morley Posted April 9, 2021 Share Posted April 9, 2021 (edited) According to an article in the daily record published this evening the "several issues" the spfl are looking at are around the number of games played by Kelty and Brora to be declared champions, and the terms of Broras ownership of their ground which according to wikipedia i see they have played at since 1932. If true the SFA surely have to step in to ensure sporting integrity. Edited April 10, 2021 by morley 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Macguire Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, morley said: According to an article in the daily record published this evening the "several issues" the spfl are looking at are around the number of games played by Kelty and Brora to be declared champions, and the terms of Broras ownership of their ground. How the LL & HL decide their champion club is not within the scope of the SPFL to review. Although judging by the statement they released, I think your right. They’re certainly trying to make it part of their assessment. We can only hope the SFA slap them down and tell them to get on with it. Sadly the SFA and SPFL are two cheeks from the same arse so it’s unlikely they’ll stand in their way. What’s the potential issue with the Brora ground? I hadn’t heard that one before. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyro Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 Looking for any excuse they can find. Kelty AND Brora deserve their chance, not for this season but they’ve consistently proved in the last TWO part-seasons that they are worthy of a shot at the playoff. The number of games played this season is irrelevant 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 7 hours ago, morley said: According to an article in the daily record published this evening the "several issues" the spfl are looking at are around the number of games played by Kelty and Brora to be declared champions, and the terms of Broras ownership of their ground which according to wikipedia i see they have played at since 1932. If true the SFA surely have to step in to ensure sporting integrity. Brora clearly met the criteria when they competed in the play-off in 2015/16, so there's no reason why they wouldn't now. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimmo's Notes Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 17 minutes ago, craigkillie said: Brora clearly met the criteria when they competed in the play-off in 2015/16, so there's no reason why they wouldn't now. Yes, just what I was going to say, therefore Brora's ground is NOT an issue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Macguire Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 I’m not entirely sure how this would work but the SFA has 65 member clubs who sit outside the SPFL. Surely if they fail to honour their commitment to the pyramid for a second season running those 65 clubs have enough voting power to force through change. In terms of what that change would be, answers on a postcard. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 (edited) Last season the games could not legally be played at the timing stated in the rules for lockdown reasons so the SPFL could get away with it. This season they have no justifiable excuse unless the colt team reconstruction plan comes through for them and the SPFL League 2 gets expanded to 16 for 2021-22. The SFA have actively advised the HL and LL on what they needed to do to declare a league champion for the playoffs (bizarrely the LL had to have it explained to them that they could not still nominate a champion for season 2020-21 after declaring the season null & void), while last season they were passive about what was happening. Edited April 10, 2021 by LongTimeLurker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thom & Gerry Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 16 minutes ago, Jerry Macguire said: I’m not entirely sure how this would work but the SFA has 65 member clubs who sit outside the SPFL. Surely if they fail to honour their commitment to the pyramid for a second season running those 65 clubs have enough voting power to force through change. In terms of what that change would be, answers on a postcard. Was thinking along the same lines 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaswork Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 So a league club could lose its place in the football league to a club who have played 3 league games and another who have not played half its games. No chance this should happen and doubt it will. Not forgetting nobody in league football wants any team coming up they will happily put a spanner in the works of this sham pyramid forever more. -7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranaldo Bairn Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 If a team lost to another who had only played 3 games all season they would most definitely deserve to go, yes! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigyboy Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 It wasn't a sham pyramid before Covid hit... It was working as Edinburgh City, Cove Rangers, East Stirling and Berwick Rangers would attest to. It's a sham just now cos the SPFL are using a worldwide pandemic to their advantage. Imagine the SPFL using the amount of games played as an excuse when they relegated teams in their league last season who hadn't played the same amounts of games as their opponents. You couldn't redden their necks with a blowtorch that mob. And a MOB are exactly what they are.So a league club could lose its place in the football league to a club who have played 3 league games and another who have not played half its games. No chance this should happen and doubt it will. Not forgetting nobody in league football wants any team coming up they will happily put a spanner in the works of this sham pyramid forever more. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morley Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 1 hour ago, gaswork said: So a league club could lose its place in the football league to a club who have played 3 league games and another who have not played half its games. No chance this should happen and doubt it will. Not forgetting nobody in league football wants any team coming up they will happily put a spanner in the works of this sham pyramid forever more. The league club who have known all season that if they finish bottom they would have to take part in a relegation playoff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Dougie Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 2 hours ago, gaswork said: So a league club could lose its place in the football league to a club who have played 3 league games and another who have not played half its games. No chance this should happen and doubt it will. Not forgetting nobody in league football wants any team coming up they will happily put a spanner in the works of this sham pyramid forever more. Time to put the SPFL in their place, much like we did with the archaic Junior set up. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 5 hours ago, craigkillie said: Brora clearly met the criteria when they competed in the play-off in 2015/16, so there's no reason why they wouldn't now. Maybe some of the criteria has changed or they relied on a waiver back then and are having to do the same now, which is why they are waiting on the SPFL board meeting? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 19 minutes ago, Ginaro said: Maybe some of the criteria has changed or they relied on a waiver back then and are having to do the same now, which is why they are waiting on the SPFL board meeting? I don't believe the criteria have changed, and I don't see why they would have needed a waiver. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bundesliga Boy Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 27 minutes ago, craigkillie said: I don't believe the criteria have changed, and I don't see why they would have needed a waiver. I don’t believe it’s ground related at all. I suspect they’ve found a line somewhere in their rules and regulations that will relate to a team being promoted on ‘sporting merit’ or something of that ilk, and then attempt to use that as some sort of ridiculously poor argument to not allow promotion based on the amount of games played by Kelty/Brora. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Bundesliga Boy said: I don’t believe it’s ground related at all. I suspect they’ve found a line somewhere in their rules and regulations that will relate to a team being promoted on ‘sporting merit’ or something of that ilk, and then attempt to use that as some sort of ridiculously poor argument to not allow promotion based on the amount of games played by Kelty/Brora. Can you point us to the specific line in question so we can all see its exact content? If an argument is ridiculously poor it won't stand up to appeal. Edited April 10, 2021 by LongTimeLurker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Macguire Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 I don't believe such a line exists. Each league needs to provide an eligible club. In the case of the HL & LL that is a champion club. The SFA have already intervened by advising they couldn't null and void the season and then just nominate a club. I hear people talking about the number of games, particularly the HL played before calling it, but that is a matter for the leagues themselves to decide on. I would assume the SFA have no objection so the SPFL should really just be told to get on with it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 ...the Ken Ferguson story on their website can be read in a way that suggests they are doing just that. I don't think George Fraser did the LL any favours last season by tilting at windmills over the playoffs being cancelled for COVID related reasons. Doing that has left some people with the impression that the SPFL can bin the playoffs on a whim. They can't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bundesliga Boy Posted April 10, 2021 Share Posted April 10, 2021 1 hour ago, LongTimeLurker said: Can you point us to the specific line in question so we can all see its exact content? If an argument is ridiculously poor it won't stand up to appeal. Re-read my post. I didn’t say that such a line definitely existed, I speculated that it might. Whether such a line exists or not, the crux of their argument, as per reports, is that Lowland and Highland champions haven’t played enough games. In view of the fact both champions happen to be last years champions who again had to miss out, I’d advocate the playoff final should take place, and yes I believe any argument to the contrary to be both poor and ridiculous. That doesn’t necessarily equate to it winning this potential appeal that you are referencing. 2 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.