Bazil85

As much as that's true an idea in isolation that isn't backed by any evidence doesn't merit being put into practice. There would need to be something fundamental behind it that suggests it'll be good for Scottish football and that isn't there. There are next to no examples of players developing at that level in Scotland that have went onto be the required level needed to progress the national team, the only example is Robertson who was only there for a season before it was apparent he was at too low a level. To think just because there's a bunch of players playing together we'll automatically get a much better quality is far too big an assumption based on far too little. When you then factor in how much it'll negatively impact fans of other clubs it's rightfully a non-starter. Thousands would walk away (including me) Your point on Celtic releasing players, surely the colts idea is a safeguard regarding this in many instances? It'll give them much more of a chance to assess them based on first team football & much more of a platform to develop into players good enough for Celtic or be sold at profit? This all benefits Celtic, I have no doubt about that but a benefit to Celtic is a detriment to other clubs. If there was no benefit to Celtic & Rangers they wouldn't do it. It's as you say self interest & there's no reason other clubs should back something to progress these clubs at very real risk of impacting themselves. The limited amount signed up will be the ones that are best quality or most financially beneficial, all of which has a knock on effect to other clubs with no real benefit anywhere bar Celtic & Rangers. I don't doubt they knew about them but they were three specific examples of players released from Rangers youth academy. My point is would Rangers have released players like Kenny McLean & Lewis Morgan if they had colts or would they have given them more time to develop? What if they reached their potential earlier with colt teams? Again all of that benefits the teams with the colts at the harm of other clubs. There will be many other examples of players that have left these teams and starred with smaller ones. The risk in colts making Celtic & Rangers youth academy better is it prices other teams out of the talent or limits who they can sign. Again Celtic & Rangers aren't doing this selflessly, it is literally the point in them having colts, to develop higher valued young players for these clubs. Why should other Scottish clubs support Celtic & Rangers in getting "the best they can get" at their own expense? It defies logic. Decent education, coaching and wages can be achieved through other means, we don't need to turn our lower league into a development exercise and turn probably thousands of fans away from Scottish football to do it. I am not saying teams don't benefit from it, I am fully aware they do. My point is B teams would not progress the trickle down effect for many clubs. If Man City & others had B teams in the English Championship which is clearly a higher level than pretty much all bar 2 Scottish teams, do you honestly think it wouldn't be a likely destination for someone like Frimpong? Where a league is, is NOT automatically a good indicator for where a national team is, that's just common sense. Leagues contain 100s of players. That means if there are 13 better top flights above us, there's space for thousands of players from many different nations to be playing in. Fair enough about the national team point, the unfortunate thing is where the rest of the players come from. The last squad had 13 Scottish based players in it. Probably the highest rated other team represented was either Sheffield United, Alaves or Norwich. Take out McTominey, McGinn (at a push) and Robertson and the rest of the team is at an embarrassingly low level for a Scotland national football team. We have English L1 & a Scottish Championship player in there for crying out loud. We need vastly better players than that squad if we're ever going to be top 20 again & like I say, there is zero evidence colts will do it or are worth the experiment. Lets also not forget there's no mechanism in this vote to get them back out. The most likely scenario will be, it doesn't progress the national team, it does help Celtic & Rangers, and clubs are powerless to get them back out because of the voting structure. This is all a moot point though, there's no appetite for colts & from what Doncaster has said there likely won't be for a long, long time (hopefully never). Fan power again seems to have spoken, more fool the media, Celtic & Rangers for again trying to disregard the view of other teams fans. More fan ownership needed to further solidify the stance against ever having colt teams in Scottish football.

What parameter do you use for hearts being anything other than a "diddy" team? Unfortunately all the clubs in Scotland are now "diddy" teams. Our status has fallen so much there isn't one that's relevant anymore on the grander football stage.

I just don't see a single shred of evidence that a team of 18-21 years old playing at L2 level in Scotland are going to produce several players vastly superior to what Celtic currently have. That's the only way there would be a benefit to the Scottish national team. Your point on them being different players isn't really true. If these players do become the required quality (or at least profitable sales), they are/ will be contracted to Celtic or Rangers and they get the benefit. It's not like they're buying them from a L2 team for their value & that progresses a Scottish team. It also would make no difference to me if it was St Mirren. I am fundamentally against turning lower leagues into development exercises to progress bigger teams (which is all this is) The trickle down effect is a red herring and I have shown why. Let's take three players that were released by St Mirren and went onto be very important to us, both as players and in two instances, financially. Jack Baird, Lewis Morgan & Kenny McLean. If colts had existed, by your own argument there is every chance these players could have developed quicker. If that's the case, would they all still have been released and made their way to St Mirren? I think the chances are overwhelmingly no. The second point here is the colts will still need a team to field. If it was thought these players were slightly below the required level, the colts is almost a last chance saloon type of thing. Again it adds fuel to we might not of got these players. That will be reflected in many teams the country over. The trickle down effect only benefits Celtic & Rangers because it would likely create more young players not quite good enough for them but that could be sold for value, someone starring at L2 isn't automatically going to play for a Celtic but could be worth a five or six figure bid from a lower end SP team or lower English leagues (players that may have previously been free?). This hampers other clubs that unfortunately do need to look at released Celtic & Rangers players because of the financial strength of these two teams. Trickle down is ABSOLUTELY NOT a benefit for any other team. I get the argument that this might have made them slightly better players but it's hardly going to have an impact on the SP overall which no one can deny is at a shockingly low level of quality & obviously that wont help Scotland's national team. Regarding Europe, there is an argument for run before you can walk but from where Scottish football has been, the players we've developed and the level of teams we've had in the past, 14th is absolutely not good enough. That means there are 13 better leagues with 1,000s of better players in them representing multiple countries. We need Scottish players generally to be wanted & playing for clubs the level of the top five leagues, like the majority of the top 20 teams in Europe. (There is no chance we are a top 20 team in Europe right now, no idea where you're getting that from. Although we should be). We are not going to get regularly to international tournaments with around 75% of our team playing in the 14th best league in Europe. Self-interest is killing the game and it comes from the ridiculous 11-1 voting structure that has suffocated our game for decades. When this is all said and done it should be put down to a 60% majority for almost all the high level decisions (clubs keeping their own gate money can stay higher). The vote this week does show there isn't even close to that appetite for Colts though which is good, it is the single biggest self-interest proposal put forward in recent Scottish football history. Like I say, glad it's done and hopefully it never returns.

I agree but the merit is only for Celtic and Rangers, it isn't going to produce a bunch of players far better than what we have available in the current Scotland squad and that's what we need. We need players that are better by some distance than the general standard of Celtic and them having a colt team won't produce that, it may provide a few homegrown quality players to save them in the transfer market but they aren't going to develop in mass players better than Eduard, Brown, Rogic, etc which is the level we need to be producing. Tierney has developed to a very decent standard playing from a young age against much better opponents than L2, it further cements that generally better players need a higher level. And the difference the last three years has been incomparable. Robertson only played for QP for one season, he isn't a basis for colt teams working, he's very much an exception and a player that fell down lower than he needed to. Also who's to say playing with seasoned pros also didn't contribute to his development at that stage? That's not something the Colts will get. It gets to the stage where with everyone needing to improve at international level it must be something else & that is collectively we don't have a strong enough team at international level. We need Robertson, McTominey, Fletcher to be the standard not the exceptions. Christie and Forrest are no where near good enough for where we need Scotland to be (either are most of the English league players that get in the squad), that shows in the level Celtic operate at club level. Lazio is flash in the pan stuff, if we want to look at European results in isolation, fine but it makes much more sense to look at Celtic as a collective in Europe over the last few years. At best a make up the numbers team in the CL, at worst a last 32 team in the lessor European tournament, not good enough for where we want to be. My gripe with Project Brave is the near complete lack of communication. We're going on three years without an official SFA led communication. I know it's a long-term fix but there's no excuse not to update your major stakeholders (fans) Anyway, I know that went on a bit, I'm just glad once again Colts are in the bin, for all the above reasons I hope they remain in there and we don't need to have this debate in another couple years. The positive for me is Doncaster seen fit to have a vote on a proposal with less than 40% backing but not the colts. That tells me the general appetite for Colts has to be a fair bit below 40% hopefully Celtic and Rangers take this on with any future Scottish youth development projects and don't include a plan that's always going to be doomed to failure.

It certainly is radical but no more so than I imagine colt teams were when first proposed. It would also likely be far better for young player development. Higher level, better competition and clubs really having to double down on youth development. It may be unpopular for bigger clubs but colts is unpopular with the vast majority of fans for the vast majority of clubs, it hasn't stopped Rangers and Celtic pushing it for way over a decade. I think it's fair to say Robertson is an outlier, I can't think of another Scottish player of his level that's developed at the lower Scottish leagues in a similar way. It's also a blotch on Celtic regarding recognising and developing youth. Robertson shouldn't really have fallen to that level and it was very quickly apparent he was far too good. If Celtic had a colt team and kept him, would they have let him go to Dundee United to continue his development, put him in their first team or left them in the colts? We'll never know but I think it's fair if Robertson had been left in the lower leagues too long it would have stunted or at least slowed his development. Darren Fletcher was a fantastic player, he's hands down one of the best Scottish players of the last generation. Him not cutting it at Scotland is definitely down to the talent around him. Some players will be class in any team, Fletcher needs good players around to feed off his creation and quality. This is a sign of his position and playing style more than a lack of ability in a Scotland jersey. If Celtic players were good enough at the international level we need Scotland to be at, that would show in Celtic as a collective in European football. Scotland historically has always had some of the most quality players in football, we want to get back there. Yes there's an argument for run before you can walk (that's been the case since the 90s and we still ain't walking) but Celtic as a team outside of Scotland are barely crawling right now, we need far better players than they show consistently in Europe season after season. And that includes the big name foreign players in the squad, we need better quality than the majority of them. I 100% agree things need to change but regarding this last week of news stories, fan reaction and now clubs rejecting the colts. One of the things that needs to change is this proposal coming up every couple of years as a way things can change Scottish football. It'll always be divisive, there's overwhelming evidence it won't work, will disenfranchise Scottish football fans and is largely self-serving. I'm glad it's again in the bin and we can only hope this is the last time it's brought to the table. I doubt it though. Time for a review on Project Brave, if it hasn't made any difference in the last four years, we look at what we do next and we make sure all clubs are engaged in youth development, not just asking the smallest ones to do it for clubs that have largely failed for over a generation.

I would be happy with this but it needs to be permanent or a path to a fair decision on it being permanent. For example guaranteed for three seasons and at the end of season two, a vote from all member clubs with only a majority needed to retain, none of this 90% majority in the top flight pish.

No I know the national team is only one part of it, it is the only bit though that should be relevant to any buy-in for a number of teams and this absolutely doesn't benefit the national team. At a push I could get behind a combined plan "let us put colts in and we will agree rules at the same time meaning clubs will have to play X number of homegrown players in starting 11s by 2025 with a minimum period of 15 years" There isn't really an argument that Celtic have players good enough to progress Scotland to where we need them, that spell in isolation doesn't negate the fact our best players right now & often in the past aren't Celtic players and a team that can't make an impact in Europe isn't going to have players good enough to regularly getting Scotland competing where we need to. It is beyond doubt if Scotland wants to progress it MUST develop better players than we regularly see for any SP club. Time would tell how many fans follow through on it if it was voted through (fortunately I doubt it will be and we don't need to find out) but I rest assured I will be requesting a full refund on my season ticket, cancelling my fan membership & I wont be back, I would be surprised if I was the only one. The point is more fans feeling so strongly about it means it should be voted down by the clubs chairman. Dumbarton and Sonstrust is a great example. 89% fans against. The cash incentive also shouldn't be a replacement for fans attending, that is very unethical and will alienate fans. I hope so regarding Christie but the odds aren't in his favour when you look at other players at Celtic over the years. We need a core squad of players playing/ wanted at much higher levels.

The point for me is we don't need to be developing Scottish players as good as the players Celtic currently sign/ have. We need the Scottish national team to be far better than the current level Celtic are at right now, it's been shown that Celtic's current quality are not good enough to get us to International finals (strong evidence in their European performances in last decade or so), they weren't good 10, 15 and 20 years ago either when we still didn't qualify but had better players. Colt teams at League 2 level are not likely (in fact it's almost guaranteed they wont) going to produce talent that vastly improves the Celtic team, the hope is more likely produce more talent themselves at a similar level to save having to buy players. This is not an argument for putting Celtic & Rangers colts in the leagues, it might progress them but it does not progress the Scottish national team to where we need it to be. Couple that with the other issues, it is an absolute no - Given the fan backlash in not wanting them in lower leagues and that fans WILL walk away from Scottish football (myself included) it will not garnish more interest and it will not generate more money - The fact it certainly will cost other clubs players. Regardless of what you say, I'm in no doubt Celtic & Rangers would have retained at least some youth prospects released and given them more chance had colts been an option over recent years. If they didn't it would be a parameter of failure for colts, I'm sure in hindsight Rangers would have kept Kenny McLean & Lewis Morgan for example. Also, who's to say if Morgan & McLean were in colts they wouldn't have progressed that little bit faster and meant Rangers didn't want to release them? Again at detriment to St Mirren so why on earth would they vote for this? Like I say, Christie falls into the category of player not good enough at the international level we need Scotland to be at. Celtic producing or developing more Ryan Christie's is not a reason for other clubs to go for it. I'm not suggesting the three foreigner rule, I'm suggesting a rule that already exists in European football, just regarding more players. So xenophobia would absolutely not be an issue. "Players must be developed at a club for X number of years before their 21st birthday" There is nothing in that, that would be an issue, it only encourages homegrown player rule & is a current requirement for European squads. Dembele for example would qualify but if he wanted could play for one of three different nations.

Go for it.

I imagine looking for better is true for the first team, however is it realistic in a colt team of likely around 20-25 players? I don't imagine so and they'll likely have a number of players that aren't likely to make it (and the club will know that). That's very likely the case with every youth team in the country currently, you still have to make up the numbers after all. Rangers and Lewis Morgan is a great example here, if they had a colt team but needed 6-8 midfielders in the squad, would they have given a two footed, fast 16/17 years old a chance to shine in the colt team? I think there's a very good chance they would have. I meant Tierney was the last, I believe he is younger than both Forrest and McGregor. I think it's naive to think that'll 100% be the case with Johnson, there's been plenty promising young players that haven't cut it. Still even if we did include him, four youth graduates in about a 15 years, maybe longer? At least two (Forrest and McGregor) are not the level Scottish football needs to progress, we need much higher level footballers than about 90% of our international team, them both included. Brings me back to my point on why should we trust Celtic & Rangers to develop a better generation of young Scottish players when even the ones they have developed with first team football are largely not good enough? the three foreigner rule went in in mid to late 90s, before that we almost always qualified for international tournaments, now we don't. Is it a coincidence? Possibly, possibly not. The U21 rule didn't go nearly far enough. IMO the rules need to be in starting 11s.

I have little doubt the colt teams will improve Celtic & Rangers youth development. That isn't the argument against it (if you're a Celtic & Rangers fan anyway). - To fill these teams, they'll likely sign even more promising young players making it more difficult for other teams (St Mirren for example, would we have gotten Morgan, McLean, Baird etc if there had been a colt team for them to prove their worth at?) - As much as it may improve youth players for Celtic & Rangers, we need to be producing far better players overall than that level to get the national team back where we belong. The best young Scottish players will generally need to be playing at a much higher level at these ages - It will turn a number of fans of many clubs away from the game, plenty have stated it for years, every time this subject comes up (self included) As for your other points, I don't see Celtic's youth getting any better, don't see Ralston lasting the pace, Henderson is a doubt, Miller is away, they haven't produce a quality player since Tierney (with Johnston still far from proven). Rangers is even worse, I can only think of McGregor as someone in their strongest squad of 18 that's been through their youth academy & he's almost 40. Argument for Gilmour at Chelsea being a success but would he have been if he stayed at Rangers, given their success rate? Are these really clubs we are willing to trust with improving Scottish youth talent? Would we really be willing to take the hit of disenfranchising possibly thousands of Scottish football fans and devaluing potentially two of our leagues? It's got to be an absolute no from many clubs which means it's dead in the water, as it was last time it was proposed. For me the solution needs to be much more radical. Put all clubs on notice, in five years starting 11s MUST have 8 homegrown players. Definition of a homegrown player is someone trained in Scotland for a minimum 4 years before their 21st birthday (or under 21 and set to meet that requirement). Further break it down from those 8 players, 5 must have been developed through their own youth academy and at least 3 of the 8 must be under 21. The argument might be, what about competitiveness in Europe? It's hardly an issue now, we aren't competitive in Europe and likely won't be anytime soon. There's also plenty of time to make sure this isn't a hindrance to that while developing quality young players. If this is implemented across Scotland, no one is disadvantaged in bleeding youth talent.

Only three of those players have been developed through Celtics youth academy and made an impact in the Scottish national squad (equal to the number of St Mirren youth graduates in Scotland squads over the last year). Plenty of examples of players that fall away when trying to reach the higher level. Just highlighting promising young players that Celtic were able to sign or young players that haven't made it yet doesn't really progress your point. Celtic and Rangers youth academy over the last 15-20 years has been largely a failure. That includes Rangers playing at the levels the colts would be, where are all these promising young players now?

More of this please from other fan groups, it is absolutely spot on. Well done Sonstrust, I hope SMISA take note in providing something similar to St Mirren. (I believe SMISA need to agree anyway before St Mirren would be allowed to vote yes)

The cheek! Any more of it I'll come on here more...

I wasn’t a fan at all of the 8-8-8 either. I think it being tried twice and failed twice is a big alarm bell. For me it was also just a way to get new Rangers playing too flight teams quick as possible as well. I would love a bigger top flight but the SPFL are geared only to four Glasgow derby games a season

Take the point it is not perfect however I would have it in transit with other rules and support like - prize money/ sponsorship/ support distributions given on the requirement youth is invested in with the smaller teams supported - completely scrap and start again with project brave where youth development is incentivised - maximum squad sizes and outbound loan rules to prevent the big teams swallowing up talent. Man C and Chelsea are examples of what should never have been allowed to happen in any nation with bloated squads and practically abusing loan markets. Rules can easily be put in place to stop this. The reality is this will never happen though because of the warped rules in this country which allow for the previously called ‘Old firm veto’

It's so frustrating they keep pushing this idea when it has been shown there is little fan appetite for it outside the biggest clubs. If they want to improve the quality of young players then lobby for change that forces teams to develop, it would be so easy. Two/ three year grace period then put in a rule where 3-5 of all starting 11 need to be: - Under 23 at start of season - Trained at YOUR club for a minimum of three years before they're 17. (This would prevent bigger teams just swallowing up young talent and mean all the players would be Scotland eligible) All clubs being bound by the same rules would soon force the youth issue.

I would be very surprised as well. Every league, the second place team can get a max of 9, 10 or 11 points and our goal difference is worst of the lot. No chance we're going through unless we hammer them

Completely agree mate, we just have a good number of delusional fans here.

I know, I was just following on from the thread. Crazy people actually genuinely think this

Shankland isn't signing for St Mirren, Can you imagine being an Ayr fan and waking up to the news, you've sold your best player for £100k? He might go for nothing next summer but staying in the league for Ayr is worth more than £100k, Shanks could be their difference maker in staying up or going down.

Is it aye...