff.

By splitting the PWG but never resolving or even understanding the boundary issue is part of the reason things eventually blew up in the new year.

[LongTimeLurker]

Trying to understand the SFA posture on this and how there could possibly be confusion. As the rules stand am I right in thinking the Tay bridge line of latitude thing only revolves around which league the SPFL's team 42 gets relegated into and there is nothing explicit beyond that in SFA regulations about what the HL and LL cover geographically?

Edited September 5, 2019 by LongTimeLurker

[Burnie_man]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Trying to understand the SFA posture on this and how there could possibly be confusion. As the rules stand am I right in thinking the Tay bridge line of latitude thing only revolves around which league the SPFL's team 42 gets relegated into and there is nothing explicit beyond that in SFA regulations about what the HL and LL cover geographically?

the line surely dictates what clubs can be admitted to the HL and LL (regardless of whether dropping down from SPFL, or moving up from say EoS), therefore HL can't admit clubs in the LL area and vice versa, and that permeates throughout the feeders.

In other words, you can't have Brechin Vics or Forfar West End playing in a LL feeder (or the LL itself) whilst Brechin City and Forfar Athletic can only drop into the HL..

 

[Sidney Lumet]

^^^prime example of why progress is difficult and meetings on this topic will go over the same ground over and over. Some people are so ingrained in their tribalism that they can hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time in an Orwellian doublethink sort of way. We vetoed the plan but at no point blocked its key component from happening, we have always been at war with Eurasia...

^^^prime example of why progress is difficult and meetings on this topic will go over the same ground over and over. You are the one who is working and reworking the same old misrepresentation of how we got here. You.

 

Okay, as this is the crux of your mostly pointless argument, let’s agree that the EoSFL and the LL blocked ‘the Juniors’. This was because it was an utterly unworkable and unacceptable proposition with regards to the position in the East. Happy? An alternative was offered, backed by ALL EoSFL member clubs, that would have satisfied the desire to see the entirety of the West Region in the Pyramid from Tier 6 downwards with the East and North worked on as a separate task. However, this alternative wasn’t even taken back to the SJFA membership. Correct? So, who is it that’s blocking ‘the Juniors’?

 

[FairWeatherFan]

Just now, Burnie_man said:

the line surely dictates what clubs can be admitted to the HL and LL (regardless of whether dropping down from SPFL, or moving up from say EoS), therefore HL can't admit clubs in the LL area and vice versa, and that permeates throughout the feeders.

In other words, you can't have Brechin Vics or Forfar West End playing in a LL feeder (or the LL itself) whilst Brechin City and Forfar Athletic can only drop into the HL..

 

It is technically right though. In terms of last year's documents the only reference to the HL/LL boundary is for SPFL42 getting relegated.

The LL did use it for the application information but it wasn't in their documents required for membership.

[LongTimeLurker]

1 minute ago, FairWeatherFan said:

It is technically right though. In terms of last year's documents the only reference to the HL/LL boundary is for SPFL42 getting relegated.

The LL did use it for the application information but it wasn't in their documents required for membership.

So building on that, I think I am right in stating that the identity of the clubs to playoff against team 42 are up to the SFA in terms of what was agreed with the SPFL, and the PWG is a committee set up by the SFA board to deal with a specific issue that falls under the SFA's jurisdiction in that context. Is it possible that from the point of view of the SFA board, the HL-LL boundary is wherever they decide it is and is not rigidly fixed in the manner we have tended to assume on here?

[FairWeatherFan]

27 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

So building on that, I think I am right in stating that the identity of the clubs to playoff against team 42 are up to the SFA in terms of what was agreed with the SPFL, and the PWG is a committee set up by the SFA board to deal with a specific issue that falls under the SFA's jurisdiction in that context. Is it possible that from the point of view of the SFA board, the HL-LL boundary is wherever they decide it is and is not rigidly fixed in the manner we have tended to assume on here?

The playoff reps are down to HL/LL champions. The SFA have no say over who is a member of those leagues.

So while they might not have a fixed boundary between them, the LL are using the SPFL relegation boundary to determine membership.

[Burnie_man]

48 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

It is technically right though. In terms of last year's documents the only reference to the HL/LL boundary is for SPFL42 getting relegated.

The LL did use it for the application information but it wasn't in their documents required for membership.

It might only reference the SPFL, but it's  obvious the knock-on effect is that the same principle needs to apply throughout the LL / HL feeders as per the Brechin and Forfar examples. It would be bonkers otherwise.

As you say, the LL used the boundary line with regards to who is eligible to join and who is not as a result (when applications may have been needed last season)

[the jambo-rocker]

Surely by targeting a route into the LL for the West should be the number one priority? Pretty sure once that domino falls, the rest of the juniors would follow (If the ERSJFA and North want to be left to their own leagues, then leave them to it, but it would be slim pickings IMO).

[Burnie_man]

1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said:

So building on that, I think I am right in stating that the identity of the clubs to playoff against team 42 are up to the SFA in terms of what was agreed with the SPFL, and the PWG is a committee set up by the SFA board to deal with a specific issue that falls under the SFA's jurisdiction in that context. Is it possible that from the point of view of the SFA board, the HL-LL boundary is wherever they decide it is and is not rigidly fixed in the manner we have tended to assume on here?

"The League Champions of the SHFL and the SLFL at the end of season 2015/2016 and in each season thereafter will (subject to rule Ill(f)) take part in the Play-Off Match"

"In the event of Club 42 losing the Pyramid Play-Off Match, it will be relegated to the SHFL League if its Registered Ground is located North of Degree of Latitude 56,4513N or to the SLFL if its Registered Ground is located South of Degree of Latitude 56,4513N and it shall thereafter comply with the rules and regulations of the relevant league."

http://slfl.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Scottish-Lowland-Football-League-Rules-Version-10.pdf

[FairWeatherFan]

50 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

It might only reference the SPFL, but it's  obvious the knock-on effect is that the same principle needs to apply throughout the LL / HL feeders as per the Brechin and Forfar examples. It would be bonkers otherwise.

As you say, the LL used the boundary line with regards to who is eligible to join and who is not as a result (when applications may have been needed last season)

I agree and I'd only change the boundary at this point to a little lower since Scone and Tayport seem happy Tayside.

[LongTimeLurker]

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

"The League Champions of the SHFL and the SLFL at the end of season 2015/2016 and in each season thereafter will (subject to rule Ill(f)) take part in the Play-Off Match"

"In the event of Club 42 losing the Pyramid Play-Off Match, it will be relegated to the SHFL League if its Registered Ground is located North of Degree of Latitude 56,4513N or to the SLFL if its Registered Ground is located South of Degree of Latitude 56,4513N and it shall thereafter comply with the rules and regulations of the relevant league."

http://slfl.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Scottish-Lowland-Football-League-Rules-Version-10.pdf

We had already established that was where a boundary gets mentioned in the posts before that one.

Edited September 5, 2019 by LongTimeLurker

[LongTimeLurker]

31 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

I agree and I'd only change the boundary at this point to a little lower since Scone and Tayport seem happy Tayside.

What's more relevant than what we think is sensible is why the SFA Board would think there could be any confusion over this if Latitude 56,4513N is really meant to be automatically applicable in all circumstances and not just where team 42 thing is concerned in isolation?

[PastyMan]

18 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

What's more relevant than what we think is sensible is why the SFA Board would think there could be any confusion over this if Latitude 56,4513N is really meant to be automatically applicable in all circumstances and not just where team 42 thing is concerned in isolation?

On 26/04/2019 at 08:36, gaz5 said:

I think it's worth pointing out that RP, who did all of the talking, didn't appear to be aware that an SFA rule existed marking the Lowland and Highland league boundary.

For some reason he thought the people in the room were trying to decide what league's teams could play in, when in fact everyone was trying to point out that the rules had already been defined by the SFA themselves.

Either he was suggesting the rules don't matter and we ignore it, or more likely in my view he doesn't know the rule exists.

Worth re-reading from the summary of the EoS meeting in April
I'd think the "confusion" is just to cover up embarrassment over the "ignorance"

[LongTimeLurker]

Possibly, won't dispute that incompetence is a strong possibility. Here's a tin foil hat conspiracy theory that has been floated on here previously. People have always interpreted "56,4513 N" to mean the same thing as 56.4513 N and that lines up with the Tay bridge, but there is another possible format of 56 degrees, 45 minutes and 13 seconds and if that was the originally intended meaning it means approximately 56.7522 N which lines up with the mouth of the River North Esk just north of Montrose.

[FairWeatherFan]

11 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Possibly, won't dispute that incompetence is a strong possibility. Here's a tin foil hat conspiracy theory that has been floated on here previously. People have always interpreted "56,4513 N" to mean the same thing as 56.4513 N and that lines up with the Tay bridge, but there is another possible format of 56 degrees, 45 minutes and 13 seconds and if that was the originally intended meaning it means approximately 56.7522 N which lines up with the mouth of the River North Esk just north of Montrose.

But that's never been the boundary for relegation and everyone knows as exhibited by the panic of Montrose when they were Club 42 the first year. "People have always interpreted " has been people on forums like this, not in the boardrooms of clubs and offices of those that drew the line in the first place.

39 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

What's more relevant than what we think is sensible is why the SFA Board would think there could be any confusion over this if Latitude 56,4513N is really meant to be automatically applicable in all circumstances and not just where team 42 thing is concerned in isolation?

I don't think they ever really discussed the boundary as a fixed point and it has been left as a point that can be negotiated. The SFA have sought solutions that won't to rip up existing leagues. Even the EoS has seemingly been open to the idea of Tayside falling under the Lowland League. They just don't want a competitor league that overlaps with the East.

Quote

AR mentioned that the contentious matter was Tayside. That would be where the East clubs would have an objection. JG clarified that rather than Tayside, another East league would be the issue. There were already East leagues and there could be no room for another one. AR said that the Pyramid must be extended to north of the Tay and the West as there was a gap there.

TJ said that the SJFA has Tayside and West Lothian clubs and he would not be willing to tell them that they had to join the EOS FA to progress. TJ said that the matter had already been agreed by the Scottish FA Board and that AR and JG were going over old ground. The decision has been made at Scottish FA Board level and it has to be agreed how it will work. It cannot be changed or challenged at this stage.

 

[PastyMan]

25 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Possibly, won't dispute that incompetence is a strong possibility. Here's a tin foil hat conspiracy theory that has been floated on here previously. People have always interpreted "56,4513 N" to mean the same thing as 56.4513 N and that lines up with the Tay bridge, but there is another possible format of 56 degrees, 45 minutes and 13 seconds and if that was the originally intended meaning it means approximately 56.7522 N which lines up with the mouth of the River North Esk just north of Montrose.

Got to say that's great work regardless (and a bizarre coincidence!)

[cmontheloknow]

24 minutes ago, PastyMan said:

Got to say that's great work regardless (and a bizarre coincidence!)

It is not a new revelation.

[Guest]

Will ignore future follow ups from you. It's patently absurd to suggest that the EoS and LL have at no point blocked the juniors.

I didn't think you could produce any evidence to support your view that the sfa backed the juniors. Nor did I expect you would be able to provide any other style of retort other than the one above.

I wish you all the best nonetheless, happy posting.

[Guest]

Well that did technically happen.
Maxwell came out of the September PWG meeting thinking job done. EoS/SoS/West Region/East Region at tier 6 under the Lowland. North still to be negotiated.
Went to the October Professional Game Board meeting have an update to that effect. No problems there.
Then writes and distributes his draft statement saying it's all been agreed.
Then the EoS and likely LL went waiting a minute you've got the wrong end of the stick here and the statement was never released.

So the sfa never officially released any such statement. They produced some form of statement after getting the wrong end of the stick at a meeting and had to withdraw any such statement after finding this out.

So no official sfa backing then.