Junior football, what is the future?

[Burnie_man]

Not at all, he thought the pyramid would happen, I dont now.

It will. Perhaps not in the way envisaged by the west moving en-masse, but it will happen in some form.

[Black & Red Socks]

1 hour ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Not at all, he thought the pyramid would happen, I dont now.

There is a Pyramid, the question is will sufficient West teams who have a desire to be part of it have the notion to speak with each other and realise that their best interests will only be served by severing ties with the Junior grade and making a move to form a WoSFL? Forever hitching your wagon to those who are happy to swim in their slowly draining pond (apologies for mixing metaphors!) and have no desire to engage with the outside world is guaranteed to ensure that your club and others of similar ambition will perennially be stuck on the outside looking in.

If, as stated above, it's true that TJ voted to support the resolution that suitable new applicants to the SFA henceforth will only be Associate Members until such times as they reach Tier 5 and he subsequently uses this as an example of just why there is no benefit in moving into the Pyramid then the question is, how long are Clubs going to accept being played?

Edited June 13, 2019 by Black & Red Socks

[LongTimeLurker]

3 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Not at all, he thought the pyramid would happen, I dont now.

Think that's a massive over-reaction. Is it a really shock that SPFL clubs don't want Auchenshuggle Jubejubes to have the same voting rights that they do in an association they have dominated for many decades, if there is a possibility that there will eventually be more community game board level clubs in membership than those covered by the professional game board? It looks more like a way to accommodate a mass influx of new members in a manner that doesn't ruffle the feathers of the existing membership than an attempt to kill off the pyramid.

[Big Davy Boy]

If it's associate members below level 5 then fine but make that apply to everyone. Hardly a game changer if applied fairly.

[LongTimeLurker]

11 minutes ago, Burnie_man said:

Hardly an over-reaction given what the SFA have done over the last 12 months to put a stick in the wheel of progress.

The fact that the HL/LL are on the PGB and the EoS  (and a future WoS) are on the non-PGB is another ridiculous situation and a continuation of a two-tier policy.

Where do you draw the line? Eventually amateur clubs are probably going to be in the pyramid. Should they all get an equal vote as well? Sometimes you have to make the effort to try to understand the issue from the other person's perspective. Blackburn United don't have the same clout within the game as Hearts given they attract less than 1% of the number of spectators of a typical Tynecastle crowd and have no full time employees, so it shouldn't be a huge shock that clubs like Hearts expect to have more of a say inside the SFA than clubs like Blackburn do and would have taken active measure to ensure it stays that way in future if, for example, all 64 WRSJFA clubs join the pyramid en masse at the end of next season and floodlights start sprouting up very quickly like they did with Dundonald and Bonnyrigg. 

Edited June 13, 2019 by LongTimeLurker

[parsforlife]

5 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Where do you draw the line? Eventually amateur clubs are probably going to be in the pyramid. Should they all get an equal vote as well? Sometimes you have to make the effort to try to understand the issue from the other person's perspective. Blackburn United don't have the same clout within the game as Hearts given they attract less than 1% of the number of spectators of a typical Tynecastle crowd and have no full time employees, so it shouldn't be a huge shock that clubs like Hearts expect to have more of a say inside the SFA than clubs like Blackburn do and would have taken active measure to ensure it stays that way in future if, for example, all 64 WRSJFA clubs join the pyramid en masse at the end of next season and floodlights start sprouting up very quickly like they did with Dundonald and Bonnyrigg. 

There shouldn't be a blunt line that decides who does and doesn't get a vote. Ideally all clubs in scotland would have an individual vote as part of a fully functioning pyramid.

That doesn't however mean each vote has to have equal value.  A weighting system would be far preferable. E.g. Premiership/championship 2 votes,  league 1/2 1 vote  tier 5 0.75 votes

tier 6/7 0.5 votes,  tier 8/9 0.25 votes, tier 10 and below 0.1 votes.  

[Burnie_man]

Where do you draw the line? Eventually amateur clubs are probably going to be in the pyramid. Should they all get an equal vote as well? Sometimes you have to make the effort to try to understand the issue from the other person's perspective. Blackburn United don't have the same clout within the game as Hearts given they attract less than 1% of the number of spectators of a typical Tynecastle crowd and have no full time employees, so it shouldn't be a huge shock that clubs like Hearts expect to have more of a say inside the SFA than clubs like Blackburn do and would have taken active measure to ensure it stays that way in future if, for example, all 64 WRSJFA clubs join the pyramid en masse at the end of next season and floodlights start sprouting up very quickly like they did with Dundonald and Bonnyrigg. 

They're taking clubs voices away entirely, that's not right. Not allowed to speak or table motions at agm. It's wrong.

[GNU_Linux]

My gripe is if current members outside the pyramid keep full member status we have a situation where lets say Banks O Dee who have declined pyramid participation will get a vote but an EOS member who has engaged with the pyramid will not & may never get to full member status due to being a club where the EOS is their level/ceiling.

 

 

 

[Stag Nation]

29 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Where do you draw the line? Eventually amateur clubs are probably going to be in the pyramid. Should they all get an equal vote as well? Sometimes you have to make the effort to try to understand the issue from the other person's perspective. Blackburn United don't have the same clout within the game as Hearts given they attract less than 1% of the number of spectators of a typical Tynecastle crowd and have no full time employees, so it shouldn't be a huge shock that clubs like Hearts expect to have more of a say inside the SFA than clubs like Blackburn do and would have taken active measure to ensure it stays that way in future if, for example, all 64 WRSJFA clubs join the pyramid en masse at the end of next season and floodlights start sprouting up very quickly like they did with Dundonald and Bonnyrigg. 

Queen's Park?

[Whitburn Vale]

4 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:

My gripe is if current members outside the pyramid keep full member status we have a situation where lets say Banks O Dee who have declined pyramid participation will get a vote but an EOS member who has engaged with the pyramid will not & may never get to full member status due to being a club where the EOS is their level/ceiling.

 

 

 

Would be surprised if BOD aren't in the Highland league this time next year.

Even more so if no-one north of the Tay line get relegated I.e Elgin or Brechin.

[Marten]

1 hour ago, parsforlife said:

There shouldn't be a blunt line that decides who does and doesn't get a vote. Ideally all clubs in scotland would have an individual vote as part of a fully functioning pyramid.

That doesn't however mean each vote has to have equal value.  A weighting system would be far preferable. E.g. Premiership/championship 2 votes,  league 1/2 1 vote  tier 5 0.75 votes

tier 6/7 0.5 votes,  tier 8/9 0.25 votes, tier 10 and below 0.1 votes.  

The idea is good, but knowing the SFA they'd probably give the ugly sisters 100 votes each...

[Burnie_man]

1 hour ago, parsforlife said:

There shouldn't be a blunt line that decides who does and doesn't get a vote. Ideally all clubs in scotland would have an individual vote as part of a fully functioning pyramid.

That doesn't however mean each vote has to have equal value.  A weighting system would be far preferable. E.g. Premiership/championship 2 votes,  league 1/2 1 vote  tier 5 0.75 votes

tier 6/7 0.5 votes,  tier 8/9 0.25 votes, tier 10 and below 0.1 votes.  

All clubs should have a voice, all clubs should be able to vote and table motions regardless of Associate or Full members.  I think clubs could tolerate more votes for clubs higher up the Pyramid, but ultimately the smallest of clubs should still have the ability to make themselves heard.

[LongTimeLurker]

The counter argument would be that the smaller clubs still can table motions and makes themselves heard collectively through bodies like the EoSFA as was already the case over the many decades before club licensing when new SFA full members were few and far between.  The old way of doing things was untenable moving forward in an environment where dozens of extra clubs have membership aspirations, so making floodlights mandatory and limiting full membership to the top five tiers looks like changes that badly needed to be made to be able to move the pyramid forward without generating a massive backlash against it from SPFL clubs.

[Burnie_man]

16 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

The counter argument would be that the smaller clubs still can table motions and makes themselves heard collectively through bodies like the EoSFA as was already the case over the many decades before club licensing when new SFA full members were few and far between.  The old way of doing things was untenable moving forward in an environment where dozens of extra clubs have membership aspirations, so making floodlights mandatory and limiting full membership to the top five tiers looks like changes that badly needed to be made to be able to move the pyramid forward without generating a massive backlash against it from SPFL clubs.

The SFA shouldn't be dancing solely to the SPFL's tune,  but sadly they are as the SPFL's influence on the SFA increases.

The old way of doing things wasn't untenable, certainly not in the short term,  and there are ways an means of addressing concerns from all sides in this and finding solutions, but the SFA are only listening to one party it seems and then scrabbling around for what they see as a solution.   They were as bad at that as they were at PWG.

[Guest]

For me, don't give a club a vote, a vote means little right now as some clubs are so far down the pyramid it won't materially change things for them. However, don't ask them to spend thousands to meet a criteria for a licence and then cut their share of the money generated. If this happened then it will literally stop clubs ever progressing on the park, to get to a level where they will gain voting rights. The two work hand in hand. Cutting both would derail anyone from now joining the pyramid and looking to get an sfa licence. (particularly west clubs)

[LongTimeLurker]

Bearing in mind that there is no indication so far that associate membership has any effect other than having no vote at AGMs, how accurate is that last bit? Bonnyrigg Rose, Jeanfield Swifts and Dundonald Bluebell have all got floodlights up at relatively short notice at the end of a season where they were among the top teams in the EoS.

Almost all of the clubs that are likely to make it to tier 5 from the EoS are either licensed already or are not that far away from being ready to tick the various boxes on licensing requirements and the west superleague clubs that would be most likely to get promoted to the LL after pyramid entry have the financial capacity to do something similar with two of last season's clubs having applications in already. 

 

Edited June 14, 2019 by LongTimeLurker

[stulch]

http://www.bonnyriggrosefc.co.uk/teams/118321/news/club-announcement-bonnyrigg-rose-athletic-granted--2435339.html

[Vollyman]

At last justice is done

[Guest]

Justice? I'd say common sense has prevailed rather than justice being done. The sfa now have to work out how they will justify any changes to membership, given that all that has changed is the month of the year and the precedent has been set already as clubs in both tier 6 and tier 7 have been given their licences. To make fundamental changes like that there has to be justification and good reason, if it is deemed unreasonable then it can be easily challenged.

[FairWeatherFan]

Update on the Junior only forum