superbigal Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Maybe there is a sub group. I have no idea. Mandates do not appear to phase the man. Minutes in about another 20 minutes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Minutes of Meeting Sub Group of the Pyramid Working Group Wednesday 14 November 2018 Attendance: Ian Maxwell (CE, Scottish Fa) - IM, Laura Dougan (Head of football Governance Scottish FA) - LD, Sandy Bryson (Head of Registrations Dept Scottish FA)-SB, Vicki McMullan (Disciplinary Dept Manager & Judicial Panel Secretary Scottish FA)-VM, Iain McQueen (Asst Secretary/Treasurer SJFA)-IMcQ, Tom Johnston (Secretary SJFA)-TJ, George Fraser (Chairman SLFL)-GF, Andrew Renwick (Vice-President EOSFA)-AR, John Greenhorn (Secretary EOSFA)-JG, Richard Osborne (Secretary Southern Counties FA)-RO. IM welcoming everyone to the first sub-group meeting of the Pyramid Working Group. He confirmed that the Pyramid Working Group had previously discussed the structure and agreed the implementation of the proposed changes for 2019/20. A disciplinary process comparison report, compiled by VM, was circulated to members. IM confirmed East, South and Lowland Leagues have fairly similar discipline procedures and fall under the jurusdiction of the Judicial Panel Protocol. SJFA football is different. TJ confirmed that he had already looked through the disciplinary comparison document and had no problem with implementing changes within the SJFA to bring its disciplinary systems into line with the Scottish FA's disciplinary systems. He felt that it would benefit the clubs to make these changes and that SJFA clubs would comply with any changes the SJFA made in this respect. IM asked TJ & IMcQ if they would still impose fines on players, as well as a suspension. TJ stated that they would still impose fines because it does not impact on the incurring or serving of player suspensions. JG stated that the whole system requires harmonisation not just the discipline. AR suggested that discipline for all leagues should be the same and, due to this, felt that fines for SJFA players should no longer apply. TJ & IMcQ explained that the fines are used to generate income for the SJFA and its regions. TJ advised that the SJFA administers its own player discipline and suspensions, mainly through volounteers, and the money generated by disciplinary fines was an essential part of these processes. LD confirmed that the Scottish FA would not deal with the discipline for the SJFA leagues. The administration of the discipline for these clubs would only fall under the responsibility of the Scottish FA when the clubs concerned compete in the Lower Pyramid Play Off matches. GF asked if a suspension list would be produced for the SJFA clubs. TJ confirmed that there is already a suspension list on the SJFA website every week and that practice would continue. RO asked if the Scottish FA would deal with the claims process for SJFA clubs, or if the compliance Officer would cite the SJFA team staff if they should be sent off, in the same way as senior clubs. It was confirmed that the Scottish FA would not deal with the claims process for SJFA clubs and the compliance officer would not issue notices of complaint to the SJFA team staff. Such matters will continue to be dealt with by the SJFA in accordance with its disciplinary sytems and processes. RO suggested that the best way to deal with this issue is to produce a set of Lower Pyramid Play Off Rules. This was agreed and GF advised that he would progress this. It was acknowledged that the rules would require to provide for all possible routes to potential promotion/relegation. A registration comparison document, compiled by SB, was circulated to the members. There was a general discussion regarding registration deadlines and the difference between the leagues and the different deadline dates. LD proposed that the Lower Pyramid Play Off Rules should detail the registration requirements for all clubs participating in the Play Off competition. AR confirmed that the Lower Pyramid Play Off competition is run by the Scottish Lowland Football League (SLFL) and they would construct the set of rules. There was a general discussion regarding club licensing for SJFA clubs, as only clubs who have a club license and gain full Scottish FA membership are eligible to compete in the Lower Pyramid Play Off competition. TJ said that the requirement for a club license might focus the attention of some SJFA clubs. However he pointed out that there would be some clubs who would never be interested in promotion. A club may never be in a position to gain a Club License. GF confirmed that the SLFL will create a set of revised Lower Pyramid Play Off Rules and put a proposal out to all concerned. RO suggested that those that deal with the fixture scheduling from each league/association and the SJFA should meet prior to the beginning of the season and come up with a calendar suitable to all. There was discussion about the date of the last league match for each league. TJ confirmed that the SJFA leagues finish on the third Saturday in June each year. However, he did advise that the SJFA will be reducing the number of their competitions and bringing the end of season for the leagues forward, so they finish earlier. This is a process that has already started. IMcQ said that local cup competitions cause problems and the SJFA had looked at trimming these and making league games a priority. There was further discussion regarding registration deadlines for signing players and possibility of signing recreational players. RO asked if a date for registration could be written into Play Off Rules. Along the lines off "only players signed before 31 March will be eligible to play in the Play OFF Competition". SB agreed that he would approach the IT department and produce figures on the number of players signed after that date in the SHFL and SLFL. TJ confirmed that the SJFA would amend their sanctions/suspensions to mirror the Scottish FA. TJ confirmed he would liaise with LD and VM regarding the disciplinary procedures. LD confirmed that unintended consequences would also be looked at. There was a suggestion of a trial year but it was felt it would only be delaying the change. IM suggested it would be a trial year anyway, as it is unlikely that a club would be in a position to go up , due to not having a club license. It was agreed the group would meet again in early January 2019. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 So as you can see this 1st meeting does appear to be a group just set up to rubber stamp and facilitate the details ratified that were in the Maxwell email from a couple of weeks before. He writes to all concerned to inform you that at the PGB meeting held earlier this week there was approval of the revised tier 6 structure as noted etc Then as you can read no real objections at that 1st meeting in .november from the Eos 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rab B Nesbit Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 On 16/02/2019 at 17:41, superbigal said: To me this smacks of some old clueless duffer. Of course I could be completely wrong and apologies if said gentleman is not an old fogy. Yep you are. It’s fair to say his marathon running days are behind him though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Btw who represents the eos in the Maxwell email?There is Alan McRae, Alistair Wilkie, Andrew Waddell , George Fraser, Rod Petrie all who I do not know. Neither Greenhorn nor Renwick were on that circulation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, superbigal said: So as you can see this 1st meeting does appear to be a group just set up to rubber stamp and facilitate the details ratified that were in the Maxwell email. No real objections at that point. 17 minutes ago, superbigal said: IM welcoming everyone to the first sub-group meeting of the Pyramid Working Group. He confirmed that the Pyramid Working Group had previously discussed the structure and agreed the implementation of the proposed changes for 2019/20. Seems that way. There was either some sort of misunderstanding with the EoS and everyone else regarding the East Region. Or the EoS members came back to the EoS board and raised it as an issue going forward between November and January. This is the bit I find interesting: 17 minutes ago, superbigal said: RO suggested that those that deal with the fixture scheduling from each league/association and the SJFA should meet prior to the beginning of the season and come up with a calendar suitable to all. The EoS walked into their AGM this year with a full calendar for leagues and cup already prepared. Right now the East Region hasn't even decided what format they will have next season. How are four leagues meant to prepare a suitable calendar for everyone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 I think they just have to all agree to finish before the play off dates. In theory they could be put back from where they currently sit I suppose. Don't think tj would take a chance on trying that on though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 11 minutes ago, superbigal said: So as you can see this 1st meeting does appear to be a group just set up to rubber stamp and facilitate the details ratified that were in the Maxwell email. No real objections at that point. I'm going to have a guess that as there have been no plans on the table (and there still aren't) then there is nothing really to object to, remember the EoS have no objections to a West league and a Tayside league and presumably think the discussions at that point were going ahead on that basis? It's hard to tell as the minutes have no flow about them eg. "RO suggested that the best way to deal with this issue is to produce a set of Lower Pyramid Play Off Rules. This was agreed and GF advised that he would progress this." That suggests that there were none, but we all know that there are, confirmed later; "GF confirmed that the SLFL will create a set of revised Lower Pyramid Play Off Rules and put a proposal out to all concerned." The minutes are poorly written and contradict in places. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, superbigal said: Btw who represents the eos in the Maxwell email? There is Alan McRae, Alistair Wilkie, Andrew Waddell , George Fraser, Rod Petrie all who I do not know. Neither Greenhorn nor Renwick were on that circulation. On 05/02/2019 at 19:08, FairWeatherFan said: The receipients of Iain Maxwell's email to the PWG following a Professional Game Board meeting were: Alan McRae -SFA/HFL Alistair Wilkie - EoSFL Andrew Waddell - SLFL Colin Holden - SoSFL George Fraser - SLFL Iain McQueen - SJFA Richard Osborne - SoSFL Rod Houston - HFL Rod Petrie - SFA/SPFL and the generic scottishjuniorfa 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 But that is correct Burnie as there are current play off rules. Have been for years now. What we really need is minutes of the so called deal from the PGB meeting in middle of October which is apparently passed to this new sub group. Do you have an idea which is the eos rep on that group and in Maxwell mail ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 So Alistair Wilkie needs to comment on how this "done deal" got past him. He is Definately the man that knows what happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, superbigal said: But that is correct Burnie as there are current play off rules. Have been for years now. What we really need is minutes of the so called deal from the PGB meeting in middle of October which is apparently passed to this new sub group. Do you have an idea which is the eos rep on that group and in Maxwell mail ? The EoS isn't represented on the Professional Game Board, neither is the SJFA. So they probably won't leak unless someone has a SFA or Lowland League source. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 The EoS isn't represented on the Professional Game Board, neither is the SJFA. So they probably won't leak unless someone has a SFA or Lowland League source.That probably explains it. So called deal sneaked in. Eos caught with pants down. Sjfa in the loop. 1st sub group eos still asleep. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 Just now, superbigal said: But that is correct Burnie as there are current play off rules. Have been for years now. Exactly, so why is the SoS guy asking for them to be created? I think it's down to poorly taken minutes (remember, they weren't produced in time for the January meeting so who knows how accurate they are). As for objections, they were communicated at the January meeting if not before, and they go forward on that basis. That then prompted TJ to bleat about delays and board directive's etc. That said, these November minutes do mentions objections to the discipline being run by the SJFA. This clearly has a long way to run, and I guess they still have to first agree a new date for the SFA Board meeting, and then a new PWG meeting following that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 To be fair when you add potentially2 more teams to the play off you so need to rewrite the rules. Also the relegation issue is now much more complex. The welfare may now have many more paths to travel [emoji8] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mantis Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 On 16/02/2019 at 17:41, superbigal said: The other immediate standout, is the apparent what I would call fundamental understanding foul up or difference of opinion by the EOS representatives in the January minutes, where the objections do officially appear for the 1st time. To me this smacks of some old clueless duffer. Of course I could be completely wrong and apologies if said gentleman is not an old fogy. Andrew Renwick (Vice President EOS) mentioned that the contentious matter was Tayside. That would be where the EOS would object. 21 minutes ago, Rab B Nesbit said: Yep you are. It’s fair to say his marathon running days are behind him though. Have to agree with Rab, he’s over 70 but mentally he’s sharp as a tack. That example you gave is a bit puzzling admittedly. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 6 minutes ago, superbigal said: So Alistair Wilkie needs to comment on how this "done deal" got past him. He is Definately the man that knows what happened. The EoS were well aware of the contents of that email, but I think as was mentioned at the time on the thread back in the Junior forum that they disputed the contents. That discussion may well have taken place away from the PWG? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Burnie_man said: Exactly, so why is the SoS guy asking for them to be created? I think it's down to poorly taken minutes (remember, they weren't produced in time for the January meeting so who knows how accurate they are). As for objections, they were communicated at the January meeting if not before, and they go forward on that basis. That then prompted TJ to bleat about delays and board directive's etc. That said, these November minutes do mentions objections to the discipline being run by the SJFA. This clearly has a long way to run, and I guess they still have to first agree a new date for the SFA Board meeting, and then a new PWG meeting following that. Think it was the SoS asking for new rules to be created for the inclusion of the Juniors as well as other issues raised. As the responsibility was placed on the Lowland League I think they said they would simply revise the existing rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Anyway it's prosecco tonight so cheerio 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnie_man Posted February 17, 2019 Author Share Posted February 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, superbigal said: Anyway it's prosecco tonight so cheerio Gin, prosecco, I'm building a picture here..... 1 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.