National Conference League

[Brazilianlex]

1 hour ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

Gatecrashing in here. I'm 100% against the Colt nonsense in the league completely. 

Our Leagues aren't perfect but one of the great things is the competitive nature of the lower part time level. That includes the junior clubs who've now got the opportunity to push on. 

Probably getting into conspiracy theory territory here but the continuation of making it harder for the ambitious, ex junior clubs or the current Lowland or Highland League clubs who've been spending money to progress their squad and facilities in a bid to make it into League 2 etc -has me convinced it's done to protect the current lower league sides scared of relegation out of League 2.

Even without the Colts, another league simply isn't required? One already exists below League 2 . 

I'm no doubt missing some key details in all this as I'm not close to it but I just don't see the point!

The proposal is engineered to get lower SPFL Club votes by providing a soft landing if relegated of a continuous 40k per season.

Maxwell promised a pyramid review to get the B Teams in this season and came up with a half arsed plan to open the door for future B Teams entry into SPFL and League 2 Clubs are so afraid of the Lowland League they will vote for it for the promise of 40k a year. They will regret it as the next step will be B Teams in SPFL within a couple of years.

However, all Clubs in the LL, EoS etc pyramid are just getting what they deserve as they can’t sit down, get their heads together and form their own proposal which just lets Maxwell continually divide and conquer and get his own way for the benefit of his paymasters.

[Brazilianlex]

3 minutes ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

L1 and L2 sides have no vote in setting up the Conference: the SFA has made sure of this.

They do but as it involves setting up a new company outwith the SPFL, it only requires over 50% in favour at the SFA AGM. I’m not sure of the number of Clubs entitled to vote these days but L1 and 2 would not be able to block it but in any case, they are in favour and Conference proposal is set up to gain their vote 

[Dundee Hibernian]

3 minutes ago, Brazilianlex said:

The proposal is engineered to get lower SPFL Club votes by providing a soft landing if relegated of a continuous 40k per season.

Maxwell promised a pyramid review to get the B Teams in this season and came up with a half arsed plan to open the door for future B Teams entry into SPFL and League 2 Clubs are so afraid of the Lowland League they will vote for it for the promise of 40k a year. They will regret it as the next step will be B Teams in SPFL within a couple of years.

However, all Clubs in the LL, EoS etc pyramid are just getting what they deserve as they can’t sit down, get their heads together and form their own proposal which just lets Maxwell continually divide and conquer and get his own way for the benefit of his paymasters.

Like I've said a few times here, L2 clubs have no say: they can't vote for or against the Conference plan.

[Arthurlie1981]

8 minutes ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

L1 and L2 sides have no vote in setting up the Conference: the SFA has made sure of this.

I am talking about voting them to be allowed to be promoted

[Arthurlie1981]

2 minutes ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

Like I've said a few times here, L2 clubs have no say: they can't vote for or against the Conference plan.

They do have a vote though as it needs to go through the SFA AGM where they have a vote.

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

Like I've said a few times here, L2 clubs have no say: they can't vote for or against the Conference plan.

At the very least they have a vote in the SFA AGM, or are you saying that Maxwell can insert a new league into the middle of the pyramid without any league or club having a vote?

Edited April 27, 2023 by welshbairn

[LongTimeLurker]

Can anyone clarify if Club 42 would still go into a playoff with the Conference champion or would it be automatic pro/rel at this point? Haven't seen that explicitly spelled out anywhere. From 2024-25 onwards, would the HL and LL have any veto on the format of what happens on pro/rel between this Conference and the SPFL, or are they just blindly trusting that if/when they sign off on this to change the Club 42 playoff rules that the trapdoor won't be bolted shut again?

[welshbairn]

13 minutes ago, Brazilianlex said:

They do but as it involves setting up a new company outwith the SPFL, it only requires over 50% in favour at the SFA AGM. I’m not sure of the number of Clubs entitled to vote these days but L1 and 2 would not be able to block it but in any case, they are in favour and Conference proposal is set up to gain their vote 

That's assuming the majority of Premiership and Championship clubs would vote in favour, why would they?

[Dundee Hibernian]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

At the very least they have a vote in the SFA AGM, or are you saying that Maxwell can insert a new league into the middle of the pyramid without any league or club having a vote?

I understand what you are saying, but was replying to the broad accusation that L2 can vote in support of the changes as an act of self preservation. There also seems to be a belief that they find the Conference suggestion palatable, but there is no evidence of this.

Pointing fingers at clubs and league bodies is just the 'divide and conquer' technique that the SFA perhaps hoped would be a helpful weapon. The SFA and those clubs pushing their B teams are the enemies here.

Of course, the SFA AGM is the place to make votes count, and individual L1 and L2 clubs can register concerns at that point, but I believe that presently they are very much against the Conference plan. It makes no difference anyway how they vote, B teams are like an unflushable turd, and the SFA will continue to stamp their feet until their favourites get their way.

[TheScarf]

What an absolute fucking clusterfuck.  All because no mark LL teams with 8 fans and Old Firm daft chairmen want to bend over and spread their crusty, hairy arse cheeks to host their fucking B teams.

Fuck off.

[Brazilianlex]

18 minutes ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

Like I've said a few times here, L2 clubs have no say: they can't vote for or against the Conference plan.

How do you work that out ?

Its going to the SFA AGM where member Clubs have to vote on the Conference proposal. Been widely reported as such.

[Brazilianlex]

16 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Can anyone clarify if Club 42 would still go into a playoff with the Conference champion or would it be automatic pro/rel at this point? Haven't seen that explicitly spelled out anywhere. From 2024-25 onwards, would the HL and LL have any veto on the format of what happens on pro/rel between this Conference and the SPFL, or are they just blindly trusting that if/when they sign off on this to change the Club 42 playoff rules that the trapdoor won't be bolted shut again?

Still a play off with conference champion 

[craigkillie]

6 minutes ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

I understand what you are saying, but was replying to the broad accusation that L2 can vote in support of the changes as an act of self preservation. There also seems to be a belief that they find the Conference suggestion palatable, but there is no evidence of this.

Pointing fingers at clubs and league bodies is just the 'divide and conquer' technique that the SFA perhaps hoped would be a helpful weapon. The SFA and those clubs pushing their B teams are the enemies here.

Of course, the SFA AGM is the place to make votes count, and individual L1 and L2 clubs can register concerns at that point, but I believe that presently they are very much against the Conference plan. It makes no difference anyway how they vote, B teams are like an unflushable turd, and the SFA will continue to stamp their feet until their favourites get their way.

 

Why would you believe that the League 1 and League 2 teams are against it? If they are against it happening then you would expect them to do one of two things - a) publicly state their opposition or b) engage with the Highland and Lowland League clubs to ensure that the plans were not voted through.

20 League 1 and League 2 clubs plus 34 Highland and Lowland League clubs voting against this would make it dead in the water, given that there are only 76 SFA member clubs able to vote as far as I am aware. Even if there are several Cowdenbeaths who will vote for anything they are told to vote for, that still leaves a large margin for error.

"The SFA" cannot do anything without the support of at least half of those 76 clubs.

Edited April 27, 2023 by craigkillie

[Arthurlie1981]

5 minutes ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

I understand what you are saying, but was replying to the broad accusation that L2 can vote in support of the changes as an act of self preservation. There also seems to be a belief that they find the Conference suggestion palatable, but there is no evidence of this.

Pointing fingers at clubs and league bodies is just the 'divide and conquer' technique that the SFA perhaps hoped would be a helpful weapon. The SFA and those clubs pushing their B teams are the enemies here.

Of course, the SFA AGM is the place to make votes count, and individual L1 and L2 clubs can register concerns at that point, but I believe that presently they are very much against the Conference plan. It makes no difference anyway how they vote, B teams are like an unflushable turd, and the SFA will continue to stamp their feet until their favourites get their way.

Then L2 clubs should be coming out and saying that they do not support this. You have Maxwell and Brown et al all going around saying the L2 clubs broadly support this. If that is not the case then the clubs should grow a pair and say so. The only information we have indicated that they broadly support the conference, if that is not the case they need to say so and debunk this myth. You can't blame people like myself reacting to the only information we have.

[Brazilianlex]

6 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

 

Why would you believe that the League 1 and League 2 teams are against it? If they are against it happening then you would expect them to do one of two things - a) publicly state their opposition or b) engage with the Highland and Lowland League clubs to ensure that the plans were not voted through.

20 League 1 and League 2 clubs plus 34 Highland and Lowland League clubs voting against this would make it dead in the water, given that there are only 76 SFA member clubs able to vote as far as I am aware. Even if there are several Cowdenbeaths who will vote for anything they are told to vote for, that still leaves a large margin for error.

"The SFA" cannot do anything without the support of at least half of those 76 clubs.

L1 and L2 Clubs have been involved throughout.

When the LL was first presented with the proposals, there were 3 proposals but Maxwell informed the meeting that it had already been discussed with L1 and 2 Clubs and they would not support option 1 or 2 but would support option 3, the conference.

[Cowden Cowboy]

8 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

 

Why would you believe that the League 1 and League 2 teams are against it? If they are against it happening then you would expect them to do one of two things - a) publicly state their opposition or b) engage with the Highland and Lowland League clubs to ensure that the plans were not voted through.

20 League 1 and League 2 clubs plus 34 Highland and Lowland League clubs voting against this would make it dead in the water, given that there are only 76 SFA member clubs able to vote as far as I am aware. Even if there are several Cowdenbeaths who will vote for anything they are told to vote for, that still leaves a large margin for error.

"The SFA" cannot do anything without the support of at least half of those 76 clubs.

Cowdenbeath FC do not vote how they are told to vote and never have.  The club judges each issue on  its merits and on all the available information.  We have not yet been asked to vote on the conference 

[welshbairn]

25 minutes ago, Brazilianlex said:

L1 and L2 Clubs have been involved throughout.

When the LL was first presented with the proposals, there were 3 proposals but Maxwell informed the meeting that it had already been discussed with L1 and 2 Clubs and they would not support option 1 or 2 but would support option 3, the conference.

I thought the story was that option 3 avoided the need for a 75% SPFL majority. All Brown claimed in the podcast was that somebody (Maxwell?) told him that L2 clubs were in favour.

Edited April 27, 2023 by welshbairn

[welshbairn]

I don't think it will even come up at the SFA AGM and they'll go back to terrorising the LL to change their rules to permanently accept B-teams instead of an annual vote, changing the licensing criteria and bribing L2 and L1 clubs to allow B teams to progress.

[craigkillie]

31 minutes ago, Brazilianlex said:

L1 and L2 Clubs have been involved throughout.

When the LL was first presented with the proposals, there were 3 proposals but Maxwell informed the meeting that it had already been discussed with L1 and 2 Clubs and they would not support option 1 or 2 but would support option 3, the conference.

Almost everything being quoted about the opinions of clubs outside of the Lowland League is entirely based on what Ian Maxwell is telling people. No other clubs have commented on it publicly either way.

[Burnieman]

53 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

 

Why would you believe that the League 1 and League 2 teams are against it? If they are against it happening then you would expect them to do one of two things - a) publicly state their opposition or b) engage with the Highland and Lowland League clubs to ensure that the plans were not voted through.

20 League 1 and League 2 clubs plus 34 Highland and Lowland League clubs voting against this would make it dead in the water, given that there are only 76 SFA member clubs able to vote as far as I am aware. Even if there are several Cowdenbeaths who will vote for anything they are told to vote for, that still leaves a large margin for error.

"The SFA" cannot do anything without the support of at least half of those 76 clubs.

Plus the "grandfather" rights clubs in tier 6 and below who can also vote of which there are 14 or 15.

If L1 and L2 clubs are really against this, the motion can be defeated.  However I have very serious doubts, and I have very serious doubts as to whether most LL clubs will not engage in an act of self-harm and vote for the proposal.