WoSFL Premier Division thread

[Burnieman]

1 hour ago, Casey Jones said:

Certainly act as a blazer

Just like you used to be a Musselburgh fan 

[Burnieman]

1 hour ago, Casey Jones said:

I’ll end my debate here, but for clarity, I’ve never underlined your point once. Try not being so tunnel-visioned all the time. No point in arguing/communicating with stupidity. Cheers. 

[PossilYM]

1 hour ago, glensmad said:

You mean he is informed ?

Naw, well worth the watching

[Casey Jones]

14 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Just like you used to be a Musselburgh fan 

And..?

[Vanderbilt]

3 hours ago, Wos-observer said:

 

Teams should only be eligible for play offs on sporting merit. Over the course of a season the best team wins the league.

 

My understanding is that Beith are moving towards achieving their license with the final hurdle being floodlights which had an application submitted to planning for, unsure what the latest is with it however you can’t say they are standing still and not making progress. I know there was issues with title deeds of land which had hindered them however as far as I am aware their club/committee are addressing the license issues and are hoping to be licensed. 

 

A better structure is to have the EoS and WoS premier league at Tier 5 along with the HL. LL teams then are allocated to regionalised tier 5 leagues. The winner of each region then goes into a mini league and the winner of that then play bottom of SPFL 2 for a place in the league. 

 

There are other issues as well such as ground sharing which shouldn’t be allowed at Tier 6, teams should have been told that they have 3 years to have their own ground where fixtures can be cast any Saturday without hindering the fixture secretary’s ability to cast fixtures. I don’t see any reason teams striving to be “more professional” do not want their own ground or can’t have their own ground. I think the league should introduce for Tier 6 the requirement for clubs to have their own facilities and bar ground sharing at this level and above and the SFA should also make it a requirement for licensing that clubs have their own ground. This filters up the leagues as well. It is a nonsense that clubs cannot have access to a pitch whenever the fixture secretary wants to cast a fixture. 

 

Synthetic surfaces should also be tested and verified on a yearly basis, certificates are past at initial install for a period of up to 10 years however that is based in a set number of hours in use, many of the synthetic pitches in the WoS premier league would fail to meet the standards set out in the SFA license and have only passed based on the initial certification document. I know for a fact New Tinto and Holm Park if tested would fail. Pitches that fail yearly checks should automatically void the clubs license status. Players should not be put at danger because of sub-standard playing surfaces. 

 

The issue with certain clubs’ grass parks also needs reviewed, despite considerable money being spent, Darvel’s pitch is already not fit for purpose. They aren’t the only one. If a pitch has failed a pitch inspection due to being waterlogged above a certain % then like the teams’ whose synthetic pitch fail to comply with the standards set out in the SFA licensing agreement, then the club is stripped of their license.  I know I have mentioned Darvel, so I am now expecting a war and peace statement from Benny Hill (Giruu) their new chairman.

 

Football is a sport that should be played on grass!

 

I am yet to see anyone other the odd Clydebank fan with blinkers on for Mr Bamford who done the deal for Broadwood, anyone that agrees or likes finals being held at Broadwood. Again, similar to point above, football is designed for grass. I went to the West of Scotland final on Sunday at Broadwood and was at it last year at Irvine Meadow, the final at Meadow Park was a far more enjoyable occasion, yes there were two clubs well supported there as oppose to a team like Darvel who have no real substantial fan base however on the whole as a venue it was a far better experience. Subject to what teams reach the final, for me the final should be at proper grounds where atmospheres can be generated and a game can be played on grass, the likes of Beechwood, Meadow Park and Newlandsfield should all be host venues. This five year deal with Broadwood is a joke, the fact we need to play it during a congested period of the season as a direct effect of Rangers Ladies using the pitch is shocking. The stewardship of Mr Bamford has been a joke, start to finish, nothing impartial about him. 

 

The main issue with the LL is not many in the WoS view this level as progression or a step up, it is full of teams with no fans. I went to the LL final a record ground of 627…and absolute joke. Teams like Broomhill, Gretna, Caley Braves, East Kilbride etc…have no fans. You have non-competitive teams competing in a league who can influence outcome and from one week to the next can field totally different level of team.  Progression should not make teams worse off due to lack of supporters from opposition teams. 

3G pitches are checked every year for licensing! Holm Park passed just recently so you’re talking

Gartcairn,St Cadocs have no fans so your point is?

Welcome back Mr Rhubarb

 

Edited May 3 by Vanderbilt

[Arthurlie1981]

3 hours ago, Wos-observer said:

 

 

 

Football is a sport that should be played on grass!

 

 

 

 

What about Black Ash?

[BANKIEBILL]

On 02/05/2024 at 15:39, FairWeatherFan said:

In order to change the participant criteria on the LL Playoff. You have to change the Playoff Rules. If you don't think that's changing anytime soon. Why propose minor changes instead of meaningful ones?

Things wrong with the LL Playoff this season:

1. A licensed league champion being denied promotion
2. 13th in the EoS Premier waiting around to see if they're relegated
3. 13th in the EoS First waiting around to see if they're relegated
4. 13th in the EoS Second waiting around to see if they're relegated

Things not wrong with the LL Playoff this season

1. A second or even third placed team not good enough to win their league being denied participation in 2 games. Games that would decide the entire seasons of a half dozen clubs.

It's partly as a result of the SFA ramdonly not allowing any more applications - not because of a deliberate attempt to interfere unfairly with the butterfly impact on other leagues of a change in play off rules. We're talking here about the attempts to kick-start some end of season potential churn in one of the main components of pyramid. Trying to write anything else into it is made up keech. 

It won't happen for this year so the context of who's currently involved is neither here not there. With the amount of dough they can bring to bear, its possible that next year's WSFL champ could be Johnstone Burgh - an unlicensed club. Meaning that under the current rules, no WSFL contender for play off for a 3rd year. Leaving free reign for East to go up is every bit as much of a fairness issue as a tweak in rules to allow a proper contest. In any road - technically it would mean a weaker team in play off than the champ. So let's stop the false arguments

Edited May 3 by BANKIEBILL

[FairWeatherFan]

1 minute ago, BANKIEBILL said:

It's partly as a result of the SFA ramdonly not allowing any more applications - not because of a deliberate attempt to interfere unfairly with the butterfly impact on other leagues of a change in play off rules. We're talking here about the attempts to kick-start some end of season potential churn in one of the main components of pyramid. Trying to write anything else into it is made up keech. 

It won't happen for this year so the context of who's currently involved is neither here not there. With the amount of dough they can bring to bear, its possible that next year's WSFL champ could be Johnstone Burgh - an unlicensed club. Meaning that under the current rules, no WSFL contender for play off for a 3rd year. Leaving free reign for East to go up is every bit as much of a fairness issue as a tweak in rules to allow a proper context. In any road - technically it would mean a weaker team in play off than the champ. So let's stop the false arguments

If there was a 3 way playoff this a team would be travelling away on a Tuesday night having played on the Saturday.

There's already a disadvantage for part-time teams.

Then there's the possibility they've got a suspended player from that 1st game, while their opponenets are working with a clean slate.

Two teams then go into the 3rd and final game knowing exactly what they need to do.

There's plenty wrong with the LL Playoff. The only way to change it is to open it up and have agreement between all the leagues and SFA. If that's been done. There's far more important things to be done than to tweak a rule that might never be used again to give a lucky loser a cup game to win promotion.

 

 

[BANKIEBILL]

1 hour ago, FairWeatherFan said:

If there was a 3 way playoff this a team would be travelling away on a Tuesday night having played on the Saturday.

There's already a disadvantage for part-time teams.

Then there's the possibility they've got a suspended player from that 1st game, while their opponenets are working with a clean slate.

Two teams then go into the 3rd and final game knowing exactly what they need to do.

There's plenty wrong with the LL Playoff. The only way to change it is to open it up and have agreement between all the leagues and SFA. If that's been done. There's far more important things to be done than to tweak a rule that might never be used again to give a lucky loser a cup game to win promotion.

 

 

You keep talking about Lucky Losers or similar. What we're actually talking about is all 3 leagues having a candidate in the Playoff as is designed to happen. The format of the play off could be looked at or the order subject to a draw to ensure a bit of fairness. If there were 3 licenced teams then part-timers or not wouldn't be an issue. They already play midweek games. The way West is - with some very strong unlicensed teams makes the - not good enough to win the league argument ( are there any unlicensed teams in East with a 7 figure sum being pumped in ? ) a bit contrived tbh

Edited May 3 by BANKIEBILL

[Casey Jones]

10 hours ago, Burnieman said:

Just like you used to be a Musselburgh fan 

Forgot to ask - why you not supporting Blackburn now? Seem to be a nomad these days? What happened there? 

[Casey Jones]

10 hours ago, Burnieman said:

Also. How old are you? I’d imagine either a youngster or an immature adult. Is no one allowed to question your output without you planting a red dot on their post? If you need a replacement dummy, let me know

[Burnieman]

8 hours ago, Casey Jones said:

Also. How old are you? I’d imagine either a youngster or an immature adult. Is no one allowed to question your output without you planting a red dot on their post? If you need a replacement dummy, let me know

I thought you had your final word? 

Enjoy Musselburgh, or Haddington, or whoever you're leaching off this week.

[Wos-observer]

18 hours ago, Vanderbilt said:

3G pitches are checked every year for licensing! Holm Park passed just recently so you’re talking

Gartcairn,St Cadocs have no fans so your point is?

Welcome back Mr Rhubarb

 

Under licensing rules, synthetic pitches are not tested every year, there is a manufacturers certification where a system is passed when they are installed with a certain build up i.e. specified shock pad, specified SBR and then specified carpet. Pitches are not individually tested other than the initial test by the likes of sportslab. The certification is based on a number of hours over a period of times. In most cases clubs far exceed the hours it was designed for in a fraction of the time. It is a system that has FIFA certification not the pitch. 

 

Being involved in the industry for many years there isn't many people with more knowledge of this than me, despite financially benefiting from the product it still doesn't change my opinion that these pitches is being used for this level of game my be independently certified each season to avoid unnecessary injuries. 

 

I can say for sure Holm Park falls below the standards set out in the bronze license for a pitch, Point of install 100% no issues and met all minimum standards. 

[Burnieman]

2 minutes ago, Wos-observer said:

Under licensing rules, synthetic pitches are not tested every year, there is a manufacturers certification where a system is passed when they are installed with a certain build up i.e. specified shock pad, specified SBR and then specified carpet. Pitches are not individually tested other than the initial test by the likes of sportslab. The certification is based on a number of hours over a period of times. In most cases clubs far exceed the hours it was designed for in a fraction of the time. It is a system that has FIFA certification not the pitch. 

Being involved in the industry for many years there isn't many people with more knowledge of this than me, despite financially benefiting from the product it still doesn't change my opinion that these pitches is being used for this level of game my be independently certified each season to avoid unnecessary injuries. 

I can say for sure Holm Park falls below the standards set out in the bronze license for a pitch, Point of install 100% no issues and met all minimum standards. 

 

Not quite true. You need to have a reasonably current FIFA 3g test certificate for Entry level Licence, from the likes of Sportslabs or anyone else certified to carry-out the test, and you'll be asked by the SFA to update it every 2-3 years, which is quite costly;

"ARTIFICIAL SURFACES Any artificial surface must comply with FIFA Quality standards. Any artificial surface must be green in colour. An artificial surface may be subject to tests, at intervals to be decided by the Scottish FA, to ensure compliance to performance standards determined by the Scottish FA, FIFA, UEFA"

For a Bronze Licence and above;

"Any artificial surface must comply with FIFA Quality Pro standards. A club shall be required to demonstrate that its surface continues to meet the required standard on an annual basis, as a minimum. Any artificial surface must be green in colour. An artificial surface may be subject to tests, at intervals to be decided by the Scottish FA, to ensure compliance to performance standards determined by the Scottish FA, FIFA, UEFA or others approved by the Scottish FA."

[Vanderbilt]

6 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

 

Not quite true. You need to have a reasonably current FIFA 3g test certificate for Entry level Licence, from the likes of Sportslabs or anyone else certified to carry-out the test, and you'll be asked by the SFA to update it every 2-3 years, which is quite costly;

"ARTIFICIAL SURFACES Any artificial surface must comply with FIFA Quality standards. Any artificial surface must be green in colour. An artificial surface may be subject to tests, at intervals to be decided by the Scottish FA, to ensure compliance to performance standards determined by the Scottish FA, FIFA, UEFA"

For a Bronze Licence and above;

"Any artificial surface must comply with FIFA Quality Pro standards. A club shall be required to demonstrate that its surface continues to meet the required standard on an annual basis, as a minimum. Any artificial surface must be green in colour. An artificial surface may be subject to tests, at intervals to be decided by the Scottish FA, to ensure compliance to performance standards determined by the Scottish FA, FIFA, UEFA or others approved by the Scottish FA."

Don’t get involved with Rhubarb he’s been banned off of here but keeps coming back spouting the same drivel.

[Casey Jones]

43 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

I thought you had your final word? 

Enjoy Musselburgh, or Haddington, or whoever you're leaching off this week.

How am I leaching

Stayed in Musselburgh for 14 years, so supported my local team. 

Moved to Haddington in 2015 and continued to watch Musselburgh, as I had a vested interest in the team and did work in and about Olivebank to assist club/committee.

Took a year out & for past 3 years started to watch my local club again, particularly as it is tagged as a community club as was Musselburgh. Only a 10 minute walk from my house and I have been warmly received. 

If that is leaching - I'll take that.

[jimbaxters]

Congratulations Beith Juniors FC. Best team in the league.

Fact!!

[superpollok]

9 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

Congratulations Beith Juniors FC. Best team in the league.

Fact!!

Agree. Not a huge amount between team, but Beith the best and most consistent team. 
 

Fair play to Strain, some job he has done there since taking over as they had a disaster season under Butch before he took over. 
 

Winning the league for them means that bit more, as it gets them Scottish cup entry. 

[GNU_Linux]

[Cowden Cowboy]

Bronze licence does not just depend on the facilities at the ground - there is a lot more to it than that