Two seasons in

[Shanner]

10 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

In theory nothing, but in practice it can make you question the point of a club trying to operate at this level. Broomhill being the most extreme example, they are about to start their 10th season and have played in 4 different grounds in 4 different towns/city.

Rossvale didn't do too badly either going Petershill-Huntershill-New Tinto-Petershill. Where they seem to have settled having given up on the idea of being a Bishopbriggs team and becoming Caledonian Locos.

 

Those situations aren't great but ultimately it's only to the detriment of the clubs doing it. It must be murder trying to pick up any sort of fan base.

[parsforlife]

3 hours ago, Plantar fasciitis said:

No it's not, it would be good to know if teams do need to produce a business/future plan to obtain a stadium before joining the league, which you'd think given we are now in a pyramid system that would be a requirement 

It’s never going to happen,  there are far far too many ‘traditional’ clubs at all levels in Scotland who have found themselves needing to play elsewhere who couldn’t necessarily provide a plan on where they’d be playing games in the long term after that.

As a result the authorities can only really insist on clubs have security of where they’ll be playing games for the season, which we I’m sure all ground sharing clubs have.

That’s ignoring the fact there isn’t and never has been something inherently wrong about ground sharing despite raging da’s moaning.

 They can provide reasons it’s damaging to the club doing so, and even the club taking the rent can suffer consequences, but that’s not really the concern of anyone else, it generally just seems a silly attempt at gatekeeping over woolly eyed nonsense about ‘proper clubs’

Edited July 10, 2023 by parsforlife

[Marten]

1 hour ago, Shanner said:

Those situations aren't great but ultimately it's only to the detriment of the clubs doing it. It must be murder trying to pick up any sort of fan base.

Also, those situations are very much exceptions. I don't see anything wrong with say Montrose Roselea's long term groundshare at Links Park. They are a proper community club and of added value to the town, working well together with Montrose FC. And so there are many more examples of groundshares that work, which are way more common than the ones taking the piss like Broomhill.

And obviously then there are various clubs that became homeless through no fault of their own. No need to kick them even further when they are just trying to survive in a difficult situation.

[beaver watch]

9 minutes ago, Marten said:

Also, those situations are very much exceptions. I don't see anything wrong with say Montrose Roselea's long term groundshare at Links Park. They are a proper community club and of added value to the town, working well together with Montrose FC. And so there are many more examples of groundshares that work, which are way more common than the ones taking the piss like Broomhill.

And obviously then there are various clubs that became homeless through no fault of their own. No need to kick them even further when they are just trying to survive in a difficult situation.

Wosl were talking about.

[Marten]

Just now, beaver watch said:

Wosl were talking about.

I just named one example of a groundshare that works, one in this area that I'm familiar with. But it shows groundshares can work just fine so a blanket ban wouldn't be justified. Also, not every groundshare in the west is bad either.

[Plantar fasciitis]

8 hours ago, Marten said:

Also, those situations are very much exceptions. I don't see anything wrong with say Montrose Roselea's long term groundshare at Links Park. They are a proper community club and of added value to the town, working well together with Montrose FC. And so there are many more examples of groundshares that work, which are way more common than the ones taking the piss like Broomhill.

And obviously then there are various clubs that became homeless through no fault of their own. No need to kick them even further when they are just trying to survive in a difficult situation.

Good point , and of course a permanent ground share makes all the difference. I think the debate and gripe for most on here is numerous clubs have joined the wosfl not having a permanent share and are ground hopping yet spending a fortune on the playing side and huge wages without the costs of the upkeep of a stadium. Established clubs with a fan base and own stadium to look after but only a hard working committee don't have the means or outlay to compete and thus seeing players move to these clubs for better wages. I get the argument for both sides , personally I'd like to see all teams have established grounds even if that's a permanent groundshare. But I also do t think ambitious clubs should not be held back from progressing just because they don't . 
I would have just thought those without a permanent base when joining the new set up would hsve needed a plan or permanent share in place 

[Guest]

Having one ground, one club is a perfect utopia. But those days when every club can get their own wee piece of land appear to be gone.

Groundsharing can be a perfect long term setup for the clubs involved. A perfect example is Yoker/Clydebank and Petershill/Locos could well pan out successfully.

Then there is the St Cadocs situation.  They are a Newton Mearns club and are playing in Drumoyne, is that morally acceptable?

Then there are the club's who presently do not have a home. Rob Roy, Ashfield etc. what is to become of them? 

What is needed is the bosses to sit down and come up with a plan. Also converse with the clubs involved.

If St Cadocs and any other club in similar situation cannot return 'home', then it does need addressing.

[FairWeatherFan]

9 hours ago, Marten said:

I just named one example of a groundshare that works, one in this area that I'm familiar with. But it shows groundshares can work just fine so a blanket ban wouldn't be justified. Also, not every groundshare in the west is bad either.

The way I understand it Montrose Roselea starting using Links Park as a trial to see if it would work around the SPFL schedule. It was also done after the artificial pitch had been put in place. Once it was proven it could work it, the intention is for it to be a permanent deal. They also kept their original ground and have still used it on occasion.

It's a situation people would like when talking about groundsharing.

To move away from the extremes of Broomhill & the former Rossvale. There's Edinburgh South that started out of town in Dalkeith and now ended up at Edinburgh Utd's ground. Got them back in the city, but there's no belief that it's a permanent situation.

St Cadoc's haven't played in Newton Mearns and doesn't look to anytime soon. Having moved from St Anthony's to Benburb.

St Peter's are meant to be a Paisley side, playing out of Renfrew. Are they any closer to playing to something permanent. 

Finnart might not be groundsharing, but they were accepted with a very basic cage during the 'Division 4' Development Division period. Talk of Glasgow Green has turned to Crownpoint. If that fails what then? Knightswood just joined from a side pitch at Scotstoun that I doubt's any better than Springburn. What are they hoping to do long term considering we've seen the difficulties of all these other Glasgow area teams struggle.

[Arthurlie1981]

12 hours ago, Shanner said:

Can't quite work out what is wrong with ground sharing on either a short or long term basis.

I think the point I would make on that is that clubs like Clydebank/Yoker are actually ground sharing as they have a long term agreement with the council for Holm Park and share costs etc through the group that runs it (IIRC)

Other clubs such as the aforementioned St Cadocs and other such as St Peters (Renfrew)and to a certain extent, Petershill and Caley Locos are renting a facility which is a cheaper and easier than for clubs who own/rent their own grounds and have to pay out significant sums of money each year on up keep. I have no problem with club renting a facility to drive down costs but within reason. But in some of those clubs situations they have used this as an opportunity to put more money into paying players and have such have an advantage financially over those that pay maintenance costs (which have increased dramatically with inflation) 

The issue I have is that St Cadocs, Broomhill and St Peters (also previously Rossvale but they will argue the rebranding to Caley Locos now makes them playing in the area they are from lol!!) are playing outwith the towns that they are actually from on a long term basis. This does not encourage and increase in fans or coverage in a local area. The league need to look at this issue imo.

Like I said no issue with ground sharing or rental but it has to be within your community.

Edited to Add: KRR are in a similar position and are looking for the council to bail them out and give them the lease at the new sports ground (fingers cross it happens) but they left without a viable plan and have now spent years renting a pitch at Cumbernauld. 

 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Arthurlie1981

[Arthurlie1981]

55 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

The way I understand it Montrose Roselea starting using Links Park as a trial to see if it would work around the SPFL schedule. It was also done after the artificial pitch had been put in place. Once it was proven it could work it, the intention is for it to be a permanent deal. They also kept their original ground and have still used it on occasion.

It's a situation people would like when talking about groundsharing.

To move away from the extremes of Broomhill & the former Rossvale. There's Edinburgh South that started out of town in Dalkeith and now ended up at Edinburgh Utd's ground. Got them back in the city, but there's no belief that it's a permanent situation.

St Cadoc's haven't played in Newton Mearns and doesn't look to anytime soon. Having moved from St Anthony's to Benburb.

St Peter's are meant to be a Paisley side, playing out of Renfrew. Are they any closer to playing to something permanent. 

Finnart might not be groundsharing, but they were accepted with a very basic cage during the 'Division 4' Development Division period. Talk of Glasgow Green has turned to Crownpoint. If that fails what then? Knightswood just joined from a side pitch at Scotstoun that I doubt's any better than Springburn. What are they hoping to do long term considering we've seen the difficulties of all these other Glasgow area teams struggle.

To add to this, what would the league do if Finnart or Knightswood were to invest a lot of money into the playing staff and not the facilities, get promoted to the premier league while still playing out of the current facilities? 

The LL made a road for the back of the WOSFL committee imo by accepting new clubs but the WOSFL have piled more issues on top of it. They need to do something now before its becomes a bigger issue.

[Shannon]

23 minutes ago, Arthurlie1981 said:

I think the point I would make on that is that clubs like Clydebank/Yoker are actually ground sharing as they have a long term agreement with the council for Holm Park and share costs etc through the group that runs it (IIRC)

Other clubs such as the aforementioned St Cadocs and other such as St Peters (Renfrew)and to a certain extent, Petershill and Caley Locos are renting a facility which is a cheaper and easier than for clubs who own/rent their own grounds and have to pay out significant sums of money each year on up keep. I have no problem with club renting a facility to drive down costs but within reason. But in some of those clubs situations they have used this as an opportunity to put more money into paying players and have such have an advantage financially over those that pay maintenance costs (which have increased dramatically with inflation) 

The issue I have is that St Cadocs, Broomhill and St Peters (also previously Rossvale but they will argue the rebranding to Caley Locos now makes them playing in the area they are from lol!!) are playing outwith the towns that they are actually from on a long term basis. This does not encourage and increase in fans or coverage in a local area. The league need to look at this issue imo.

Like I said no issue with ground sharing or rental but it has to be within your community.

Edited to Add: KRR are in a similar position and are looking for the council to bail them out and give them the lease at the new sports ground (fingers cross it happens) but they left without a viable plan and have now spent years renting a pitch at Cumbernauld. 

 

It is quite frustrating that teams such as Meadow, Arthurlie, Glenafton, Troon etc will spend anything from £20,000 to £40,000 on maintenance costs for grass pitches & general upgrades while St Cadocs don't have that cost and can fire that extra money straight at players and go on Social Media saying they are an ambitious club & why players want to play for them and not Meadow or Arthurlie while its because they can save huge amounts on pitch costs. 

More clubs in West Premier may just move to 4g pitch models over the years and more ground sharing as clubs with grass pitches will struggle to compete financially unless very well supported & well run clubs such as Pollok & Talbot.

[Arthurlie1981]

12 minutes ago, Shannon said:

It is quite frustrating that teams such as Meadow, Arthurlie, Glenafton, Troon etc will spend anything from £20,000 to £40,000 on maintenance costs for grass pitches & general upgrades while St Cadocs don't have that cost and can fire that extra money straight at players and go on Social Media saying they are an ambitious club & why players want to play for them and not Meadow or Arthurlie while its because they can save huge amounts on pitch costs. 

More clubs in West Premier may just move to 4g pitch models over the years and more ground sharing as clubs with grass pitches will struggle to compete financially unless very well supported & well run clubs such as Pollok & Talbot.

Exactly, I know that Arthurlie will have spent more than that on Dunterlie over the last 2 years. We have put in a fully fitted new kitchen into the tea bar, new accessible indoor toilet a the top of the ground meaning there are now accessible toilets at both ends of the ground, renovated the toilets at the bottom of the ground and are now onto the terracing behind the goal which  was closed off last season. That is before all of the sand etc for the pitch and the costs of turning on a light or running a tap

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Shannon said:

It is quite frustrating that teams such as Meadow, Arthurlie, Glenafton, Troon etc will spend anything from £20,000 to £40,000 on maintenance costs for grass pitches & general upgrades while St Cadocs don't have that cost and can fire that extra money straight at players and go on Social Media saying they are an ambitious club & why players want to play for them and not Meadow or Arthurlie while its because they can save huge amounts on pitch costs. 

More clubs in West Premier may just move to 4g pitch models over the years and more ground sharing as clubs with grass pitches will struggle to compete financially unless very well supported & well run clubs such as Pollok & Talbot.

Not disagreeing Shannon. Just to let those that don't know there are maintenance costs for 4g pitches. Don't know how much it is compared to grass, but you don't just lay an astro and forget about it. They do have a lifespan which is dependent on a few points i.e. quality of initial build in terms of foundations and the surface among other things.

[Dev]

At the end of the day every club has to provide a home ground for Wosfl matches. They either long-term lease or own their own ground or hire somebody-else's. 

All ways mean significant costs for maintenance or hire each season. If a club is up for playing in the WoSfl that is what they must be capable of taking on.

If the ground happens to be outside the club's "home" community that is an issue primarily for the club concerned as it may well affect levels of support, viability etc. 

The problem for the club comes when the location, whether owned, long-term leased or hired on a seasonal basis, is no longer available or they cannot afford the up-keep or to pay any rent due. If they can do all of that then what more is needed. The team on the pitch will be what most think about not the behind the scenes situation, after all.

End of sermon!

[Plantar fasciitis]

1 hour ago, HorseyGhirl said:

Not disagreeing Shannon. Just to let those that don't know there are maintenance costs for 4g pitches. Don't know how much it is compared to grass, but you don't just lay an astro and forget about it. They do have a lifespan which is dependent on a few points i.e. quality of initial build in terms of foundations and the surface among other things.

They are meant to get re laid ever 10 years I suspect but I know for a fact that doesn't happen 

[Guest]

Posters on here can see there are issues with groundsharing and particularly when the let is away from the clubs home patch. Are these concerns brought up at meetings of the management committee and at agm's?

[santheman]

I would imagine it makes life extremely difficult for Kennie to organise a fixture list as well, especially if games get cancelled and have to be re-arranged.

I'd also imagine that leads to requests to switch fixtures as grounds subject to sharing arrangements might not be available on those re-arranged dates (although probably not so much of a problem for  those grounds with floodlights).

[Plantar fasciitis]

1 hour ago, santheman said:

I would imagine it makes life extremely difficult for Kennie to organise a fixture list as well, especially if games get cancelled and have to be re-arranged.

I'd also imagine that leads to requests to switch fixtures as grounds subject to sharing arrangements might not be available on those re-arranged dates (although probably not so much of a problem for  those grounds with floodlights).

Hadn't actually thought of that , very good point , floodlights still would cause issues as they clubs rent their parks as much as they can with regular lets

Edited July 11, 2023 by Plantar fasciitis

[Thejackdaw]

9 hours ago, Shannon said:

It is quite frustrating that teams such as Meadow, Arthurlie, Glenafton, Troon etc will spend anything from £20,000 to £40,000 on maintenance costs for grass pitches & general upgrades while St Cadocs don't have that cost and can fire that extra money straight at players and go on Social Media saying they are an ambitious club & why players want to play for them and not Meadow or Arthurlie while its because they can save huge amounts on pitch costs. 

More clubs in West Premier may just move to 4g pitch models over the years and more ground sharing as clubs with grass pitches will struggle to compete financially unless very well supported & well run clubs such as Pollok & Talbot.

Only a few years ago st cadocs were boasting of a 6,000 all seater stadium in the mearns area and that they would be in the SPL in ten years time , I wonder if there are any updates on the 6k stadium and how it's coming along ...............

[Arthurlie1981]

31 minutes ago, Thejackdaw said:

Only a few years ago st cadocs were boasting of a 6,000 all seater stadium in the mearns area and that they would be in the SPL in ten years time , I wonder if there are any updates on the 6k stadium and how it's coming along ...............

It was always going to be difficult for them to find something in the area that was suitable. Most land is marked for housing developments with the town now expanding south having expanded north previously. It is a great catchment area for developing a fan base, but I dont see where they can get a ground without paying a lot of money or fighting off the NIMBYS who have stopped them twice previously. 

I want to see them succeed but not the way they currently are as for me it makes a mockery of our league. 

Edited July 11, 2023 by Arthurlie1981