Bazil85
-
Posts
467 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Posts posted by Bazil85
-
-
6 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:
If you go back to Fred's post you will see it had nothing to do with the dosh,he wanted to abandon celtic's youth but if a club wanted to pay 300k good luck to them.
Would you support Celtic and Rangers working to get into the English or some sort of Atlantic league? I don't mean leaving a legacy club in Scotland just in general?
0 -
4 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:
So you hold this against Celtic?Even thou we spend millions on youth development every year,for every Tierney,forrest and McGregor there is a Mcgowan,Van Zantan and Goodwin.
No I don't hold it against Celtic. What I would hold against Celtic and Rangers is them wishing to sort out their failings in the youth market by taking away one of the pyramids competitions at the detriment of football fans.
As I've said, the point of this is for Celtic and Rangers to improve the McGowans, DVZ's and Goodwin's to the point where they don't go for free to teams like St Mirren, they go for a few £100k to clubs returning a higher profit, for example clubs down south. You haven't given one reason why L2 clubs or any other club should be happy with bettering the Glasgow Lovers at the expense of their own teams and against their fans wishes?
1 -
37 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:
If you have a wee look at the domestic cups thread celtic v morton the morton fans seem to disagree.
He’s had a couple decent games this season and has a good free kick on him but for the most part he’s nothing special
0 -
7 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:
Ask the Morton fans hes a class act.
He's a 'mass act' mate a 'mass act' not class. #bigstuff
0 -
12 minutes ago, gannonball said:
It appears that some people have gone delirious over this and are suggesting that Gavin Reilly could play for Scotland one day.
More the point that he's a good QOS graduate. No one is suggesting that will likely happen, just that stranger things have happened like big Chris
0 -
52 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:
It's a good point but what stops st mirren developing they're own talent?the fact he was deem not good enough at a early age and had to prove himself again is wrong.
Colt teams would provide a clearer path for players.There is nothing that 'stops us' we as a team do pretty well in youth player development, as do many others. What hinders us and other teams is we don't have the financial resources, facilities and the ability to maintain as large a number of young players as bigger teams like Celtic and Rangers. We also don't have as much of a draw (or finances again) to go snatch a promising youth player from smaller/ similar clubs
Colt teams would provide a clearer path for players.
Exactly my point, Colt teams provide a path for Rangers and Celtic to mitigate the risk further of losing players like Morgan and give even further opportunity to hold onto largerplayer pools. It would remove the risk of them losing young talented players that want first team football as they'd be able to offer that and it would give the opportunity to sign promising young players from smaller clubs who might otherwise prefer to stay for the first team experience.
It is 100% self interest by those two clubs and it again comes back to my point. Why would a team like St Mirren or other similar club vote in favor for a plan that will afford Rangers and Celtic a means to swallow up and retain talent that would otherwise be playing elsewhere?
6 -
10 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:
I don't see the celtic colt team as Celtic players much like Lewis Morgan,they have to earn the right and make the grade to be a Celtic player.
They're only Celtic by association,for me the colt team are just young talented footballing individuals trying to better they're game much like apprenticeships.
To say Celtic will benefit well that's up to the apprentice.Common sense would tell anyone the Glasgow lovers will benefit way more than anyone else. It also tells me their benefit will be a number of clubs drawback. As I've said before the Challenge Cup shows they'd have to strengthen considerably. Those young players will be taken at the expense of other clubs that would likely have them in the current set-up. Lewis Morgan is a perfect example, released by Rangers at 17. Imagine the situation where they had a Colt team then, speculating but they may of kept him on at that level and boom St Mirren miss out on a quality player and a financial windfall.
I'd come back to your earlier point that most Championship clubs would be for it. I just don't see how you can come to that conclusion at all and you didn't say why you'd come to that conclusion.
0 -
1 minute ago, wastecoatwilly said:
Have you never heard of the 5 years rule?
No, what is it and what relevance has it to this proposal? If you mean the years in education rule making players eligible for home nations it would only work if they brought in very young players and those players still chose Scotland over their birth nation.
I know things have been going back and forward on here. What are your actual thoughts on this proposal? Are you for it in it's current form and if so is it purely because it would benefit Celtic and Rangers?
0 -
3 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:
I have already asked you once what fecking agenda?
Celtic have been at the top of Scottish football since 19 oatcake.It's an agenda to improve their youth players without using the loan market. a team full of young players they can monitor developing that bit easier and train the way they want. A few might make the first team the others can be sold on for money. That won't turn 20 year olds playing league 2 players into world cup stars but it will certainly be financially profitable even if two or three end up good enough either for Celtic or to be sold to lower level English clubs.
It's a clear agenda to improve and streamline the Glasgow lovers youth structure. What other possible reason do they have for it? Just because they're such nice people at these clubs they want to help everyone else out? Please if that was the case where is the rule that all players have to be Scottish?
2 -
1 hour ago, Tulloch Gorum said:
We'll appoint Malky Mackay. He certainly wouldn't have capped Iwelumo.
True dat
1 -
1 hour ago, The Moonster said:
I would. Reilly won't play for Scotland.
Would probably say the same about big Chris though wouldn't you when he was a 23 year old playing for Cheltenham town?
0 -
1 hour ago, wastecoatwilly said:
If clubs are failing to bring through young talent why do you think Celtic feel the need for colt teams in league 2?
There is nothing better to see for fans than one of your own playing in the first team.
To further their agenda and Rangers agenda. That's the only reason the Glasgow lovers feel the need to have Colts.
0 -
15 minutes ago, Doonhamer doon south said:
mix of tongue in cheek and serious failings in the Scotland set up. This thread has descended into silly statements I just adding one more
Chris Iwelumo called up at 28 for the first time
Chris Martin 25
Jamie Murphy 26
Russell Martin 25 (was playing for Peterborough at same age Reilly is now)
None of which are particularly good... Stranger things have happened. Not saying he 100% will but I certainly wouldn't completely write-off or scoff at the boy.
0 -
31 minutes ago, The Spider said:
Ah, the old financial ratio bit again eh. The way you're going on, anyone would think that Brendan Rodgers draws similar comparisons when our League Champions embarrass the country with their heavy defeats in the Champions League. The sooner we get Colts into L2, the quicker we can get useless untalented players like Dembele, Sinclar and Roberts out of the picture and bring in the new Scottish Messis who will have learned their trade playing total football on muddy energy-sapping pitches against part-time cloggers. The future's bright - the future's Wastecoatwilly!
I always think it's a curious notion that Celtic fans bemoan the spending power of PSG and other teams and say they just buy success when they do every bit the exact same thing in Scotland just at a much lower level. Them and their now deceased blue brothers haven't won a trophy in merit in over a generation. Celtic wage budget is closer in comparison to PSG than League Cup runners up Motherwell is to Celtics.
I'm not saying financial ratios are the perfect comparison, just that it's not really fair for Celtic fans to have a dig at smaller clubs when their recnt history of youth development has been nothing but poor.
0 -
3 hours ago, Doonhamer doon south said:
Aye what a diddy club we are only one 1 international that I can think of has come through our youth set up that I can think of. Seriously though we are a small full time club with a fairly decent catchment area to draw in potential talent. One big problem is finances and coaching ability not just our club. I do think we have a fairly healthy record though of players who come to us many go on to bigger clubs. Stephen Dobbie is obvious but guys like Kevin Holt (local), Mark Durnan and Gavin Reilly (local) have gone on to bigger clubs in last few years. It might not be producing internationals but it's a step towards it rather than away.
QOS have had one player in the last 10 years? I wonder what their budget ratio is to Celtic? Hamilton are the lowest in the SP and their wage bill is roughly 1/20 that of Celtic, assuming QOS is lower, I wonder who has the better correlation in developing Scotland internationals in the last 10 years....
0 -
10 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:
One question if this proposal is passed,how many Celtic colt players do you think will make celtic's first team?
Based on their current youth development and Rangers performance in league 2 id say not very many. Celtic and Rangers will benefit more from selling players on that develop to a decent level and maybe the occasional one that gets to the first team.
It wont have a massive uplift in players ability in the previous mentioned trickle down effect. Even if it has a small impact the quality of football overall won’t go up by any measurable amount that justifies pissing off the fans of the majority of clubs and turning fans away from teams they’ve supported for a number of years. A small increase in player ability down the league also does not justify compromising sporting integrity and turning L2 into a development league.
Just so I get this straight. Are you saying that a nominal improvement in young player quality that might happen for 10/20 young players playing at colts is enough for you to give this a shot even if it turns fans away from our game? So basically a system that will likely have the biggest impact on the Glasgow lovers further strengthening them, a small (if any, it’s still very speculative) uplift in young player quality, we should all agree to or we hate Celtic... I’ve tried to have a sensible debate with you but if this is where your argument sits. You sir have lost the plot haha
0 -
17 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:
Yes
The proof is that the Glasgow lovers said all Scottish premier clubs back it. in the same proposal they said it would increase crowds, interest and commercial revenue through fan excitement at the thought of watching their youth teams...
0 -
1 hour ago, craigkillie said:
This definitely wasn't the case. The three foreigner rule which was scrapped in 1995 was a UEFA rule for European tournaments rather than anything domestic. For example, I found a Rangers line-up from a 3-1 win over Motherwell in December 1994 where Craig Moore, Basile Boli, Peter Huistra and Brian Laudrup all started. Similarly, there were Aberdeen teams in the early 90s featuring Theo Snelders, Peter van de Ven, Willen van der Ark and Hans Gillhaus.
Which other countries have similar rules in place?
IN EUROPEAN competitions, clubs are restricted by the
''three-foreigner rule''. This means that the squad listed to play can
include no more than three non-nationals.
The minor exception to this is that a club can list two assimilated
players in addition to the three foreigners. In essence, assimilated
players are non-nationals who have played youth-team football for a
number of years in the country where they are playing senior football.
I always thought the rule was just UK but if it was European wide it doesn't change facts. It would deter our best sides filling their teams with foreign talent. It's something we should look to bring back at a a national level.
The rule meant and would mean that teams like Rangers and Celtic would not fill their teams with foreign talent as they couldn't use them in European games. That would be great for the Scottish game right now.
Other countries (that I know of, no doubt will be more) Parts of Spain, America, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, China. All implemented as a way to protect national players.
I also believe Germany had something similar in place until recently.
0 -
7 minutes ago, The Spider said:
if you do, I trust you'll do the decent thing and donate it all to the Old Firm to help them better prepare their Columbian, Croation and Portugese internationalists of the future.
It's only fair
0 -
8 minutes ago, The Spider said:
Ooops, bit of a schoolboy error there sunshine. Weren't you the one advocating that when I didn't support your proposal to ditch the Old Firm for reduced revenue reasons, that you retorted that it would be better to find the proper level and then live within our means? That's exactly what we should be doing here......finding the best solution to our problems using the resources we have available. The fact that we're not I would suggest is more down to a lack of invention and leadership at the top of our game, rather than funding shortfalls.
To get you back onside again, the money's there...................it's just not distributed sufficiently to create the environment for part-time clubs to provide the level of competition that fringe full time players need. Worse still, if followed to it's natural conclusion, you'll be left with 10-15 clubs who'll then complain that they have too many players and not enough opportunity to get them meaningful non-1st team games
Have you heard of idealistic? In an idealistic world I'd love several levels of youth football and the three foreigner rule. I know it will never happen.
What we might actually be left with one day is a situtation where Rangers and Celtic do actually leave Scotland, if that happens in the long term I think that will be great for fans. Scottish football finding its level and competition returning.
I fail to see any 'schoolboy errors or lack of consistency.' I would love to get a promotion in work but in an idealistic world it would be great to win the lottery. See my point?
0 -
4 minutes ago, The Spider said:
Baz, it's scrap and replace but with no age limitations, so that clubs don't have to artificially sign players for quota purposes. That way clubs can mix and match their squads on a rotational basis as they see fit or circumstances (injuries & suspensions) dictate. I hate the concept that 21-23 year olds are missing game time because they regularly sit on benches as unused subs and/or the coach can play them as often as he would like because of a quota system. To me it's wrong that a coach can't field whatever side he thinks will best further develop his 21-23 year olds because he feels he needs to fill his over-age quota with older players to give his youngsters a bit more protection.
The present system is currently designed to help the U-20s push on, but to me at any rate it also creates a void beyond that. Some will accuse me of being a dinosaur for that stance, but they'll probably be the same people who think we're racist for wanting the re-introduction of the three-foreigner rule which I agre would very much help by creating the space for those very same 21-23 year olds to feature more prominently in first teams.
yeah it makes sense when you put it like that mate. I think it comes down to what's best for players at all levels not having a big void when a player hits 21. shame we can't fund a couple different levels like in England. I think they have U23 squads as well as U21 and U18.
0 -
2 hours ago, craigkillie said:
I'm not convinced Scottish football has ever had a three-foreigner rule. And quite rightly so. The way to get more Scottish players into our teams is to make them better, not just make it easier for them to be picked.
There aren't many bloated first team benches in Scotland. Even the biggest clubs outside of Celtic and Rangers are running with very small first team squads.
We 100% did man, went in 1995. One of the best ways to get Scottish players better is first team football. Having rules in place that force clubs to play more Scottish players will mean they need to invest more in youth development in order to get the players to a higher level. It'll improve Scottish players overall I'm sure. Other countries have similar rules in place.
0 -
2 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:
With or without this proposal Celtic will remain at the top of Scottish football,there is a thousand reasons why fans are against this proposal and it has nothing to do with young kids developing in the Scottish game,there is fans all around the country that hate Celtic and everything they do why? Ex Celtic youth players play in all the leagues in Scotland,the national team has more Celtic players in it than any other club,to say Celtic are pushing an agenda what fecking agenda?
You keep saying Celtic as well as if they're different from Rangers, they're both one and the same for most other fans. Always vote together and protect each others interests.
What I'm hearing from you is 'fans don't want to further Rangers and Celtic at their own clubs expense, they don't want to give up their competition to turn it into a development function and they don't want to compromise sporting integrity... they just hate Celtic.'
It's so detached from the truth it's unreal.
0 -
2 hours ago, The Spider said:
Don't agree with that personally, but can see both sides so respect that viewpoint. Whatever the method, my original theme remains. How do you get bums off bloated Ist XI benches and get talented 21-23 year olds the game time they need by playing in a reasonably competitive environment on Saturday afternoons if not in reserve games? We both know and agree it ain't by putting Colt teams in L2, so how does our game move forward and resolve that issue?
I'm just not sure I understand what people are saying when they mention reserve league? Is it as in scrap the U20 development league and bring back reserves? Have reserves and U20s development league at the same time? I don't get it.
If it's scrap and replace then i don't see the difference because you'll generally still have the 3/5 over aged players and padded out with U20s because that's the situation the majority or clubs are in. Maybe an argument for putting more over aged players but then what about developing the younger boys?
If it's having both reserve and development I think realistically a majority of clubs couldn't sustain that.
0
Old Firm Colts in L2
in Scottish League 2 General Chatter
Posted
So you'd much rather sit in a league with no completion at all buying trophies? No wonder you would support L2 giving up their competition. I can't think of anything worse than being a Celtic fan right now. Closest rival have about a third your budget and the other ten teams combined budget is also lower than yours' Boring, predictable and zero achievement. All Celtic have to look forward to is Rangers getting stronger and Scotland will go back to a two horse race forever more. Never understood fans that don't have a desire for a challenge.