There was a coo

[Brazilianlex]

33 minutes ago, Left Back said:

If no-one in HL is licensed as was stated no play-off at all then?

I can't remember the details (and I could be completely wrong) but I'm sure I've read somewhere that the SFA aren't allowing licensing applications currently.

It was reported recently that Clubs who think they may make the play offs have been invited to apply for a bronze licence and will be inspected early next year so they have time to make required changes for start of next season.

[welshbairn]

I wonder if the SFA gave any justification for this?

Quote

The SFA though advised it was unwilling to allow the Lowland League to have any more than 16 member clubs.

 

[FairWeatherFan]

11 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I wonder if the SFA gave any justification for this?

 

No room for the B teams otherwise.

[welshbairn]

16 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

No room for the B teams otherwise.

Clearly, but is that legally within the power of the SFA when they've allowed 19 teams no worries, and 18 members in the Highland League? Is there any obligation on them to act reasonably and in good faith?

Edited December 22, 2023 by welshbairn

[Blue Brazil Forever]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Clearly, but is that legally within the power of the SFA when they've allowed 19 teams no worries, and 18 members in the Highland League? Is there any obligation on them to act reasonably and in good faith?

Certain people in the SFA are pissed off because their pet Conference scheme was roundly opposed and defeated. I have asked if the Conference company set up by the SFA has been wound up. Is anyone able to advise ?

[Deanburn Dave]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

Clearly, but is that legally within the power of the SFA when they've allowed 19 teams no worries, and 18 members in the Highland League? Is there any obligation on them to act reasonably and in good faith?

Don't know about the legal aspects but the SFA would look silly trying to argue how 18 clubs cannot be allowed in the LL but 16+2 guest clubs (or +3) is OK.

 

[realmadrid]

19 minutes ago, Blue Brazil Forever said:

Certain people in the SFA are pissed off because their pet Conference scheme was roundly opposed and defeated. I have asked if the Conference company set up by the SFA has been wound up. Is anyone able to advise ?

Nail on the head there.

The SFA from Maxwell down needs a total clear out and no one with an old firm connection should be anywhere near the new set up. 

They just dont get it and are looking out for the bigger clubs over everyone else.

 

[realmadrid]

6 hours ago, ++Ammo - Airdrie++ said:

Apologies about the layout. See below.

What a view? There's plenty on here (including myself) who follow vast amounts of Scottish football at all levels, and have an interest in the pyramid and developments in the game. Not wanting other fans to comment on a decision your club's made because you KNOW it's deemed unfashionable by the greater majority of league clubs. Personally, I've been pretty quiet on the whole affair, I have my thoughts but it's only that, thoughts.  I think for transparency and for anyone having an interest in this, clubs should have the courage of their convictions and at least not be trying to hide behind secret emails to only members. Just imo though.

A sensible outlook.

Firstly – a Very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all from the Cowdenbeath FC Board. We are sure you will agree that the team’s performances this season have been vastly improved from those of the last couple of seasons.  

 

We write primarily to give you a Lowland League update – including the vote by member clubs on B Teams which took place on Monday evening (18th Dec). This as ever proved somewhat contentious albeit social media debate on the matter is pretty one-dimensional. Our policy is always to be completely transparent in such matters with our fans. The Lowland League essentially held a vote whether to allow B Teams to continue to participate for another 2 seasons and this was carried by a majority vote by the member clubs. The Cowdenbeath FC Board carefully considered the matter in the round and on this further occasion on balance decided to allow the status quo to persist. It was not an easy decision.  

 

To recap, we have never supported B teams coming into the pyramid. We declined to support their admission to the SPFL on more than one occasion and opposed them continuing in the Lowland League when we first joined its ranks at the start of last season. The majority of clubs though voted for them to continue in membership. Thus, the genie had been well and truly let out the bottle by the original admission to the Lowland League in 2021/22. At the tail end of last season, we firmly opposed the Conference League proposal which CFC believed was a deeply flawed project but elected to agree to let B teams continue in membership for 2023/24 for the reasons we outlined at the time to our supporters.  

 

Following that end of season scenario, CFC were then prominently involved in the Lowland League Board putting forward a proposal to remove the membership cap of 16 clubs that applies to the LL. A league with 18/20 member clubs in CFC’s view would then readily allow for more promotion from the Tier 6 leagues and kick-start ventilation by bringing in some strong clubs straight away. It also would maintain what we believe would constitute a suitable League match programme for a full season. The SFA though advised it was unwilling to allow the Lowland League to have any more than 16 member clubs and the LL’s rule change was vetoed.  

 

From a CFC perspective, without additional teams being promoted into the League to swell its numbers and in the absence of B teams, we would only have a guaranteed 33 competitive matches next season compared to 42 in our SPFL days – that was not an appetising prospect – we played more games than that in the truncated Covid season which ended in early March. More cup competitions cannot suitably fill the void – indeed, this season we have a Lowland League Cup draw which ensures we will receive no gate money at all even if we get through all the rounds and make the final whilst in the South Region Challenge Cup, because we are VAT registered, at our home games the visiting club gets a better share of the gate than we do! A suitable regular league match programme laid out at the start of the season is the bread and butter of professional football. B teams to us are sub-optimal (and no offence to the personnel at the clubs involved who have been a pleasure to deal with) but are not some sort of footballing Armageddon as some seem keen to portray.  

 

Touching on the subject of ventilation, we raised the matter re opening up promotion to the Lowland League when we joined but were advised the member clubs’ overall view was that this was contingent on automatic promotion being granted by the SPFL. We believed this to be flawed reasoning and also knew that the SPFL would not agree to this in any event. There is no constituency among the SPFL members, as far as we are aware, which actively desires to see automatic relegation from SPFL 2 introduced – and we can’t see why that would

2 / 3

change. We wouldn’t have supported that when we were in the SPFL after already having conceded a play-off route to promotion which did not previously exist. Why would they accept auto-relegation when nothing is offered in return? As regards ventilation from Tier 6, this is a subject we are happy to consider further with our fellow member clubs.  

 

There are though many pressing issues for the Lowland League. The Lowland League is a recent creation, it has not built-up sizeable reserves through a long existence. It meets a number of costs incurred on behalf of its member clubs and provides a range of services to them. It would greatly benefit by building a stronger financial base for the future.  

 

It should also be fully understood that the SPFL recently changed its rules. Any club going into the Pyramid play-off games from the Highland and Lowland Leagues will need to have an SFA bronze license. That applies at the end of this season. The only way a Highland or Lowland League club can compete in the end of season play offs in May 2024 is for it to be Bronze licensed. Just one team out of the 34 clubs in the Lowland and Highland Leagues currently has a Bronze licence (Cumbernauld Colts). The Lowland League board is now looking to see how best it can raise standards in this area over time so that LL clubs can look to meet the higher level of requirements. This will likely include looking for engagement to seek assistance from the SFA for its members – the SFA recently made clear to us that rather than general additional cash distributions at end of year to all its licensed clubs the focus would henceforth be on directing funds to improve infrastructure of clubs in Scottish football.  

 

The SFA is working again on devising a development system for the elite 18 – 21 age group. We believe the ultimate answer to this issue lies outwith the pyramid system but accept that it will take time to come up with a solution. The raison d’etre of B teams is markedly different to that of the other clubs in the pyramid structure. They each have a very separate place in the game. Playing in the Lowland League does aid these young players to develop, the question as to whether it succeeds in producing much increased numbers of regular 1st team and even international quality players for those clubs can only be answered in time – we doubt it but await the evidence in due course having allowed ample time for a proper conclusion to be drawn as the B teams head towards their exit. The Club previously assisted the SFA in participating in Project Brave in terms of youth development which ultimately left the participating Clubs including Cowdenbeath high and dry and abandoned - it is vital that this whole issue is now properly addressed on a robust basis. We believe too that the restriction on the Lowland League member club numbers should also be revisited in the period ahead.  

 

Finally, the Board of the Lowland League has a voting membership of six drawn from its member clubs. There were only two club reps prepared to serve when we joined the LL in 2022. We along with East Kilbride then volunteered to put forward a club rep to be on the Board – a very active role that requires much time, commitment and a great deal of work. In the current season the Board still does not have a full complement. CFC finds this most disappointing.  

 

The LL Board has faced a myriad of challenges whilst operating without a full complement of members – e.g. dealing with major matters involving powerful organisations such as the SPFL and SFA who have large resources at their disposal, tackling the future of the Development League, discussions are now being facilitated with SPFL 2 clubs to seek a better mutual understanding and common ground – building relationships needs constructive dialogue, now introducing Financial Fair Play rules to the League in line with those that

3 / 3

apply in Tiers 1 to 4 of the Scottish game, and potentially the possible issue re a Regulator for Scottish football as being implemented in England and mooted by the Scottish Parliament, as well as meeting the running costs of the League. B team funding in the absence of any other major income stream in the short term does help bolster the League’s resources to potentially help it evolve and strengthen its standing (e.g. to focus further on areas such as sponsorship, media, strategy, membership standards, prize money, building alliances, etc). Tier 5 is part of the professional side of Scottish football as members of the Professional Game Board, and we believe a progressive upwards focus is needed to further enhance the Lowland League brand and standing. If the LL is to be a vibrant, successful league it needs the full range of its membership to be involved in driving it forward. We note just this week various statements by Clubs on the B Team issue which shows that they have strong views, so it is surely incumbent upon them to play a full part in taking the League forward in a progressive manner and work to improve the pyramid.    

 

Fair enough on some of the points but as someone who attends 50 plus neutral games a season, many of which are in Fife i wont give a penny to any of the teams who voted for this charade to continue . Id hope many fellow groundhoppers will do the same. 

[FairWeatherFan]

3 minutes ago, realmadrid said:

Nail on the head there.

The SFA from Maxwell down needs a total clear out and no one with an old firm connection should be anywhere near the new set up. 

They just dont get it and are looking out for the bigger clubs over everyone else.

 

It has been 5 years of Ian Maxwell's stint with the SFA. In the beginning there was some cover from the conflicted parties in the PWG, but its been clear he hasn't done anything to progress the non-league pyramid since taking over. Quite the opposite.

[Spyro]

7 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

It has been 5 years of Ian Maxwell's stint with the SFA. In the beginning there was some cover from the conflicted parties in the PWG, but its been clear he hasn't done anything to progress the non-league pyramid since taking over. Quite the opposite.

Ah the old PWG... 

The 1st magic bean offered in this whole disaster. 

[GNU_Linux]

4 hours ago, Brazilianlex said:

It was reported recently that Clubs who think they may make the play offs have been invited to apply for a bronze licence and will be inspected early next year so they have time to make required changes for start of next season.

iirc Iain McMenemy from Stenny posted on twitter that clubs would be given a 12 month grace period akin to the one used by teams promoted to the Championship who aren't fully compliant with bronze licensing.

[Ginaro]

8 hours ago, ++Ammo - Airdrie++ said:

Touching on the subject of ventilation, we raised the matter re opening up promotion to the Lowland League when we joined but were advised the member clubs’ overall view was that this was contingent on automatic promotion being granted by the SPFL. We believed this to be flawed reasoning and also knew that the SPFL would not agree to this in any event. There is no constituency among the SPFL members, as far as we are aware, which actively desires to see automatic relegation from SPFL 2 introduced – and we can’t see why that would change. We wouldn’t have supported that when we were in the SPFL after already having conceded a play-off route to promotion which did not previously exist. Why would they accept auto-relegation when nothing is offered in return? As regards ventilation from Tier 6, this is a subject we are happy to consider further with our fellow member clubs.  

Only way it changes is if non-league is more attractive to SFPL clubs (and if more non-league clubs are promoted) - in other words, if better tier 6 clubs replace current LL clubs. Eventually that will take place with 1 up from tier 6 each season, but by not opening up promotion it just means it'll take longer for the LL to achieve and thus longer for it to become a better league. Of course the LL clubs in danger of being relegated are not going to hasten their own demise, especially when there's not even automatic relegation just now.

Edited December 22, 2023 by Ginaro

[Brazilianlex]

1 hour ago, realmadrid said:

Fair enough on some of the points but as someone who attends 50 plus neutral games a season, many of which are in Fife i wont give a penny to any of the teams who voted for this charade to continue . Id hope many fellow groundhoppers will do the same. 

Fair enough, Cheeribye

 

[Brazilianlex]

31 minutes ago, GNU_Linux said:

iirc Iain McMenemy from Stenny posted on twitter that clubs would be given a 12 month grace period akin to the one used by teams promoted to the Championship who aren't fully compliant with bronze licensing.

I think he was referring to existing SPFL Clubs who are Entry Level licence. New entrants don’t get that.

[FairWeatherFan]

22 minutes ago, Brazilianlex said:

I think he was referring to existing SPFL Clubs who are Entry Level licence. New entrants don’t get that.

When news of the changes broke.

[Brazilianlex]

6 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

When news of the changes broke.

Ok, seems to be a bit strange to ask Clubs to be inspected in January then but suppose it gives 18 months or so if work is major.

[FairWeatherFan]

6 minutes ago, Brazilianlex said:

Ok, seems to be a bit strange to ask Clubs to be inspected in January then but suppose it gives 18 months or so if work is major.

I'd imagine so. Wouldn't want to just play the games and the response be to groundshare or intend to shake a magic money tree or crowdsource. At least they would have an action plan in place and working towards the goal regardless if their intention is to one day be promoted.

[Cowdenleith]

1 hour ago, realmadrid said:

Fair enough on some of the points but as someone who attends 50 plus neutral games a season, many of which are in Fife i wont give a penny to any of the teams who voted for this charade to continue . Id hope many fellow groundhoppers will do the same. 

I’m going along to Hearts B v Gala at Ainslie Park tonight.

A b team v a ‘Yes’ team, grant me absolution all you P&B zealots

[Brazilianlex]

22 minutes ago, Cowdenleith said:

I’m going along to Hearts B v Gala at Ainslie Park tonight.

A b team v a ‘Yes’ team, grant me absolution all you P&B zealots

Watch out for the Lithgie hit squad. They are the ones with Burberry walking sticks.

[cowdenbeath]

7 hours ago, Left Back said:

If no-one in HL is licensed as was stated no play-off at all then?

I can't remember the details (and I could be completely wrong) but I'm sure I've read somewhere that the SFA aren't allowing licensing applications currently.

Imagine Brechin would be able to upgrade easy enough.