stanley

Is the problem that the clubs joined knowing they had to meet a set of conditions relating to their ground and then the WoS league dropped those conditions/didn't follow through with them? I was under the impression that, originally, the fourth division was set up separately and was more of a trial for the new clubs and that seems to have been forgotten about and now they are simply members like all the clubs above them.

Off topic but any ideas if there will be another vote on opening up relegation from the Lowland League any time soon? Just as important as the B teams and another previously messed up vote.

Don't worry, it's just for one year.

Personally, I would support a system where the highest placed licensed team takes the promotion/playoff spot but only if they achieve a certain position e.g. top 3. This would keep things competitive but not hold back licensed teams. England used to a similar thing at level 9 of the pyramid (possibly top 5 was needed but can't remember for sure). Over time, the west will catch up with the east.

I have no idea but there haven't been many clubs joining in the past few years (other than the juniors moving across) so I'd be surprised if there are many applications.

Goes from 17 teams in the second and 10 in the third this season to 16 teams in the second and 11 in the third next season. Was supposed to be 16-12 next season but Syngenta folded meaning only three teams get relegated rather than four. Only two go up because they're reducing the second dvision to 16 teams like the divisions above. Other factors based on promotions/relegations in the leagues above: 1) If the EoSFL gains a club on net from the Lowland League, the 14th placed club in the second division will also be relegated 2) If the EoSFL loses a club on net to the Lowland League, the 3rd placed club in the third division will also be promoted

Just when this absolute nonsense of clubs splitting/renaming looks it can't get any worse, we have a second Caledonian Thistle in the pyramid. I swear some of these decisions must be made as a joke.

But they are competing against other teams who are not established as senior teams (other than Threave) so one of them has to win it... What it probably shows more strongly is just how weak the South of Scotland League is that Threave are struggling for third. They'll probably make it but only just.

You could see the likes of East Stirlingshire and Cowdenbeath relegated before some of the no hopers. Just hoping that they eventually decide to increase the number of relegation spots or could it take a decade to level out.

Do they need a majority of the clubs to vote yes i.e. 9+ or is it just a majority of those who actually vote rather than abstain?

Just to be clear, I am 100% against B teams. I was just making the point that clearly all that matters here is the Old Firm so any sensible proposals are likely to be rejected by those running our game.

Yes, but please explain how that benefits Rangers and Celtic?

If what they are interested in is bigger attendances then why not open up relegation and get some of the bigger non-league clubs into the league...

This is certainly all done just to please the Old Firm and their desire to have B teams in the league. It's irrelevant to them if Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen etc. have teams in the league but helps keep up the pretence that it is about what's good for the future of Scottish football. As with every other decision in Scottish football, all that matters is what the Old Firm want.

They didn't even shuffle the names...just picked it in the order they were in.

What a bizarre way to do a draw.

Yes, it certainly would but they've agreed a merger and no point in calling it that if they keep the Central Scottish name. Otherwise, it should have just been the league closing down and the 14 clubs applying elsewhere.

Difficult to keep the Central Scottish name. If they did that, it wouldn't really appear to be a merger at all but just the Scottish AFL shutting down.

If only the SFA would look at other priorities like opening up relegation from tier 4 and 5 and looking out for the interests of the hundreds of senior clubs rather than the biggest two.

I honestly don't get it. If B teams can't get promoted or relegated out of the league and are playing in tier 5 against teams below the top four divisions then how is it any different from them playing in the Lowland or Highland League? What is the benefit of it?

Neilson was signed from Dundee United last summer and only made a couple of appearances in the B team before playing in the first team. Connor Smith is already 21 and had played in the first team before the B team was even created. Neither are examples of players who established themselves in the B team then made the step up to the first team as a result.

Yes, I totally get the comparison to Naismith's point. I suppose I just think the cause of the problems of youngsters not making it won't be solved by Lowland League football but the reality remains to be seen. For one thing, we are barely giving any youngsters a chance and haven't for a while. No matter how many times they play in the Lowland League, without actually playing any of them in the first team, they'll certainly never make it.

I think it would probably make more sense to have a clear boundary with Perthshire teams being in the Midlands League. I think that's what would have happened had it not been for the influx of juniors to the EoS before the Midlands League was formed. Jeanfield, Kinnoul and Luncarty played in the old Tayside region pre-2002 alongside the current Midlands League clubs. I really don't see them moving the boundary further south when there's already such a massive imbalance in numbers between the Highland-area leagues and the Lowland-area ones.

I'm not saying there's no benefit to the youngsters by playing in the B team. The article seems to suggest that the B team being in the Lowland League will make some sort of impact on how many break through to our first team. I honestly can't see that happening. I could be wrong but I don't think us having a B team in the Lowland League for years will suddenly see a few of the youngsters becoming regulars in the first team at Hearts and making it with us. We basically don't really have any first team regulars who came through the youth ranks at us currently (there's been the odd fringe player like Smith) and I don't think a couple of seasons playing against non-league teams will change that. Regardless of the above, I still strongly object to their being B teams in the Lowland League . I think there's more benefit of sending the players out on loan to play alongside older players than there is of having a large group playing together in the Lowland League. We'll certainly have to improve over the years to compete once you get Pollok, Auchinleck, Linlithgow etc. replacing the likes of Edinburgh Uni and Dalbeattie.

I very much remain to be convinced that having a B team in the Lowland League will make any difference to how well our youngsters do in the first team and how many end up making it with us.