Junior football, what is the future?

[Cyclizine]

This highlights a lot of my personal concerns that teams are abusing rules/loopholes because these leagues are more interested in numbers.  The SFA seem content to sit back and ignore the chaos.

Many junior clubs don't own their own grounds - Carluke, Greenock etc - I'm not sure what the issue is. Rossvale played at Petershill (another council owned park). Rob Roy currently don't have a usable ground at all! It makes sense for clubs to share facilities anyway, it's more economical. I agree BSC playing in Alloa is a bit of a stretch, but there's was nothing stopping other teams doing similar: ideally whilst developing somewhere closer to their natural home.

[Robert James]

2 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

The examples of BSC and Edusport is a fair point and exposes the loophole in licencing, where you can up-sticks and move far away from any perceived “home area” to somewhere that will take you.  Glasgow Uni are another example playing at Airdrie to keep their licence.

Quite correct, as Glasgow Uni have 'historic rights' granted by the SFA, as do Linlithgow, Girvan, Banks O'Dee, and Golspie. This is important for health and welfare reasons, as it gives the students a nice day out, once per season to visit/play at a nice SPFL ground. 

Not sure if these 5 clubs will keep these 'historic rights', once there is a West & North pyramid in place however, unless (of course) they commit to joining the pyramid themselves.

[Robert James]

2 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

That's because Airdrie is a well known seat of learning, that has been attracting the intelligentsia for generations.

Absolutely spot on Sgt Wilson, there are "no stupid boys" in Airdrie.

And definitely no "chaos" .......... an Auld Heid from LR should know better, because such a thing would not be tolerated in the Seniors !

[Burnie_man]

This highlights a lot of my personal concerns that teams are abusing rules/loopholes because these leagues are more interested in numbers.  The SFA seem content to sit back and ignore the chaos.

It's hardly chaos, its just a loophole that needs closed imo. Its no more chaos than finding out your fixture 6 days in advance, less so infact give the LL and EoS have fixture lists.

[holme]

41 minutes ago, Auld Heid said:

Allowing teams to dictate when they play isn't exactly fair either.  Imagine two teams tied and one changes to a later kick-off so they know what's required.  Do their fixtures have a * next to them to state games played when a suitable park is available.

 

Teams in the LL don't dictate when they play.  The fixtures come out at the start of the season and that is that

We played on a Friday night at Annan in back Feb, but we knew about that at the start of the season

If there was a problem with the host club moving us around we would not be allowed to play there 

[Burnie_man]

Cove Rangers have won the HFL championship by playing at the grounds of Inverurie etc.  Clyde & Shire are currently playing away from their home towns, although financially it is far from ideal.
Surely this is to their credit ?

Those are different circumstances to the likes of BSC and Edusport and Glasgow Uni.

[Jason King]

45 minutes ago, Robert James said:

 Clyde & Shire are currently playing away from their home towns, although financially it is far from ideal.

Clyde aren't playing away from their home town - they moved to Croy, its been their home town for almost a quarter of a century (if not longer).

[lithgierose]

39 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

Many junior clubs don't own their own grounds - Carluke, Greenock etc - I'm not sure what the issue is. Rossvale played at Petershill (another council owned park). Rob Roy currently don't have a usable ground at all! It makes sense for clubs to share facilities anyway, it's more economical. I agree BSC playing in Alloa is a bit of a stretch, but there's was nothing stopping other teams doing similar: ideally whilst developing somewhere closer to their natural home.

where is the new  BSC ground ?

Edited April 17, 2018 by lithgierose

[Cyclizine]

14 minutes ago, lithgierose said:

where is the new  BSC ground ?

That's why I said 'ideally', I think it's ridiculous too. To be fair, I could also ask where is Rob Roy's new ground as well?

[Robert James]

1 hour ago, Burnie_man said:

Those are different circumstances to the likes of BSC and Edusport and Glasgow Uni.

Yes I agree, and congratulations to Cove on winning the HFL, and having a new ground ready for next season.

[Auld Heid]

1 hour ago, Cyclizine said:

That's why I said 'ideally', I think it's ridiculous too. To be fair, I could also ask where is Rob Roy's new ground as well?

The big difference,  Rob Roy are an established club who had their own park to start with and once everything is sorted will again. 

BSC and other teams are starting up without their own facilities and being allowed to join leagues.   They are licensed on the back of others facilities and not their own.  LTHV are based at Saughton and are working towards their licence - a situation that stopped their possible promotion last season.  

By allowing these clubs to piggy back themselves into leagues based upon others facilities how is that fair on existing clubs who are incurring  costs required to bring their grounds up to standards for licensing.  

[Glenconner]

Be interesting to see if the JJA apply to put a team in this new West of Scotland League once they get Cathkin Park ready.

[stanley]

4 hours ago, Robert James said:

Quite correct, as Glasgow Uni have 'historic rights' granted by the SFA, as do Linlithgow, Girvan, Banks O'Dee, and Golspie. This is important for health and welfare reasons, as it gives the students a nice day out, once per season to visit/play at a nice SPFL ground. 

Not sure if these 5 clubs will keep these 'historic rights', once there is a West & North pyramid in place however, unless (of course) they commit to joining the pyramid themselves.

The historic rights should have counted for nothing.  All clubs should have been equal when licensing started regardless of who had historically been SFA members.  That doesn't appear to have been the case.  

What historic rights did Linlithgow and Banks o'Dee have anyway?  They weren't previously SFA members.  Different situation as they applied and fairly got a licence at the time but the rules changed later and the SFA probably don't care enough to remove their licence now.

Farcical that an amateur team in the Caley League are playing at Airdrie in order to get a licence.  I wouldn't have given a licence to Edusport or BSC either.  There should have been tighter rules on this.  

I would not ban groundsharing altogether but no way should new clubs be able to share with any team just to get a licence having never had a ground of their own and not even playing in the city or town they are supposed to represent (in Edusport's case they don't even have a town).

I say this as one of the biggest supporters of the pyramid on here.  

Edited April 17, 2018 by stanley

[RedLichtie86]

The big difference,  Rob Roy are an established club who had their own park to start with and once everything is sorted will again. 
BSC and other teams are starting up without their own facilities and being allowed to join leagues.   They are licensed on the back of others facilities and not their own.  LTHV are based at Saughton and are working towards their licence - a situation that stopped their possible promotion last season.  
By allowing these clubs to piggy back themselves into leagues based upon others facilities how is that fair on existing clubs who are incurring  costs required to bring their grounds up to standards for licensing.  

Im sure that clubs that start up are not just handed a license because of other clubs facilities they are sharing.

They must surely be paying these clubs a fee and having a lease agreement in place before each season starts in order to reach the criteria for a license.

After all, a license can be revoked if the club falls below the standard that is required to obtain a license.

Many clubs share facilities or rent them from other clubs/councils in order to save costs. But at the same time they have to deal with issues such as having to play games outwith a normal Saturday kickoff time of there is a fixture clash or having to train on alternate nights from the other club(s)

End of the day, if a club wishes to obtain a license, not owing their own facilities should not stop them. Having access to them should be all that matters.

[santheman]

5 minutes ago, RedLichtie86 said:

 

 

Im sure that clubs that start up are not just handed a license because of other clubs facilities they are sharing.

They must surely be paying these clubs a fee and having a lease agreement in place before each season starts in order to reach the criteria for a license.

After all, a license can be revoked if the club falls below the standard that is required to obtain a license.

Many clubs share facilities or rent them from other clubs/councils in order to save costs. But at the same time they have to deal with issues such as having to play games outwith a normal Saturday kickoff time of there is a fixture clash or having to train on alternate nights from the other club(s)

End of the day, if a club wishes to obtain a license, not owing their own facilities should not stop them. Having access to them should be all that matters.

 

There's a difference between having access and unrestricted access though.

[parsforlife]

.  
By allowing these clubs to piggy back themselves into leagues based upon others facilities how is that fair on existing clubs who are incurring  costs required to bring their grounds up to standards for licensing.  

Clubs aren't piggy backing, they are renting facilities, and it won't be for nothing.

Clubs need certain facilities. This comes with a cost. There's many different ways that can achieved.

You have clubs who have taken out loans to buy/develop grounds, they have long term costs but know there will be a time limit to that after which the cost will stop.

Others have waited until they have the required funds, this obviously takes longer to get the required facilities but once achieved comes with relatively little ongoing cost.

Others are renting from councils/businesses with sole use, they have constant costs that will unlikely ever disappear, they are paying various different rents and under 101 different agreements over maintenance, development of the facility, who gets the pie stall money, does the club train there etc etc

Some are sharing facilities with other sports again 101 different agreements here. Who owns the facility, who has 1st call etc

We then have ground sharing clubs, again 101 different agreements all with different cost implications.

Some have a strange obsession over ground sharing. It's just another one of the ways clubs get a home ground

[Auld Heid]

The historic rights should have counted for nothing.  All clubs should have been equal when licensing started regardless of who had historically been SFA members.  That doesn't appear to have been the case.  
What historic rights did Linlithgow and Banks o'Dee have anyway?  They weren't previously SFA members.  Different situation as they applied and fairly got a licence at the time but the rules changed later and the SEA probably don't care enough to remove their licence now.
Farcical that an amateur team in the Caley League are playing at Airdrie in order to get a licence.  I wouldn't have given a licence to Edusport or BSC either.  There should have been tighter rules on this.  
I would not ban groundsharing altogether but no way should new clubs be able to share with any team just to get a licence having never had a ground of their own and not even playing in the city or town they are supposed to represent (in Edusport's case they don't even have a town).
I say this as one of the biggest supporters of the pyramid on here.  

Totally agree with this

[Cyclizine]

4 hours ago, Auld Heid said:

The big difference,  Rob Roy are an established club who had their own park to start with and once everything is sorted will again. 

BSC and other teams are starting up without their own facilities and being allowed to join leagues.   They are licensed on the back of others facilities and not their own.  LTHV are based at Saughton and are working towards their licence - a situation that stopped their possible promotion last season.  

By allowing these clubs to piggy back themselves into leagues based upon others facilities how is that fair on existing clubs who are incurring  costs required to bring their grounds up to standards for licensing.  

Just playing devil's advocate: there's no reason why LTHV, for example, couldn't play out of an entry level (except for the need to find one) and get a licence that way. There is an obsession with clubs owning their own grounds and a presumption against groundsharing which I'm not sure is realistic. Personally, I think it is a logical solution for many clubs. The BSC and Edusport situations don't sit easily with me though, but I don't think anyone could blame them for what they've done.

[bendan]

Aren't there quite a number of requirements that are not related to the ground? I'm sure LTHV meet them, but in the case of a new club, you can't simply get 11 players together and rent a compliant ground.

[Glenconner]

6 minutes ago, bendan said:

Aren't there quite a number of requirements that are not related to the ground? I'm sure LTHV meet them, but in the case of a new club, you can't simply get 11 players together and rent a compliant ground.

Why not?