SFA Club Licencing 2024/25

[Dev]

This taken straight from prorege on the NonLeagueMatters site so NOT verified but should be reliable. 

prorege says:

"  The SFA will be opening up applications for club licencing on July 1st. There will be a short window of a few weeks for applicants to put themselves forward before it closes again. This will be the pattern in future years to allow for better planning in terms of support to clubs, audits etc.

Until now clubs have paid a fee of £2000 when applying. This allows them to access site visits, audits and other advice and assessment and is a one-off fee. I understand that fee will be significantly increased from this year - hopefully so that the SFA Licencing Department can be expanded to deal with the ever-increasing workload. They have well over 100 clubs to audit on an annual basis.

I also understand that there will be a rigid deadline of March 31st for clubs to have successfully completed all assessments in order for them to be licenced for the following season. There will be no extensions. This will help to avoid the last-minute Buckie scenario.

I know of three clubs that are keen to get their applications in - there may be more.  "

 

 

 

[Dev]

Does anyone know of clubs which may be lining up to go for a licence by 31st March 2025?

[jimbaxters]

Beith, it must be Beith. They really want one.

[An Absolute Imposter]

3 minutes ago, jimbaxters said:

Beith, it must be Beith. They really want one.

You're a very naughty boy.

[Dev]

4 hours ago, jimbaxters said:

Beith, it must be Beith. They really want one.

Well! Whichever club is to win the league next season mustn't be going for a licence - where is Edinabear when needed?

[An Absolute Imposter]

9 hours ago, Dev said:

Well! Whichever club is to win the league next season mustn't be going for a licence - where is Edinabear when needed?

If Beith get a licence; it will be Johnstone Burgh's 'turn' to win the WOSFL. Thought that was common knowledge.

[Wos-observer]

Time they bring in tighter measures on licensing, no ground sharing to be allowed, each team should have their own ground which meets the licensing standard, the idea of ground sharing to me does not make sense, allow teams a grace period of say 3 years to have their own facility.

 

I use KRR as an example, how long can they continue to float around someone else's ground? Why should they think they have a god given right to have the council build them a facility or have sole access to a new build council facility. I would be interested to know how long they have been homeless for, could easily be 10 years?

[bobbydazzler]

1 minute ago, Wos-observer said:

Time they bring in tighter measures on licensing, no ground sharing to be allowed, each team should have their own ground which meets the licensing standard, the idea of ground sharing to me does not make sense, allow teams a grace period of say 3 years to have their own facility.

 

I use KRR as an example, how long can they continue to float around someone else's ground? Why should they think they have a god given right to have the council build them a facility or have sole access to a new build council facility. I would be interested to know how long they have been homeless for, could easily be 10 years?

can I ask, why the big kerfuffle about ground sharing? Personally never seen it as much of an issue but would be interested to get your reasons on your thoughts?

[Vanderbilt]

10 minutes ago, bobbydazzler said:

can I ask, why the big kerfuffle about ground sharing? Personally never seen it as much of an issue but would be interested to get your reasons on your thoughts?

Because he’s Rhubarb 

[clansman]

12 minutes ago, bobbydazzler said:

can I ask, why the big kerfuffle about ground sharing? Personally never seen it as much of an issue but would be interested to get your reasons on your thoughts?

He hates Clydebank and they ground share. Oh and Darvel once upon a time had a free week due to a ground share which is why their fixtures are totally fecked not that they play in a swamp or fixture guy could have done better.

[Wos-observer]

Just now, bobbydazzler said:

can I ask, why the big kerfuffle about ground sharing? Personally never seen it as much of an issue but would be interested to get your reasons on your thoughts?

1 - The fixture secretary should be able to cast home Saturday fixture to any team without issue and without needing to adjust any other fixture.

 

2 - For financial fair playing field (quite literally), look at the better grounds in the league, Beechwood, Medda Park, Newfieldlands, if these teams didn't have the upkeep of the grounds and facilities how much more could they spend on the playing staff etc...the 3 mentioned are personally my favourite grounds to go to they have character, good playing surfaces and good transport links etc...

 

3 - As someone that jumps between different teams soulless grounds or teams not actually playing in their actual area is to the detriment of the clubs and overall match experience. 

 

4 - A simple, why would you not want your own ground. 

 

5 - When there is a ground sharing arrangement, how long does this need to be in place for contractually. Take St Cadocs for an example, can Banburb turn round and say at any time that they can no longer use it. If so what happens, where do they play etc...I know as per constitution all teams need to make their ground available to others however surely the league can't be expected to find a team an alternative venue every home game? That point in the constitution I am assuming is for emergencies i.e. pitch becomes unplayable and cup tie needs played. 

 

I think the opposite argument is a better one, there is no doubt Clydebank have visions above where they are at at the moment, if you ask their fans would they want their own ground I don't think you'd find any fan that would say no I want to be in 3 way ground arrangement or what ever the set up is. 

 

Cumbernauld United, unless the financial benefit is worth it (no idea what KRR pay etc...) with their surface being a grass pitch is it at the determent of Cumbernauld United to have them as tenants? Again unsure if the money generated from KRR is then needed to fund Cumbernauld United, I have no idea on this. If it wasn't money related if I was a Cumbernauld United fan I would be looking for the club to end agreement. 

[peasy23]

12 minutes ago, Wos-observer said:

I have no idea on this. 

You could just have typed that and saved yourself the bother of doing the rest.

[Wos-observer]

Just now, peasy23 said:

You could just have typed that and saved yourself the bother of doing the rest.

So you think the league is stronger for having teams without their own facility? For me there are amateur leagues more suited to ground sharing and council facilities. 

[clansman]

2 minutes ago, Wos-observer said:

1 - The fixture secretary should be able to cast home Saturday fixture to any team without issue and without needing to adjust any other fixture.

 

2 - For financial fair playing field (quite literally), look at the better grounds in the league, Beechwood, Medda Park, Newfieldlands, if these teams didn't have the upkeep of the grounds and facilities how much more could they spend on the playing staff etc...the 3 mentioned are personally my favourite grounds to go to they have character, good playing surfaces and good transport links etc...

 

3 - As someone that jumps between different teams soulless grounds or teams not actually playing in their actual area is to the detriment of the clubs and overall match experience. 

 

4 - A simple, why would you not want your own ground. 

 

5 - When there is a ground sharing arrangement, how long does this need to be in place for contractually. Take St Cadocs for an example, can Banburb turn round and say at any time that they can no longer use it. If so what happens, where do they play etc...I know as per constitution all teams need to make their ground available to others however surely the league can't be expected to find a team an alternative venue every home game? That point in the constitution I am assuming is for emergencies i.e. pitch becomes unplayable and cup tie needs played. 

 

 

I think the opposite argument is a better one, there is no doubt Clydebank have visions above where they are at at the moment, if you ask their fans would they want their own ground I don't think you'd find any fan that would say no I want to be in 3 way ground arrangement or what ever the set up is. 

 

Cumbernauld United, unless the financial benefit is worth it (no idea what KRR pay etc...) with their surface being a grass pitch is it at the determent of Cumbernauld United to have them as tenants? Again unsure if the money generated from KRR is then needed to fund Cumbernauld United, I have no idea on this. If it wasn't money related if I was a Cumbernauld United fan I would be looking for the club to end agreement. 

1 Fixture guys across the planet seem to manage.

2 Financial fair play isn't a thing.

3 Football isn't all about you and your feelings.

4 Considerable benefits of ground share to the community and financially, Holm Park excellent example

5 is that even a thing or something you are making up or distorting.

6 Clydebank have after many years a permanent home, get over it.

7 KRR does anyone know what is happening 

[peasy23]

18 minutes ago, Wos-observer said:

So you think the league is stronger for having teams without their own facility? For me there are amateur leagues more suited to ground sharing and council facilities. 

Petershill Park is a council facility, has been used many times in the UEFA Women's Champions League, regularly hosts games in the SWPL with crowds bigger than most WOSFL games, and is to undergo around 350k worth of upgrades in the summer. Does Caley Locos and ourselves sharing there make the league weaker? We've never had problems getting our games played, in fact we've been sat on our arse for most of the last 3 months as we've ran out of games. If our game at Cambuslang hadn't been abandoned and fixture at Johnstone Burgh postponed twice we'd have been finished a fortnight ago.

In your word salad post your only valid point imo is the ongoing Cumbernauld/Rob Roy saga. I can't see how the league can let that go on indefinitely while stopping any new grass pitch groundshare arrangements. 

Edited May 10 by peasy23

[Wos-observer]

Just now, clansman said:

1 Fixture guys across the planet seem to manage.

2 Financial fair play isn't a thing.

3 Football isn't all about you and your feelings.

4 Considerable benefits of ground share to the community and financially, Holm Park excellent example

5 is that even a thing or something you are making up or distorting.

6 Clydebank have after many years a permanent home, get over it.

7 KRR does anyone know what is happening 

1 Fixture guys across the planet seem to manage.

Here we go, the San Siro argument, would you personally prefer to have you own ground and would your club be more professional for having their own facilty? The fixture secretary at times needs to hold off producing the WoS fixtures until the SPFL have theirs in place, the LL have theirs in place due to the ground sharing arrangements. 

 

2 Financial fair play isn't a thing.

Clubs need to submit financial data etc...going forward, what that entails I do not know. I certainly know teams ground sharing can then use the money they save on the upkeep and put towards sporting budget thus giving them an advantage straight away. I am lead to believe the likes of Talbot have full time employed groundsman, along with regular specialist contractor working on the pitch, if they never had to pay this then their budget would be higher.

 

3 Football isn't all about you and your feelings.

Football is an emotive sport, so unsure what your point is here.

 

4 Considerable benefits of ground share to the community and financially, Holm Park excellent example

No issues if Holm Park is a community hub etc...however again other than teams not being able to financially fund their own ground I don't see why teams don't want their own facility. Your point here is that Clydebank benefit financially by not having their own facility and upkeep costs etc...associated should the be sole custodians on this. 

 

5 is that even a thing or something you are making up or distorting.

I don't know what agreements are in place with clubs using other teams/council facilities. However if for talking sake Banburb end the agreement with St Cadocs which they would be well within their rights to do so at the end of their agreement, what happens? This is just one example. We have seen the issues for Clyde with NLC. 

 

6 Clydebank have after many years a permanent home, get over it.

Yes may be long term lease however it is still a shared facility, this means that fixtures need adjusted to suit. 

 

7 KRR does anyone know what is happening 

It is an ongoing saga, nothing ever seems to be moving. Assuming there was considerable money from sale of ground unsure how this has been managed etc...

[Vanderbilt]

All the clubs who share Astro pitches had zero problems with fixtures this season,go figure!

[Wos-observer]

17 minutes ago, peasy23 said:

Petershill Park is a council facility, has been used many times in the UEFA Women's Champions League, regularly hosts games in the SWPL with crowds bigger than most WOSFL games, and is to undergo around 350k worth of upgrades in the summer. Does Caley Locos and ourselves sharing there make the league weaker? We've never had problems getting our games played, in fact we've been sat on our arse for most of the last 3 months as we've ran out of games. If our game at Cambuslang hadn't been abandoned and fixture at Johnstone Burgh postponed twice we'd have been finished a fortnight ago.

In your word salad post your only valid point imo is the ongoing Cumbernauld/Rob Roy saga. I can't see how the league can let that go on indefinitely while stopping any new grass pitch groundshare arrangements. 

If you read comments on other posts, I think ground sharing up to Tier 7 is fine however Tier 6 and above should have your own facility. 

 

The other reason teams in the lower league and if you want since they are commenting on the thread too, Clydebank, sit idle is due to cup runs. Clydebank have played 10 cup games less than Auchinleck, 8 less than Darvel and 6 less than Beith only one of which was the junior Cup. Failing to be able to get decent cup runs will ultimately leave you idle. 

[Wos-observer]

3 minutes ago, Vanderbilt said:

All the clubs who share Astro pitches had zero problems with fixtures this season,go figure!

Is that down to the fixture secretary putting in additional work to get things to balance. What if he cast fixtures and doesn't take account of ground shares? Fire the teams into a software and if there is a clash the teams forfeit a game? 

 

Irrespective of the surface, due to ground sharing, Darvel lost a weekend fixture, unsure how many others in same situation. The reason the game wasn't on was due to pitch availability. 

[GordonS]

Another thread derailed by a honking take.

Only 4 clubs in Serie A own their ground and groundsharing is standard practice all over the world at semi-pro level, but apparently it's too difficult for the West of Scotland.

As for fixture scheduling, the services used by anyone above the lever of 5-a-side leagues allows you to add groundsharing constraints. It's very standard stuff.