New clubs in the West of Scotland

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, PossilYM said:

Obviously this is going to take years to work through.

Hopefully the West next summer have 3 things in one.

.A league winner with a licence that wants to go into the LL.

A few of those Ayrshire teams, i won't use the term Banjo Country in this instance, probably have the best of both worlds.

Local league fixtures and a crack at the Big Scottish.

Caley Braves and Broomhill, quite rightly, doesn't appeal to them

Don't like to mention it. But do some of the old junior way of thinking still prevail.

I know they will keep quiet officially but expect some negative comments from Dumbarton way. And probably quite rightly.

LL west section anyone.

[Guest]

Problem St.Pats have is there is no where else for them to go if they want to go senior.

Can't help wondering if this could have ramifications for them.

How geared up were they for going senior next year.

You can't wait to see how a vote goes weeks before the new season then rudh to put everything in place.

Just as well they didn't resign from their present league.

The more you think about it the less impressed with our league you become.

Edited June 12, 2023 by HorseyGhirl

[Guest]

Here's another thought.

The clubs were obviously told only one could be chosen did anyone question why.

Is it in the West constitution that the limit is 80. Again why no challenge from the clubs.

[Guest]

My brain's on fire just now.

Can St.Pats challenge the decision at SFA level. The suggestion is the rejection isn't down to not meeting criteria.

It was toss if a coin selection. Which is crazy to me to reject a club who have the potential to  become a vibrant member of the league 

[Dev]

3 hours 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.

 

It has been previously posted that St Pats are moving to the new Athletics facility in Dumbarton so they should be OK by next year at that ground.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Dev said:

It has been previously posted that St Pats are moving to the new Athletics facility in Dumbarton so they should be OK by next year at that ground.

From what's been hinted they met all the criteria. It was down to a vote for the one remaining place in the West.

[Dev]

5 minutes ago, HorseyGhirl said:

From what's been hinted they met all the criteria. It was down to a vote for the one remaining place in the West.

Indeed but the facility was needing to be finished not long ago, having been subject to long, expensive, delays. Having said that it isn't as much fun as banging on about perceived grievances!

Nevertheless, unless there is an 80 club limit in the WoS rules St Pats should have been allowed in [a] because they did meet the criteria and the league is partly there to foster football at the level its' at in the region. Surely one or two extra clubs  could have been shoe-horned in i.e. with mid-week matches already being lined up for the first part of the season in order to ease late season fixture pile-ups.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Dev said:

Indeed but the facility was needing to be finished not long ago, having been subject to long, expensive, delays. Having said that it isn't as much fun as banging on about perceived grievances!

Nevertheless, unless there is an 80 club limit in the WoS rules St Pats should have been allowed in [a] because they did meet the criteria and the league is partly there to foster football at the level its' at in the region. Surely one or two extra clubs  could have been shoe-horned in i.e. with mid-week matches already being lined up for the first part of the season in order to ease late season fixture pile-ups.

Thanks for info; it would suggest they at the very least have a case to appeal the decision.

Last season Thorn Ath groundhopped till January before moving into Shanks Park. Precedent set.

If you read through my many posts on this I have no preconceived grievance or conspiracy. How each club voted is on their conscience.

All the evidence now points to an 80 club limit being set by the league which should be under scrutiny. 

[FairWeatherFan]

20 minutes ago, Dev said:

Indeed but the facility was needing to be finished not long ago, having been subject to long, expensive, delays. Having said that it isn't as much fun as banging on about perceived grievances!

Nevertheless, unless there is an 80 club limit in the WoS rules St Pats should have been allowed in [a] because they did meet the criteria and the league is partly there to foster football at the level its' at in the region. Surely one or two extra clubs  could have been shoe-horned in i.e. with mid-week matches already being lined up for the first part of the season in order to ease late season fixture pile-ups.

Instead of the 80 team rule, it's upto the committee to decide if there's a vacancy. A decision has been made there was only room for one.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Instead of the 80 team rule, it's upto the committee to decide if there's a vacancy. A decision has been made there was only room for one.

Can that not be challenged by member clubs? Never been involved in a club or a members organisation, other than a union. Everything was challenged in that environment.

On a separate note kinda defeats the objective  of the pyramid. Football for all. Or am I missing the point of why the pyramid was set up.

[forfarton]

2 hours ago, HorseyGhirl said:

Can't have a kitKat I'm vegan

 

[Arthurlie1981]

1 hour ago, HorseyGhirl said:

Can that not be challenged by member clubs? Never been involved in a club or a members organisation, other than a union. Everything was challenged in that environment.

On a separate note kinda defeats the objective  of the pyramid. Football for all. Or am I missing the point of why the pyramid was set up.

The 80 clubs rule can only be challenged by members. It was obviously agreed that it would be in the constitution and as such both Knightswood and St Pats would have known there was only 1 space.

The member clubs will have voted whatever way they wanted and will have their own reasons for doing so. I am guessing that both clubs ticked all the boxes to make it onto a shortlist and I am guessing that both clubs were aware that only 1 of them would be voted in so I struggle to see where the challenge comes from for St Pats?

[craigkillie]

They are being blocked from participation in the pyramid, and thus essentially from taking any part in Scottish senior football. That would be reasonable if they failed to meet the entry criteria, but that was confirmed on this thread not to be the case, so they appear to be left in a situation where they are being excluded for fairly arbitrary reasons.

I would say it is quite rich for clubs in the west to (correctly) complain about potentially being relegated as a result of the Conference League proposal and (correctly) to complain about the lack of promotion opportunities, but then to actively pull up the drawbridge to their own league at the same time.

Edited June 12, 2023 by craigkillie

[FairWeatherFan]

3 minutes ago, Arthurlie1981 said:

The 80 clubs rule can only be challenged by members. It was obviously agreed that it would be in the constitution and as such both Knightswood and St Pats would have known there was only 1 space.

The member clubs will have voted whatever way they wanted and will have their own reasons for doing so. I am guessing that both clubs ticked all the boxes to make it onto a shortlist and I am guessing that both clubs were aware that only 1 of them would be voted in so I struggle to see where the challenge comes from for St Pats?

There isn't an 80 club rule.

[Arthurlie1981]

19 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

There isn't an 80 club rule.

You are correct, I had been told there was potentially going to be 1 put into the constitution from this season.

 

Were St Pats going to groundshare for the coming season with Vale of Leven?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Arthurlie1981 said:

You are correct, I had been told there was potentially going to be 1 put into the constitution from this season.

 

Were St Pats going to groundshare for the coming season with Vale of Leven?

Not from a post of I think @Craig fae the Vale yesterday. If wrong Craig apologies.

[FairWeatherFan]

Just now, Arthurlie1981 said:

You are correct, I had been told there was potentially going to be 1 put into the constitution from this season.

 

Were St Pats going to groundshare for the coming season with Vale of Leven?

A Vale poster on here said that wasn't the case. New groundshares on grass parks aren't allowed anyway. I don't know what they had lined up. Just know both Knightswood and St Pats met the membership requirements otherwise there wouldn't have been a vote between them.

Possible factor in this is the distinction in memberships for new clubs. Associate membership where all the entry requirements are met, full membership kicking in after the 1st season.

Then a Development membership where a club will be allowed to work towards Full membership over a period of years. If both clubs only met the Development membership standard it might explain why they only took one just to prevent an idle team.

[Guest]

This is not a good day for the WOSFL I'm afraid. After all the talk and statements 're integrity and correct implementation of the pyramid. 

To exclude a club because it would make an uneven number is imprudent at best.

Were clubs pre warned about this situation.

To unilaterally close the door like this is a misreading of what the pyramid is there to achieve.

The WOSFL need to revisit this before it becomes their stick. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

A Vale poster on here said that wasn't the case. New groundshares on grass parks aren't allowed anyway. I don't know what they had lined up. Just know both Knightswood and St Pats met the membership requirements otherwise there wouldn't have been a vote between them.

Possible factor in this is the distinction in memberships for new clubs. Associate membership where all the entry requirements are met, full membership kicking in after the 1st season.

Then a Development membership where a club will be allowed to work towards Full membership over a period of years. If both clubs only met the Development membership standard it might explain why they only took one just to prevent an idle team.

As far as I can recall all 5 new entrants last season came straight in as full members. And as i keep going back to Thorn were jumping around different grounds for a while before moving to a hone in January.

Each time we come up with a reasoning it can be shot down.

The only consistent answer is 80 is all the lifeboat can hold.

[pleslie99]

6 hours 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.

 

It was my understanding that St Pats had an agreement to use the Astro at Argyll (subject to some modifications) for a year before moving to posties once its upgrades are complete. St Pats are would comfortably win the 4th division with their current team and more than likely the 3rd, so would assume in the intrests of self preservation that clubs in those divisions maybe weren’t too keen and saw knightswood as less of a threat. Can’t imagine the Vale being too impressed with their application seeing as they were commandeering the Argyll where all VoL pathway teams train and play!

5 hours ago, Crazy Feet said:

Knightswood don't have their own park and currently the only teams they have above U18s is a poor Saturday Morning Lower Division side who struggled to fulfil their fixtures towards the end of the season and an Over 35s team.

So unless they have a lot of funding coming in and a proper management team in place what sort of team are they going to have competing in WOS Div 4 next season? Most semi pro clubs are starting preseason within the next week or so.

It's a shambles all around. 

Knightswoods u-18 team are excellent and with a few experienced players could easily compete at the lower end of WOS level, I’d be surprised if many of the current Amateur players played even though it’s that team technically moving. They also have their own park in construction which will be ready very soon. 
although they haven’t a particularly strong adult side just now, they have the pathway and infrastructure which St Pats arguably don’t.