Jump to content

Pyramid 2019/2020


Recommended Posts

By going to Premier, First, Second you now have a structure based on merit where tier 6 and 7 are competitive leagues, and only tier 8 is unbalanced with lower ranked EOS team being joined by some better quality Juniors.

Running conferences again means you'll have more teams playing in uneven divisions.

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

FWIW, Dunipace is further west than Shotts, and no-one cares about local government boundaries.

If we're playing that game, so are Camelon and Stirling. And if we're going by the furthest east WR club - you also have Fauldhouse, Harthill, Armadale, Sauchie all east of Forth Wanderers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

By going to Premier, First, Second you now have a structure based on merit where tier 6 and 7 are competitive leagues, and only tier 8 is unbalanced with lower ranked EOS team being joined by some better quality Juniors.

Running conferences again means you'll have more teams playing in uneven divisions.

If we're playing that game, so are Camelon and Stirling. And if we're going by the furthest east WR club - you also have Fauldhouse, Harthill, Armadale, Sauchie all east of Forth Wanderers.

And if Gretna were relegated from the LL and opted to go to the WOS they'd be further east than all the West Lothian and Edinburgh clubs as well as Peebles, Penicuik, Whitehill Welfare, Bonnyrigg and all the Fife clubs except Kennoway, St Andrew's and Tayport. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ginaro said:

If we're playing that game, so are Camelon and Stirling. And if we're going by the furthest east WR club - you also have Fauldhouse, Harthill, Armadale, Sauchie all east of Forth Wanderers.

I'm not really, I'm just showing the boundaries aren't some holy and immutable lines in the sand. Fauldhouse is not West Lothian's Jerusalem. I used Dunipace as an example as that's who we're talking about.

I'd love to talk to whoever came up with the LL/HL boundary. Did they realise what it meant for Luncarty? Did they mean to put Perth in the south? Did they choose latitude for a reason? If they'd used the OS grid, it would have put Oban in the HL. Did they consider other boundaries, like counties or rivers? I wonder how much thought went into it.

Anyway, maps and football, this is like ice cream and jelly for me.

Edited by GordonS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GordonS said:

I'm not really, I'm just showing the boundaries aren't some holy and immutable lines in the sand. Fauldhouse is not West Lothian's Jerusalem. I used Dunipace as an example as that's who we're talking about.

I'd love to talk to whoever came up with the LL/HL boundary. Did they realise what it meant for Luncarty? Did they mean to put Perth in the south? Did they choose latitude for a reason? If they'd used the OS grid, it would have put Oban in the HL. Did they consider other boundaries, like counties or rivers? I wonder how much thought went into it.

Anyway, maps and football, this is like ice cream and jelly for me.

If you look at how the HL/LL boundary works it was clearly only about putting Dundee in the HL. Probably with the idea of Aberdeen/Dundee/Surrounding areas matched up versus Glasgow/Edinburgh/Surrounding areas. It didn't care about any other existing leagues as it was only ever about the HL and LL from their perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Burnie_man said:

Nobody is being penalised. Clubs apply to join the EoS and if accepted they will join at the lowest level as new members. 

The EoS aren't there to fix other people's bad decisions to the detriment of their own members.

The door will always be open to new clubs, and everyone will be made very welcome.

I hear that the east region juniors have a meeting next Tuesday so I would expect to see white smoke then 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GordonS said:

I'm not really, I'm just showing the boundaries aren't some holy and immutable lines in the sand. Fauldhouse is not West Lothian's Jerusalem. I used Dunipace as an example as that's who we're talking about.

I'd love to talk to whoever came up with the LL/HL boundary. Did they realise what it meant for Luncarty? Did they mean to put Perth in the south? Did they choose latitude for a reason? If they'd used the OS grid, it would have put Oban in the HL. Did they consider other boundaries, like counties or rivers? I wonder how much thought went into it.

Anyway, maps and football, this is like ice cream and jelly for me.

Probably not much more than 'let's expand the Highland League footprint a bit'.  I wonder if it has occurred yet to those responsible that they have put Dundee north of the line?

It's still unbalanced of course, with far more people and clubs south of the current line than north.  It makes more sense to shift the line south, though selling that to the Lowland League would be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, sdr71 said:

Probably not much more than 'let's expand the Highland League footprint a bit'.  I wonder if it has occurred yet to those responsible that they have put Dundee north of the line?

It's still unbalanced of course, with far more people and clubs south of the current line than north.  It makes more sense to shift the line south, though selling that to the Lowland League would be interesting.

For me the population argument has never held much weight in the HL/LL breakdown. The major population centre's, for the most part, already have teams within the SPFL.

It's meant to be close to 4-1 in favour of the LL catchment area based on population. Yet when you look at the number of clubs that people consider should be in the non-league pyramid (HL, LL, EoS, SoS, SJFA and NCL) its roughly 2-1 in favour of the LL catchment area. Still an advantage but not quite as inequitable as some make out. Which is why the 3 way split of North-West-East is has support, as club number wise its reasonably even between all 3 areas at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the St Andrews statement

League Structure for Season 2020/21

The Committee of St Andrews United Football Club has just been asked to vote on proposals regarding the structure of next season’s East of Scotland Leagues. We have been asked to consider the merits of retaining the current First Division conferences at tier seven versus the creation of a Second Division at tier eight based upon a traditional promotion and relegation format.

Following a long discussion, it was decisively agreed that the conferences have been terrific for integrating former Junior clubs into the East of Scotland League but the future structure of divisions in our region must provide clarity and stability. The Committee has therefore voted in favour of creating a Second Division at tier eight, whilst abolishing the conferences at tier seven. In doing so, we also had to consider whether or not such a league should operate next season. Indeed, some members of the Committee justifiably commented that any changes to the league structure for next season should have been agreed at the start of the current campaign in the interests of fairness and sporting integrity. However, the creation of tier eight has been mooted since last summer and the Committee noted the need to improve Scottish football as a whole, which should not be neglected in the face of self-interest. We consequently believe that the creation of tier eight should not be delayed longer than necessary, especially when taking into account the fast moving nature of Scottish non-league restructuring. The Committee has thus voted in favour of a Second Division commencing this autumn.

Since St Andrews United turned Senior in 2018, we have been made to feel welcome in the East of Scotland League and we have been impressed with the way administration matters have been handled. The St Andrews United Committee now waits with interest to see how fellow member clubs have voted and we look forward to participating in a fascinating league next year and beyond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prem-First-Second from next season was also our preferred choice. Time to move on and offer a strong First Division to clubs and more promotion opportunities. Conferences at tier 8 can be created if necessary to accommodate any new members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Burnie_man said:

Prem-First-Second from next season was also our preferred choice. Time to move on and offer a strong First Division to clubs and more promotion opportunities. Conferences at tier 8 can be created if necessary to accommodate any new members.

With the number of potential applicants you'd also either have two large conferences with much of the bottom half having nothing to play or 3 Conferences which doesn't really allow for Inter-Conference games. Which means potentially resorting to 3 times a season or a shorter league season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the number of potential applicants you'd also either have two large conferences with much of the bottom half having nothing to play or 3 Conferences which doesn't really allow for Inter-Conference games. Which means potentially resorting to 3 times a season or a shorter league season.
16-16-16 could well be achievable, if it exceeds that then 16-16 and 2 Conferences/Regions. First division could initially number 14 to help balance things if needs be and bring it upto 16 in later seasons.

All depends on what the clubs want of course.



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...