Shannon Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 I think some traditional teams have definitely took the huff at St Cadocs, Drumchapel etc challenging them and nicking their best players for more cash and don't want more teams like these in WOSFL plus won't be happy with new clubs ground sharing and the cages / lack of facilities and can use this as an excuse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossilYM Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 2 minutes ago, Shannon said: The bottom division could run at up to 18 teams in my opinion as many won't go as far in cup competitions. Then after that then will need to create a 5th Division. The poorer old Junior sides who are already in Division 4 wouldn't be happy with that but surely too bad? If St Pat's had changed their name to Dumbarton Rangers they'd be in the Wosfl along with that team from Knightswood. A 16 team Division 4 isn't set in stone no matter what gets posted on here. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 A utopia has arisen for all conspiracy theorists. I get the feeling this is going to run and run. All I will say is Knightswood have always been a boys club and afaia only go up to u18. St.Pats as anyone in fitba knows are one of the most successful adult amateur sides in Scottish Football. Protectionism anyone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 37 minutes ago, glensmad said: Yes, Harthill had a choice between East and West as the council boundary literally cuts right through the town. Their stadium is in the east, but the houses directly across the road are in the west and have their bins collected by a different local authority. They initially chose to come to the west, but then asked to be accepted back to the east. Bin day can get quite fractious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 4 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said: Bin day can get quite fractious. Must be fun on green and blue collection days. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 Just now, HorseyGhirl said: Must be fun on green and blue collection days. There's a lot of jostling for positions. It's like It's a Knockout. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 (edited) 36 minutes ago, PossilYM said: If St Pat's had changed their name to Dumbarton Rangers they'd be in the Wosfl along with that team from Knightswood. A 16 team Division 4 isn't set in stone no matter what gets posted on here. Agree re the number of teams. I pray to all our gods that leanings perceived or otherwise had nothing to do with it. A sad sad day if any club voted one way or the other based on that. Edited June 12, 2023 by HorseyGhirl 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldsofdreams Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 Ground sharing should only be permitted for a set period of time, the likes of St Cadocs and other should have their own ground. If no ground sorted within a set period then they are removed from the pyramid. Team playing in what is effectively council astro pitches where it is caged off, no welfare facilities, snack bar or spectator facilities should not be allowed to play under WoS. Bad enough attending New Tinto Park once per season never mind multiple occasions due to ground sharing. Up there with the worst astros parks I have seen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensmad Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 59 minutes ago, craigkillie said: Are you therefore saying that, as of right now, there is no route for a new club in the West of Scotland to join the pyramid? Well the AGM was yesterday, so not until potentially next year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 But we saw at the AGM yesterday that a team which met all the criteria was denied entry, presumably purely in an attempt to keep the leagues at a particular size, or at least to have an even number of teams. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibenji Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 20 minutes ago, craigkillie said: But we saw at the AGM yesterday that a team which met all the criteria was denied entry, presumably purely in an attempt to keep the leagues at a particular size, or at least to have an even number of teams. the WoSFL part of the pyramid now set of 5 x 16 team divisions. 80 clubs will be the number, with opportunities coming to new clubs at the bottom should a premier division team get promoted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 1 minute ago, ibenji said: the WoSFL part of the pyramid now set of 5 x 16 team divisions. 80 clubs will be the number, with opportunities coming to new clubs at the bottom should a premier division team get promoted. But what happens if team relegated from LL and no promotee from West. That would mean 81 clubs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 Since it said elsewhere there were 5 applicants this year. With just St Pats & Knightswood making it past the committee. No point bothering next year it seems. Closed shop mentality has been engaged. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 55 minutes ago, fieldsofdreams said: Ground sharing should only be permitted for a set period of time, the likes of St Cadocs and other should have their own ground. If no ground sorted within a set period then they are removed from the pyramid. Team playing in what is effectively council astro pitches where it is caged off, no welfare facilities, snack bar or spectator facilities should not be allowed to play under WoS. Bad enough attending New Tinto Park once per season never mind multiple occasions due to ground sharing. Up there with the worst astros parks I have seen. The astro pitches are here to stay and with future forecasts predicting longer, heavier periods of rain. Might be the only future for football outside of top levels. Cannot realistically expect new clubs to just magically appear with everything in place and there are examples of existing clubs with limited facilities. The groundshare should not be an issue if it is properly managed/controlled. Not for me to say what these should be. Also is there enough spaces for every club in the country to have their own wee patch? Not disagreeing entirely with you. This is why the league need to look into setting criteria for facilities etc. Bit only with realistic and achievable timeframes. Another suggestion has been a tiered system of criteria from tier 6 down that needs to be implemented. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 (edited) 11 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said: Since it said elsewhere there were 5 applicants this year. With just St Pats & Knightswood making it past the committee. No point bothering next year it seems. Closed shop mentality has been engaged. It does look that way. Not what you would call a full pyramid then. Edited June 12, 2023 by HorseyGhirl 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fieldsofdreams Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 15 minutes ago, HorseyGhirl said: The astro pitches are here to stay and with future forecasts predicting longer, heavier periods of rain. Might be the only future for football outside of top levels. Cannot realistically expect new clubs to just magically appear with everything in place and there are examples of existing clubs with limited facilities. The groundshare should not be an issue if it is properly managed/controlled. Not for me to say what these should be. Also is there enough spaces for every club in the country to have their own wee patch? Not disagreeing entirely with you. This is why the league need to look into setting criteria for facilities etc. Bit only with realistic and achievable timeframes. Another suggestion has been a tiered system of criteria from tier 6 down that needs to be implemented. Astros are fine, although give me a grass pitch any day, my issue with New Tinto is the various patches throughout it. Clubs should be prepared for coming into the league when applying, I am not saying it needs to be all signing and dancing however if you have teams playing on a council astro where it is fully caged and spectators are needing to watch from outside the cage with no facilities then this isn't acceptable. No team should be allowed into the premier division whilst ground sharing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylangt7 Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 Hard to assess the rights or wrongs of the vote without knowing the details of both applications. If St Pats aim to apply again, would hope they maybe share some of the vision and aims for the future. With ground sharing with existing league clubs in the area ruled out (DFC already sharing and the pitch being a LT issue and presumably The Vale not wanting to ruin one of the best pitches in the West) their options were obviously limited. My only guess was that they would try to copy what Drumchapel have done with the Donald Dewar at OLSP High School. Basically just another cage with mesh to restrict outside viewing..longer term there really is no other solution. The other missing piece of the infrastructure missing was likely the pathway, with only the 1st and 2nd teams at adult ages. I recall Dumbarton Academy FPs trying to run U21s and 19s for a while but cant remember St Pats ever trying it. I presume that would have been part of the plan for a U20s at least. But the area is already saturated with teams at all levels, even taking over an existing team would have its challenges. (see the stupid discussion on here regarding assumptions of religion etc.) Funnily enough there are more than a few Dumbarton based boys and coaches involved in Knightswood's teams at various levels so they would be competing with them as well as existing Dumbarton, Vale, Clydebank and Yoker youth teams. I hope they apply again as its a club with a fantastic history in a hotbed of football. Although ideally from a personal perspective I'd prefer a Dumbarton "United" team in the WOSFL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 17 minutes ago, Dylangt7 said: Hard to assess the rights or wrongs of the vote without knowing the details of both applications. If St Pats aim to apply again, would hope they maybe share some of the vision and aims for the future. With ground sharing with existing league clubs in the area ruled out (DFC already sharing and the pitch being a LT issue and presumably The Vale not wanting to ruin one of the best pitches in the West) their options were obviously limited. My only guess was that they would try to copy what Drumchapel have done with the Donald Dewar at OLSP High School. Basically just another cage with mesh to restrict outside viewing..longer term there really is no other solution. The other missing piece of the infrastructure missing was likely the pathway, with only the 1st and 2nd teams at adult ages. I recall Dumbarton Academy FPs trying to run U21s and 19s for a while but cant remember St Pats ever trying it. I presume that would have been part of the plan for a U20s at least. But the area is already saturated with teams at all levels, even taking over an existing team would have its challenges. (see the stupid discussion on here regarding assumptions of religion etc.) Funnily enough there are more than a few Dumbarton based boys and coaches involved in Knightswood's teams at various levels so they would be competing with them as well as existing Dumbarton, Vale, Clydebank and Yoker youth teams. I hope they apply again as its a club with a fantastic history in a hotbed of football. Although ideally from a personal perspective I'd prefer a Dumbarton "United" team in the WOSFL. I think you’re more likely to see Dumbarton FC in the wosfl before St Pats given the way they are run and the apparent lack of action from their fans. On St Pats playing at OLSP if that would be the case then they should never be elected into the wosfl, thats a terrible solution. Im obviously not against groundshares at any level of football, but clubs should have a stable tenancy or agreement at a suitable ground. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylangt7 Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 2 hours ago, PossilYM said: If St Pat's had changed their name to Dumbarton Rangers they'd be in the Wosfl along with that team from Knightswood. maybe you know something we dont but had Dumbarton Academy FPs applied (themselves one of the historically best Amateur teams in the country) I still suspect Knightswood would have prevailed. Does seem restrictive that it had to be one over the other in an arbitrary vote, if both meet the criteria on paper. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylangt7 Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 3 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: On St Pats playing at OLSP if that would be the case then they should never be elected into the wosfl, thats a terrible solution. tend to agree BUT is it any different to Knightswood short term plans that were accpeted? (again would help if both teams were transparent on their plans) 0 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.