Che Dail

JEEZO (slams head on desk).

Take a look at the FIFA world rankings and compare performance over the past 20 years as a more reliable measure than one match v England. They reached 4th place in 1998, 7th in 2008 and 4th again in 2018. Their most recent ranking is 14th, which puts them in the top 10 sides at the Euros - whereas 14th is the highest placing for Scotland in 2007 over a twenty-odd year period. Scotland is currently ranked 44th in the world, and 22nd out of 24 at this tournament. It is right that we look to successful small countries like Croatia for ideas and inspiration. Adult B teams has been a part of their player pathway for many years. That's not to say that 'B' Teams is the only answer, but suggests it is worth exploring. Bigger countries like Portugal (5th), Spain (6th), Italy (7th), Germany (12th), Netherlands (16th) all feature B teams in their league structures - and they all do international football and player development better than us. https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/associations/association/cro/men/

No, I think they'd probably have changed the rules to allow 19! No need for that to kick in now though, of course. And yes, I agree in that respect - the results will have a bearing on the pyramid - Although if we're talking about the bottom 1 or 2 clubs, I suspect (going by the past few seasons results) it won't have much of a bearing on final standings in terms of points. Others have argued it might affect promotion to SPFL, say if they beat one team at the top and not the other - which is fair, but is only guesswork at the moment - we'll know how competitive they are a few games in.

I think there would need to have been a rule change proposed (possibly voted on before hand) and ratified at the AGM. I think we'd have known about it by now if that was the case. If it wasn't on the Agenda, then it looks like it isn't happening this season - but presumably it could be covered by a Special General Meeting if one is called for this purpose (rules don't seem to use 'EGM' terminology). For the inclusion of B teams: The maximum number of clubs will normally be sixteen (16) but may be increased temporarily to a maximum of eighteen (18) at the sole discretion of the Board. I daresay, for the following season it could be increased 'temporarily' to eighteen again to accommodate additional clubs from WoS or EoS... but I'd have thought it would be better to stick to the max 16, and relegate more. Also to clarify, the B teams are not being parachuted in to the pyramid - its a 1 year pilot and they can't be promoted, so strictly speaking, they are not actually in the pyramid. RULES: https://slfl.co.uk/rules/lowland-league-rules/

If this is the case, then my response would be: because the majority of clubs voted for the status quo on number of relegation spots (if there even was such a vote - not sure if an AGM is the right forum for it tbh ). Anyhow, that decision is not at the behest of one person. Last season the LL was decided on PPG, which (correct me if I'm wrong) means that a club WOULD have been relegated or 'ventilated' if a club had been put forward for promotion.

Is that definitely the case - the 1 relegation spot...?

It is Kelty I am alluding to with reference to the EoS. What you've described re the WoS is the initial planting of seeds which ultimately led to invitations being sought for new applicants - to be sent to George and / or John Greenhorn of the EoS. My point is, debates around the formation of a WoS might still be punted back and forward on here, without leaders making formal moves to get it going.

Yes, agree - but like I said, without bold and innovative people, where would we be? So on the one hand, we laud Kelty and their leaders , and rightly so, but berate others who demonstrate similar characteristics. BSC were well ahead of the game - entered the LL in 2014/15(?) I think all they had to do was apply. So for all the complaints about the integrity of the pyramid...

There's a lot of unfounded and unfair (personal) criticism directed toward George Fraser. Would the WoS league (and the pyramid in the West) even exist without his involvement? He stood up to the plate and facilitated the thing, helped make it happen. On the B teams: He explored an opportunity and pitched it to the other LL clubs. The majority agreed to the proposal in a vote. But folk paint it like some authority figure has imposed something on others, which is quite clearly not the case. Football needs bold and innovative people to take risks and test new ideas. Without this, would we even have an EoS in its current format? Or would most still be in the Juniors on the outside?

I honestly don't think that you are - You've adopted a position and are entrenched in it. You're not alone in this, but that's part of the nature of the world - you don't have to agree with everything people say or do.

Thanks for the choice. Although I wouldn't say you are stupid, maybe just a bit ignorant.

No, I took it that you were saying I am stupid.

Exactly.

It's a blended approach. In Scotland, what works for Rangers and Celtic might also be suitable for Hearts and Hibs but possibly not for Aberdeen or Dundee United. Is the B team model in Holland exclusive to those 6 FT clubs? Is there an option, or freedom of choice, if another club wanted to test it? Holland is over 3 times more populous than Scotland, with 34 full-time teams plus(?) 6x B teams. Scotland has 22(ish) full-time teams (although I doubt that number is sustainable given the drop in attendances over the past 10-20 years). Yet Rangers and Celtic clearly can sustain two squads of full-time players because they have the support and resources to do it. I daresay Hearts and Hibs could too. 4x B teams out of 22 FT clubs is an equivalent ratio to the situation in Holland. It might work, it might not - but I think the option should be made available to try, and that's what they're attempting now. An alternative to B teams is the 'Strategic Partnership' - like Stenhousemuir & Hibs have entered into. So if they relegate another club, say Cowdenbeath, using 6+ full time loan players on terms agreeable only to those clubs, (i.e. someone else is picking up their wages) does that support the principles of sporting merit, and the integrity of the pyramid? In this scenario, Stenny have effectively been 'doped' with the introduction of professional FT players. Is that fair and reasonable? If we accept that the best full time youth players must be playing in a competitive football environment against men (best v best) in order to develop, I'm not sure that there's a right or wrong approach that doesn't have some effect on others. Question is does the wider benefit outweigh the detrimental effect it might have on others? We won't know until we try. In year 1, nobody loses anything, and at the end of the season we get data to inform future choices.

You're certainly putting up lots of evidence about your own level of intelligence. Good for you

Yes - I don't disagree with any of that - it's all happened very quickly. However, I don't think that damage to image and reputation, whether perceived or real, is a good enough reason in itself not to proceed. The member clubs have now voted and confirmed their decision after much deliberation, and those who voted against the proposal have accepted it and will move forward. Time will tell if it's a good decision or a bad one. I'm not sure there definitely is no offer of increased promotion / relegation yet - when would this be discussed, agreed and announced(?)

I'm really surprised you support this half-cocked nonsense and the damage it does to the reputation of the Pyramid. But it doesn't do any damage whatsoever to the pyramid!!! Life goes on as normal - nothing has changed with respect to promotion or relegation. If the LL / EoS / WoS don't open up to 3 or 4 up and down, then I'd think that there's a problem with the integrity and reputation of the pyramid, but the OF B teams is a side issue to this matter.

ok Einstein You're wasted on P&B, such a great mind.

Yeah, it's really clever to ignore the likes of Marco van Basten, Louis van Gaal, Pep Guardiola, Steven Gerrard. What do they know about football, they're all stupid.

There is evidence that some countries are a lot better than Scotland at developing football players from youth to adult football. There is evidence that some clubs have the very best youth academies. In some of those countries, and at some of those clubs, B Teams play a part in the player pathway. That is enough 'evidence', in my opinion, to explore if it's something worth trying here.

I didn't vote for it, so it's not me who 'needs to be told'. I just support the idea of TRYING it on the basis of a 1 year pilot, which is what is being implemented in the Lowland League next season.

You don't have a clue because you've not even read the summary graphic that was circulated to all clubs and shared on here previously. Is a phoney 'argument' you make because you haven't bothered to look into it yet.

You asked if anyone has spoken to a Dutch person about the success or otherwise of B teams and I think we can agree with near 100% certainty that they have. And counterparts in Portugal, Spain, Germany, Croatia etc. You don't even have an argument, nor are you willing to reason or listen to new ideas - you just say it's bad, and that's that. The B teams proposal in Scotland IS a small part of an extensive youth coaching structure, not exclusive to the pro clubs but implemented by the SFA and community clubs across the country.

If a person said they'd spoken to Michael Reizeger, Luis van Gaal, Marco van Basten and Pieter Huistra, and feedback was positive (based on their experience having played and / or managed Ajax Jong) would you accept it? And if it could be shown that Johan Cruyff supported B Teams at Barcelona and Ajax, would you still persist with your close-minded view? We're talking about the best youth academy in Europe, one of the most successful club sides in the world and a Dutch legend. But, naw.

All interesting points - helps makes the case for regionalizing the lowest tier...? I'd have thought it would be a more attractive prospect for Duns / Kelso / Selkirk / Eyemouth to return to a more local EoS league. Plus if there was scope to include top ams teams even if they don't fully meet current ground criteria (on the basis that they can't be promoted until they do) then it could be to everyone's advantage, without killing off the ams league itself. Selkirk made a right midden of it in the end with their crazy budget - If they'd stuck to what works with local lads there would still be a club.