New clubs in the West of Scotland

[Guest]

It seems very much an Isles of Britain mindset that a club must have their own ground.

Personally don't have any issues with groundsharing. Yes there needs to be rules and guidelines in place. Can't be a free for all.

The preferable option would be Holm Park or Kilwinning Sports Club. They appear to not have a dominant tenant and are utilised by local clubs.

An acceptable option is where one club is the owner or main tenant and sub-let to a max of one other club; preferably a local club. A limit of how far from the ground the tenant calls home put in place?

A non-option, and I know this will shock some, is the nomadic tenant who flits from let to let or their base is in another flaming time-zone. This is a nono.

A main problem is when an existing club loses or leaves their ground to flit.

How can that be sensitively and fairly managed by the League Management.

Problem is at what point does the league have to say enough is enough?

There are enough examples across all of Scottish Football of all of the above without me name-shaming. I'll leave that for others, not my thing.

 

 

[Hillonearth]

4 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Where are St Pats going to be playing? I cant think of anywhere in Dumbarton that would meet the minimum criteria? 

I heard they're doing work on Posties Park at the moment - at a guess it would be there.

[Father Ted]

I've heard that St Pats and Knightswood FC have made their pitch to the beaks and awaiting outcome at AGM.

[Arthurlie1981]

4 hours ago, HorseyGhirl said:

It seems very much an Isles of Britain mindset that a club must have their own ground.

Personally don't have any issues with groundsharing. Yes there needs to be rules and guidelines in place. Can't be a free for all.

The preferable option would be Holm Park or Kilwinning Sports Club. They appear to not have a dominant tenant and are utilised by local clubs.

An acceptable option is where one club is the owner or main tenant and sub-let to a max of one other club; preferably a local club. A limit of how far from the ground the tenant calls home put in place?

A non-option, and I know this will shock some, is the nomadic tenant who flits from let to let or their base is in another flaming time-zone. This is a nono.

A main problem is when an existing club loses or leaves their ground to flit.

How can that be sensitively and fairly managed by the League Management.

Problem is at what point does the league have to say enough is enough?

There are enough examples across all of Scottish Football of all of the above without me name-shaming. I'll leave that for others, not my thing.

 

 

I think the league are reaching that point now where I believe you cannot have a new ground share unless it is on an astro. The mess that is Guys Meadow during the season is shocking.

Where I have a problem is clubs leaving the area they are from to move to a ground share well outwith their area. That's what does not allow you to build a fan base. I have seen St Cadocs a few times this season and the home support was negligible and that is, in part, due to the over 16 mile round trip to where the club are from.

No clubs should have been or should be in the future accepted without a viable home ground within a decent distance of where they are from and with an achievable plan to meet certain standards within an agreed timeframe. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Arthurlie1981 said:

I think the league are reaching that point now where I believe you cannot have a new ground share unless it is on an astro. The mess that is Guys Meadow during the season is shocking.

Where I have a problem is clubs leaving the area they are from to move to a ground share well outwith their area. That's what does not allow you to build a fan base. I have seen St Cadocs a few times this season and the home support was negligible and that is, in part, due to the over 16 mile round trip to where the club are from.

No clubs should have been or should be in the future accepted without a viable home ground within a decent distance of where they are from and with an achievable plan to meet certain standards within an agreed timeframe. 

Could not agree more about your comment on groundshare.

I would imagine the league agreed to the situ with St.Cadocs and others in good faith.

But there is an element of taking the piss with some the groundshares.

Do the league have to threaten with the ultimate sanction of expulsion to get some action happening?

 

[Arthurlie1981]

40 minutes ago, HorseyGhirl said:

Could not agree more about your comment on groundshare.

I would imagine the league agreed to the situ with St.Cadocs and others in good faith.

But there is an element of taking the piss with some the groundshares.

Do the league have to threaten with the ultimate sanction of expulsion to get some action happening?

 

I am in favour of having different standards at the different levels (similar to the English non league set up). Here is an example off the top of my head. 

Tier 10 (Div 4)

Secure ground tenancy within a ground no more than 2 miles from your home area, ground with a barrier around it, catering and toilet facilities in the vicinity of the ground. Show that you are making the club part of the community through links with other community organisations.

Tier 9  & 8 (Div 3 & 2)

As above but with the addition of a covered enclosure and improvement to toilet and catering facilities

Tier 7 (Div 1)

As above but with stepped terracing and be showing that you are working towards your licence with an agreed timeframe with the league

Tier 6 (Premier)

As above and and SFA Licence

Clubs would be relegated if they do not make these improvements within 1 season of entry into the league. This would stop clubs coming in and spending their way to the top while not having either the facilities (Rossvale/Loccos) or using someones else's while spending cash on the players (St Cadocs)

Whatever anyone thinks of Darvel (and by the looks of it Burgh) at least they are spending the cash and making improvements to their facilities so I have no problem with them doing what they do.

I know this probably isn't the right thread but it worries me that 2 new clubs can enter and make their way up  the leagues without the necessary infrastructure off the park.

 

Edited May 22, 2023 by Arthurlie1981

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Arthurlie1981 said:

I am in favour of having different standards at the different levels (similar to the English non league set up). Here is an example off the top of my head. 

Tier 10 (Div 4)

Secure ground tenancy within a ground no more than 2 miles from your home area, ground with a barrier around it, catering and toilet facilities in the vicinity of the ground. Show that you are making the club part of the community through links with other community organisations.

Tier 9  & 8 (Div 3 & 2)

As above but with the addition of a covered enclosure and improvement to toilet and catering facilities

Tier 7 (Div 1)

As above but with stepped terracing and be showing that you are working towards your licence with an agreed timeframe with the league

Tier 6 (Premier)

As above and and SFA Licence

Clubs would be relegated if they do not make these improvements within 1 season of entry into the league. This would stop clubs coming in and spending their way to the top while not having either the facilities (Rossvale/Loccos) or using someones else's while spending cash on the players (St Cadocs)

Whatever anyone thinks of Darvel (and by the looks of it Burgh) at least they are spending the cash and making improvements to their facilities so I have no problem with them doing what they do.

I know this probably isn't the right thread but it worries me that 2 new clubs can enter and make their way up  the leagues without the necessary infrastructure off the park.

 

Who would be a league official. They almost need a crystal ball to see the future. 

The people who make the decisions are in the main I believe just normal football folks. It's a helluva pressure to put on them.

Would a solution be to give new entrants to the league an interim licence that can be revoked if they don't meet requirements. 

Yes I know requirements are required to be known first. Does the league have documents relating to ground criteria and club setup?

Just to play devils advocate for a mo.

The focus is on newish clubs. Do all existing traditional clubs have what would be deemed good facilities and proper setup?

 

[Hillonearth]

8 minutes ago, HorseyGhirl said:

Who would be a league official. They almost need a crystal ball to see the future. 

The people who make the decisions are in the main I believe just normal football folks. It's a helluva pressure to put on them.

Would a solution be to give new entrants to the league an interim licence that can be revoked if they don't meet requirements. 

Yes I know requirements are required to be known first. Does the league have documents relating to ground criteria and club setup?

Just to play devils advocate for a mo.

The focus is on newish clubs. Do all existing traditional clubs have what would be deemed good facilities and proper setup?

 

Broadly they do, although standards clearly vary. For me, there needs to be some acknowledgment however that by joining, clubs are entering a spectator-facing arrangement as opposed to a purely recreational football setup.

Cover for X amount of fans isn't completely essential, nor are stepped terracing rather than hard standing, catering, toilets within the ground and so on...it's just when it's obvious none of them are being addressed and there are no plans to put any of them in place it begs the question of who they're hoping to attract to the games when exactly the same spectator experience can be had for no cost at any ammy game at a school 3G.

For me, I've made a point of checking out the Div. 4 clubs at home on occasion in desultory groundhopping mode - at some I've quite enjoyed the experience, but others I've walked away thinking "why did I even bother doing that?" There was one in particular last winter which shall remain nameless which was just a basic cage with absolutely no effort made to cater for spectators, with the weather sufficiently poor that I walked out before half-time...I wasn't the first one of a sparse crowd to do so either. That's not great either in terms of building a fanbase or for longevity of the clubs in question...once bitten, twice shy.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Hillonearth said:

Broadly they do, although standards clearly vary. For me, there needs to be some acknowledgment however that by joining, clubs are entering a spectator-facing arrangement as opposed to a purely recreational football setup.

Cover for X amount of fans isn't completely essential, nor are stepped terracing rather than hard standing, catering, toilets within the ground and so on...it's just when it's obvious none of them are being addressed and there are no plans to put any of them in place it begs the question of who they're hoping to attract to the games when exactly the same spectator experience can be had for no cost at any ammy game at a school 3G.

For me, I've made a point of checking out the Div. 4 clubs at home on occasion in desultory groundhopping mode - at some I've quite enjoyed the experience, but others I've walked away thinking "why did I even bother doing that?" There was one in particular last winter which shall remain nameless which was just a basic cage with absolutely no effort made to cater for spectators, with the weather sufficiently poor that I walked out before half-time...I wasn't the first one of a sparse crowd to do so either. That's not great either in terms of building a fanbase or for longevity of the clubs in question...once bitten, twice shy.

A big issue with the cages is how they are constructed. In the main there is only one side available for spectating and certainly no space for any fan facilities within it's perimeter.

So that's begs the question: why after the appraisal visit were clubs in these type of cages accepted. 

So it follows the league are accountable for accepting a club with such a facility. To do this retrospectively now would be poor practice.

Personally my surroundings don't bother me, years standing out in all weather's and pitches coaching at youth level. Totally can see that at this level and with a paying audience there needs to be at the very least basic facilities.

Will finish by adding that not all cages are the same so it's wrong that there is a general dismissive attitude to cages.

[Guest]

To add an extra debate.

Should there be a means by which clubs already in the system have their facilities and playing surface inspected for suitability.

This should apply to all clubs/grounds not just newbies.

[PossilYM]

8 hours ago, Hillonearth said:

Broadly they do, although standards clearly vary. For me, there needs to be some acknowledgment however that by joining, clubs are entering a spectator-facing arrangement as opposed to a purely recreational football setup.

Cover for X amount of fans isn't completely essential, nor are stepped terracing rather than hard standing, catering, toilets within the ground and so on...it's just when it's obvious none of them are being addressed and there are no plans to put any of them in place it begs the question of who they're hoping to attract to the games when exactly the same spectator experience can be had for no cost at any ammy game at a school 3G.

For me, I've made a point of checking out the Div. 4 clubs at home on occasion in desultory groundhopping mode - at some I've quite enjoyed the experience, but others I've walked away thinking "why did I even bother doing that?" There was one in particular last winter which shall remain nameless which was just a basic cage with absolutely no effort made to cater for spectators, with the weather sufficiently poor that I walked out before half-time...I wasn't the first one of a sparse crowd to do so either. That's not great either in terms of building a fanbase or for longevity of the clubs in question...once bitten, twice shy.

The flaw in the cage set up for me and yes i accept some are better than others, respect to Gartcairn on that, is that clubs are asking punters for money to enter.

Probably been in most of them in Greater Glasgow from Gartcairn to Govan.

Btw Kilwinning is a cage all be it with proper facilities. Only thing missing at Kilwinning is a bit of terracing and a cover over they seats they got off Benburb.

[PossilYM]

38 minutes ago, HorseyGhirl said:

A big issue with the cages is how they are constructed. In the main there is only one side available for spectating and certainly no space for any fan facilities within it's perimeter.

So that's begs the question: why after the appraisal visit were clubs in these type of cages accepted. 

So it follows the league are accountable for accepting a club with such a facility. To do this retrospectively now would be poor practice.

Personally my surroundings don't bother me, years standing out in all weather's and pitches coaching at youth level. Totally can see that at this level and with a paying audience there needs to be at the very least basic facilities.

Will finish by adding that not all cages are the same so it's wrong that there is a general dismissive attitude to cages.

Probably the cages are accepted because in theory they can be adapted in time if and when money is available.

[Arthurlie1981]

9 hours ago, HorseyGhirl said:

Who would be a league official. They almost need a crystal ball to see the future. 

The people who make the decisions are in the main I believe just normal football folks. It's a helluva pressure to put on them.

Would a solution be to give new entrants to the league an interim licence that can be revoked if they don't meet requirements. 

Yes I know requirements are required to be known first. Does the league have documents relating to ground criteria and club setup?

Just to play devils advocate for a mo.

The focus is on newish clubs. Do all existing traditional clubs have what would be deemed good facilities and proper setup?

 

On you 1st point, the whole point of being a league official is to look at all of these issues and horizon scan (nice policy term there lol!!) for future issues such as these. The whole point in being an office bearer, whether in the league or at a club is to look for problems before they have happened, which in this case they have not.

And I am not aiming this at new clubs, this would be grandfathered in for all clubs and these should be attainable for most clubs.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Arthurlie1981 said:

On you 1st point, the whole point of being a league official is to look at all of these issues and horizon scan (nice policy term there lol!!) for future issues such as these. The whole point in being an office bearer, whether in the league or at a club is to look for problems before they have happened, which in this case they have not.

And I am not aiming this at new clubs, this would be grandfathered in for all clubs and these should be attainable for most clubs.

Wording this badly. For an official to do their job there needs to be a set of standards noted down that they can judge to. Otherwise the club in questiin could rightly question the judgement. Hopefully that makes sense.

As a wee aside I was under the impression that Div 4 was set up as a development/buffer league where new clubs could get up to a league standard before being admitted fully as a West member. So was surprised last close season when Finnart were promoted and all the Div 4 clubs were awarded full membership.

Concerned that next season the demoted clubs from Div 3 and the existing clubs in Div 3 will, with justification, be complaining about the facilities or lack of that the new clubs have.

This scenario will not be fair on these new clubs.

I fear calls for these clubs with poor facilities to be omitted from the league.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, PossilYM said:

Probably the cages are accepted because in theory they can be adapted in time if and when money is available.

I know this will shock you, but there are cages that cannot be improved due to physical limitations and lack of support from the council. So where do these clubs go from there.

Edited May 23, 2023 by HorseyGhirl

[Guest]

1 hour ago, PossilYM said:

The flaw in the cage set up for me and yes i accept some are better than others, respect to Gartcairn on that, is that clubs are asking punters for money to enter.

Probably been in most of them in Greater Glasgow from Gartcairn to Govan.

Btw Kilwinning is a cage all be it with proper facilities. Only thing missing at Kilwinning is a bit of terracing and a cover over they seats they got off Benburb.

I accept the charging can seem like taking the piss, bit isn't having an entry fee a stipulation of the league.

Get yersel down to Bonnyton's Synergy just to give you a fuller picture of what is possible if a cage is properly located.

[PossilYM]

1 minute ago, HorseyGhirl said:

I accept the charging can seem like taking the piss, bit isn't having an entry fee a stipulation of the league.

Get yersel down to Bonnyton's Synergy just to give you a fuller picture of what is possible if a cage is properly located.

Come on H

You honestly think i ain't been there already.

Looking at groundhopping down the Solway Firth area in a few weeks when the friendlies start.

Something different.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, PossilYM said:

Come on H

You honestly think i ain't been there already.

Looking at groundhopping down the Solway Firth area in a few weeks when the friendlies start.

Something different.

Sorry big man. Was just under the impression you weren't allowed to leave the West Central Belt. You know stipulation of restraining order or whatever.

So what's your thoughts on it.

Have you applied for an entry visa; we don't just allow any Tom, Dick or Whomever to enter our beautiful county.

[Sergeant Wilson]

26 minutes ago, HorseyGhirl said:

I know this will shock you, but there are cages that cannot be improved due to physical limitations and lack of support from the council. So where do these clubs go from there.

No where. Not every club can get in.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

No where. Not every club can get in.

Sorry maybe didn't make that clear. I mean what do the clubs that have already been accepted into the league do now if retrospectively their facility is deemed not fit for purpose. Totally agree the time to reject their facility was at application.

The horse has left the stable.