Lowland League General Discussion

[Burnieman]

Just now, Marten said:

Only a response to your pathetic red dotting of 2 of my posts in this thread, so I'm getting you back. 

I never had any issues with you before but you asked for this. 

You're "getting me back" by red dotting posts that have nothing to do with B teams?  "you asked for this"  f*cking grow up son 

[Marten]

Just now, Burnieman said:

You're "getting me back" by red dotting posts that have nothing to do with B teams?  "you asked for this"  f*cking grow up son 

Well, you red dotted me for no reason so I'm doing it back to you, simple. 

[Burnieman]

Just now, Marten said:

Well, you red dotted me for no reason so I'm doing it back to you, simple. 

I red dotted your predictable rant about B teams amongst the other shite being posted, you red dotted me on SFA payments and Bronze licences.  As I said, grow up and disappear by to the Junior leagues  

[Marten]

Just now, Burnieman said:

I red dotted your predictable rant about B teams amongst the other shite being posted, you red dotted me on SFA payments and Bronze licences.  As I said, grow up and disappear by to the Junior leagues  

It's not a predictable rant, it's just my honest opinion. But you clearly can't stand people disagreeing with you.

 

I will always be against B-teams in first team competitions out of principle and I will never attend a game in a first team competition involving a B-team (not even against my own team, even if my own team are at home) because of that.

[Burnieman]

Just now, Marten said:

It's not a predictable rant, it's just my honest opinion. But you clearly can't stand people disagreeing with you.

I will always be against B-teams in first team competitions out of principle and I will never attend a game in a first team competition involving a B-team (not even against my own team, even if my own team are at home) because of that.

Good for you,  have a greenie 

[parsforlife]

22 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

That's the sensible way to approach it, do the easy/low cost stuff but stop short until it looks like you may have to go for it, which kinda demonstrates that it's not setting out to do what it should be doing if clubs deliberately hold back until absolutely neccesary.

Not sure I agree.  The system is set up so clubs should be aspirational off the pitch and that certain standards should be expected at particular levels of the game.  I think it's worked very well in that regard. Clubs preparing for the next level and still improving themselves if not doing enough for official sign off is also good. 

Not sure how you would want to change things to avoid that,  do we want 101 categories so clubs can be in very specific levels and we can see just how far everyone is of moving up a level?  Or do we distribute money in such a way that no club funds are used to level up?

[Burnieman]

22 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Not sure I agree.  The system is set up so clubs should be aspirational off the pitch and that certain standards should be expected at particular levels of the game.  I think it's worked very well in that regard. Clubs preparing for the next level and still improving themselves if not doing enough for official sign off is also good. 

Not sure how you would want to change things to avoid that,  do we want 101 categories so clubs can be in very specific levels and we can see just how far everyone is of moving up a level?  Or do we distribute money in such a way that no club funds are used to level up?

I think the licencing system needs reviewed, and I say that as someone who went through the process of obtaining one for a club as well as several annual audits.

Entry level is enough for tier 4 and below IMO and should never have been changed to Bronze for L2, do we really need to mandate for 500 covered spectators, or trained safety officers and club doctors etc for crowds that in many cases are not significantly more than HL/LL/EoS Premier/WoS Premier? IMO no. There needs to be a review after a decade of licencing and some common sense applied to where we are and what is realistically required at these levels.

For example, how often is a licenced safety officer or club doctor required at L2 level, versus lower levels where trained first aiders and physios are deemed sufficient, or the safety officer who has done a basic online course. Why do we need cover for 500 when crowds in L2 are 300-600 in the main?

The original purpose of licencing was "to improve the playing and spectating experience", but I'm not sure many who sit on the licencing sommittee have a grasp of watching football at that level to understand what is required and what isn't.

Bronze is more about being a convenient blocker for L2 than anything else really and so we have clubs who only go part way to achieving it and then hold back.  

 

Edited Thursday at 22:09 by Burnieman

[GordonS]

17 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Not sure I agree.  The system is set up so clubs should be aspirational off the pitch and that certain standards should be expected at particular levels of the game.  I think it's worked very well in that regard. Clubs preparing for the next level and still improving themselves if not doing enough for official sign off is also good. 

Not sure how you would want to change things to avoid that,  do we want 101 categories so clubs can be in very specific levels and we can see just how far everyone is of moving up a level?  Or do we distribute money in such a way that no club funds are used to level up?

I agree with that, but not all of the additional things required for Bronze over Entry are worthwhile. If they were, ambitious clubs would be doing them regardless of licensing, they'd be doing them because they're good things. Having seats and plenty of cover is an obvious good thing and many Entry level clubs have them already. Stand-out in this regard is having a doctor; many clubs have highly qualified and experienced physios who are better at first aid than most doctors, and you can meet the requirement by employing a gynaecologist or a pathologist.

If the requirement was really an improvement to the health and welfare of players then more clubs would be doing it anyway, I think it the point.

[Burnieman]

3 minutes ago, GordonS said:

I agree with that, but not all of the additional things required for Bronze over Entry are worthwhile. If they were, ambitious clubs would be doing them regardless of licensing, they'd be doing them because they're good things. Having seats and plenty of cover is an obvious good thing and many Entry level clubs have them already. Stand-out in this regard is having a doctor; many clubs have highly qualified and experienced physios who are better at first aid than most doctors, and you can meet the requirement by employing a gynaecologist or a pathologist.

If the requirement was really an improvement to the health and welfare of players then more clubs would be doing it anyway, I think it the point.

Agree.  You won't get many clubs going for Bronze as it's a good positive thing to do, they'll only do it if they have to.

I don't think for example you'll ever see too many at tier 6 going for Bronze unless somehow it ever became a requirement of LL/HL entry.

It's that which shows that maybe the licence process needs overhauled.

Edited Thursday at 22:13 by Burnieman

[FairWeatherFan]

5 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Why do we need cover for 500 when crowds in L2 are 300-600 in the main?

Kinda answering your own question there. Who wants to be standing in the rain in the middle of November. Kinda want to encourage crowds to go to games by offering basic facilities.

[Burnieman]

Just now, FairWeatherFan said:

Kinda answering your own question there. Who wants to be standing in the rain in the middle of November. Kinda want to encourage crowds to go to games by offering basic facilities.

Actually plenty people at games stand out in all weathers regardless of availability of cover, no different from people preferring to stand instead of sit. I'm sure you've seen it yourself.

I think offering some cover, some seating, all round hard standing and modern toilet/catering facilities covers the basic's.  Having cover which could be more than the actual average crowd is maybe an uneccesary expense.

It's not all one-way though, perhaps there should be seating at Entry to cater for those who can't stand for 90 minutes.  That would be a good, practical move, even just a small 50 seater stand.  On the flip side cover for 500 at Bronze? for me 100 seats and cover for 100/200 is more than enough alongside the other facilities.

 

 

[invergowrie arab]

@Burnieman gatekeeping the LL thread again. Does your team not play in the EoSFL?

The racism and ableism was a new low though 

1 hour ago, Burnieman said:

I red dotted your predictable rant about B teams amongst the other shite being posted, you red dotted me on SFA payments and Bronze licences.  As I said, grow up and disappear by to the Junior leagues  

 

[Burnieman]

Just now, invergowrie arab said:

@Burnieman gatekeeping the LL thread again. Does your team not play in the EoSFL?

The racism and ableism was a new low though 

 

What? 

[Casey Jones]

1 hour ago, Burnieman said:

You're "getting me back" by red dotting posts that have nothing to do with B teams?  "you asked for this"  f*cking grow up son 

Dry your eyes wee man. You red dotted me a number of times, purely cause I didn't agree with you

[GordonS]

[Spyro]

There was me thinking the red dots were just reserved for the bampots or only dished out by the weirdos on here. Usually one would quote the come with a counter-argument. But a retaliation red dot is just mental. Deary me lads

Think the only red dots I've dished out was for the bam on the Brechin page who needed to be flushed out... and for someone gurning about red dots

Edited Friday at 01:38 by Spyro

[Casey Jones]

34 minutes ago, Spyro said:

There was me thinking the red dots were just reserved for the bampots or only dished out by the weirdos on here. Usually one would quote the come with a counter-argument. But a retaliation red dot is just mental. Deary me lads

Think the only red dots I've dished out was for the bam on the Brechin page who needed to be flushed out... and for someone gurning about red dots

Agreed Spyro, but Burnie-boy has to be on something to go on a rant when he gets red dots when he dishes them out too. At times people will disagree, or perhaps get something wrong, but willy nilly reds are frankly childish - especially from apparent know-alls. 

[Black Pennel]

Hah !

I green dotted him just for daftness.

It is beyond me why anyone would 'red dot' Marten...he seems to be one of the good guys.

I try not to upset folk too much on here (and I really don't give a flying you-know-what about wee dots) but I got a red dot recently from a 55 year old man on a completely innocuous post where I was pulling the leg of a nice bloke, our SoSL correspondent, about an obvious typo he'd made about Stranraer B team. Nothing vitriolic...still got a red dot fae a nutter.

Meanwhile, the good cardinal (in his moderator capacity) deletes an image I posted of Foghorn Leghorn where I was just poking fun at a well known blawhard windbag who mangles the language in every post...no explanation given other than that I might have been 'off topic'.

Bunch of weans, right enough.

[Black Pennel]

p.s. Weans means Bairns if you're on the other side of the salt and sauce line.

[lithgierose]

Ken