Sportsound Watch

[CambieBud]

Feck me Chic Young talking sense ……… well I never would have believed that 

What did he say?

[Lobby Dossar]

2 minutes ago, CambieBud said:

 

What did he say?

 

Said this colts idea being put forward was a load  o shite and there is no way it should be entertained 

[BukyOHare]

The talk about the B team proposal speeding up player development is an utter red herring. 

Stephen Kelly has been excellent for us in the Championship and he goes back with our sincere best wishes. 

Is he likely to get decent gametime back at his parent club? I have sincere doubts. If he was called Stefan Kelliagi he probably would. 

How is having B teams in a bottom league going to improve their development or general talent? 

If Ann Budge had came up with this idea it'd be rightly laughed out of town, it's attitudes within the bigger clubs that need to change not the format of the leagues. 

Younger players would be better off staying away from the youth setups of the bigger top flight clubs, get their debuts at lower league clubs and develop their careers from there. 

[Florentine_Pogen]

31 minutes ago, Lobby Dossar said:

Said this colts idea being put forward was a load  o shite and there is no way it should be entertained 

https://www.goalprofits.com/football-club-b-teams/

[Have some faith in Magic]

3 hours ago, Lobby Dossar said:

Feck me Chic Young talking sense ……… well I never would have believed that 

He has been the voice of reason throughout this period. They should get him back on a Saturday for a bit of balance. 

 

[wastecoatwilly]

On 05/06/2020 at 12:33, Sergeant Wilson said:

false affinity

Strategic partnership is the buzz words.

[Guest JTS98]

14 hours ago, craigkillie said:

1) Hearts absolutely were a subsidiary of FBK Kaunas, or at the very least both were subsidiary clubs of the same owner. They were bought over by the Kaunas owner and signed dozens of players on loan from them. Some of those loans were to put Lithuanian players in the shop window, many more were to allow the club to dodge tax. Neither of these seem like things that a supporter should be happy about their club doing.

2)Your managers were forced to play tripe like Linus Pilibaitis, Ricardas Beniusis or Eduardas Kurskis, something which I certainly can't imagine anyone could think was beneficial to Hearts in any way. Hearts didn't have a choice of players, they were given players. Coaches were installed in exactly the same way. I'm not sure how that is any different to Stenhousemuir being chucked six Hibs youngsters and a youth team coach - if anything Stenhousemuir have more agency in that situation.

3)I think this concept of subsidiary clubs and shared ownership is insidious, whether it's what is described here or the City football group enterprise which is essentially setting up franchises across the world. Hearts were involved in one of the very first schemes along these lines, and I think it would be reasonable for you to recognise that rather than throwing your hands up in the air and saying "but how could Stenhousemuir want something like this?".

1) What on earth does 'subsidiary clubs of the same owner' mean? Bizarre. Vlad owned a number of clubs and Hearts were at the top of his little pile. The idea that Hearts were subsidiary to any others is silly. Did Paul Hartley get sent off to play for Ripo? Did Craig Gordon have to go to Kaunas? You're onto nonsense with this. It's in no way comparable to what we're discussing.

2) Yes, there was some pish in there. But what Scottish club didn't field some absolute pish in the years 2004-2013? We've had non-Vlad players as bad as those lads, and I notice that you didn't point out our coaches were 'forced to play' Takis Fyssas, Edgaras Jankauskis, Rudi Skacel etc. Would supporters of a lower league club object to their coach being 'forced' to field players who were much better than their club's level? I doubt it.

Also, how many appearances for Hearts did any of the pish ones make? It's not like we were forced to put up with them forever. The shite ones were moved on and disappeared quite quickly. Like any club.

The three players you mention made 17 appearances for Hearts between them. They're hardly the main reference point for the Vlad era. Robbie Sloan was fucking shite and he got 22 appearances for Hearts just by himself and nobody bothers about that. Joe Hamill played almost 60 times. I'd be as well going back and picking three shite players who made no impact at Killie and using them as evidence that your opinion on any club's ownership model is worthless.

3) I don't disagree. But your point here seems to be utterly meaningless and backwards. The Hearts experience of Vlad was nothing like what I was describing in the post you originally quoted. We were not a feeder team for anybody. We didn't have to take players who weren't good enough to play for anybody else. We were at the top of the pile in our little scheme. If you don't understand how that's different to what is being discussed here (and specifically my post that you quoted in the first place), well, I can't help you.

Edited June 8, 2020 by JTS98

[topcat(The most tip top)]

I did a bit of digging

Division “C” between ‘48 and ‘55 was split northeast and southwest with reserve teams from all the top flight teams in there as well. To get promoted you had to win your division ahead of all the reserve sides as well as the real teams. Brechin were the only club to manage that and get into the league proper at Dumbarton’s expense. Brechin finished bottom the following season but were safe because Aberdeen’A’ and Partick’A’ we’re champions And then the system was abandoned about the same time as rationing ended

[JamesM82]

14 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

I did a bit of digging

Division “C” between ‘48 and ‘55 was split northeast and southwest with reserve teams from all the top flight teams in there as well. To get promoted you had to win your division ahead of all the reserve sides as well as the real teams. Brechin were the only club to manage that and get into the league proper at Dumbarton’s expense. Brechin finished bottom the following season but were safe because Aberdeen’A’ and Partick’A’ we’re champions And then the system was abandoned about the same time as rationing ended

Bob Crampsey wrote about that period at some length in his centenary history of the SFL.

The C division (including reserve sides) came about because a number of SFL clubs (mostly in the east: Stirling, East Stirlingshire, Montrose, Forfar, Brechin and Leith) weren't included in the (unofficial) 1945-46 national leagues, so they were put into an "Eastern" league with Dundee reserves and Dundee Utd reserves instead on a "temporary" basis. Instead of expanding the national B division to include Stirling et al they just created a C division instead, with the reserve sides.

The C division was subsequently split into two regional sectors and attendance was poor. The clubs struggled to find a consensus of how to change things, but this logjam was eventually broken by several of the bigger clubs (including Rangers, Hearts and Hibs) saying they no longer wanted to field reserve sides in the league. A big enough majority was then found to expand the two top divisions to 18 and 19 (instead of 16 and 16), which meant the five first teams in the C division could be promoted to the second tier.

Edited June 8, 2020 by JamesM82

[tarapoa]

Podcast tonight was probably the first time I’ve found myself agreeing with Chick Young - with Tom English (who irritatingly they’ve started calling Tinglish) and Levein talking up the Sevco proposal.

 

Young and Stewart Gilmour thankfully provided a voice of reason - never thought I’d think that given I normally like English.

 

 

[kingjoey]

6 minutes ago, tarapoa said:

Podcast tonight was probably the first time I’ve found myself agreeing with Chick Young - with Tom English (who irritatingly they’ve started calling Tinglish) and Levein talking up the Sevco proposal.

 

Young and Stewart Gilmour thankfully provides a voice of reason - never thought I’d think that given I normally like English.

 

Like you I normally like Tom English and think that Chic talks mostly garbage. But today’s podcast turned things turtle. The thing about Tom English and Craig Levein’s argument today was that they were implying that there  has to be reconstruction in some form. They were not pressed to indicate whether they felt that any form of reconstruction would be being discussed at the moment if  life had continued as normal. The answer is quite clearly no, so why, apart from saving Hearts, is it felt that we have to have reconstruction just now.

[Guest JTS98]

11 hours ago, kingjoey said:

They were not pressed to indicate whether they felt that any form of reconstruction would be being discussed at the moment if  life had continued as normal. The answer is quite clearly no, so why, apart from saving Hearts, is it felt that we have to have reconstruction just now.

I don't think Hearts have to be pressed on that because they've been quite straight about their feelings from the off. Hearts feel that it is unfair to relegate a club based on a season where they unexpectedly didn't get the full 38 games to save themselves.

Now, you can agree or disagree, but that's Hearts' position and I don't see why questioning anyone further on it would be illuminating. It's a simple point. Life has not 'continued as normal' so the question doesn't have much validity. I doubt Heats would be pushing for reconstruction had they come last after 38 games.

I think the whole thing shows the weakness of the one-club-one-vote system. OMOV works well in collaborative systems, but football is obviously a competitive environment so OMOV is a pretty silly system to try to use. We're seeing this now and the discussions on Sportsound with reps of different clubs have underlined this.

The clubs we've heard from are not voting for the good of the game, or even the good of the organisation. They're all voting for the good of themselves. Hearts obviously don't want reconstruction for any reason other than to stay up. I'm surprised so many people find that a surprising thing. St Mirren have voted themselves out of a relegation battle, naturally. Hibs' relatively new regime understandably is keen to not make a huge PR mis-step by voting against the wishes of the fanbase, possibly resulting in lower season ticket sales and a huge loss of goodwill etc. Elgin don't want their geographical disadvantage exacerbated by other clubs at their level getting more cash, their rep on Sportsound actually spoke out against lower league clubs getting more money. Think about that. The Old Firm want their young players to get first-team football. Dundee seemingly changed their view after a few days' radio silence and who knows what conversations in the background.

I could go on. Clyde don't want to lose out on decent away supports. Stenhousemuir seem not to want to have to develop players anymore. Every club has something. Some good reasons, some as simple as 'I'm alright Jack, let's carry on', some pretty spurious arguments. But the over-arching them is that all clubs we're hearing from are ultimately voting on what they consider to be best for them now. That's not collaborative decision making, it's weakness.

Ideally we'd have an actual governing body that governed and skipped out the farcical vested interest voting system that gives one club's short-sighted and selfish argument as much weight as another club's well-considered and fair one. The system gives us no way to say"Ok, Club X want this, but that's purely in their short-term interests and has no basis in fairness or general interest, while Club Y's view looks like it would benefit the game medium term, so let's give that more weight. But then club Z have a good point that...'

The amount of time this is all taking and the amount of absolute shite being spoken by many of the clubs is testament to the fact that when an actual controversial issue arises, OMOV does not work in a competitive environment.

Edited June 9, 2020 by JTS98

[Green Day]

3 hours ago, JTS98 said:

The amount of time this is all taking and the amount of absolute shite being spoken by many of the clubs

I disagree - in fact the majority of the 42 SPFL clubs have remained silent and have not thrown their hat into any particular ring.

Quite often in Scottish football we give credence to the loudest voices - usually as they are quoted by their chums in the media.

This doesnt mean that these opinions are actually the majority opinion, or what might pass any vote. 

[Dons_1988]

4 hours ago, JTS98 said:

The amount of time this is all taking and the amount of absolute shite being spoken by many of the clubs is testament to the fact that when an actual controversial issue arises, OMOV does not work in a competitive environment.

This is sort of stating the bloody obvious though.

The voting system clearly prevents progress and has for as long as I can remember. Whether it be reconstruction, strict liability or whatever, when you a) leave it to the clubs and b) create a voting structure that requires 75% approval at the very least you're going to find yourselves going nowhere most of the time.

I'd be in favour of giving a bit more power to the SPFL board to take leadership in certain situations and take more decisions, but the clubs don't want it. Hearts and several other clubs were howling at the resolution to call the league because they felt the board overstepped the mark in terms of a preferred option.

The clubs need to ask themselves if they want a governing body or a mere facilitator for their whims.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

This is sort of stating the bloody obvious though.

The voting system clearly prevents progress and has for as long as I can remember. Whether it be reconstruction, strict liability or whatever, when you a) leave it to the clubs and b) create a voting structure that requires 75% approval at the very least you're going to find yourselves going nowhere most of the time.

I'd be in favour of giving a bit more power to the SPFL board to take leadership in certain situations and take more decisions, but the clubs don't want it. Hearts and several other clubs were howling at the resolution to call the league because they felt the board overstepped the mark in terms of a preferred option.

The clubs need to ask themselves if they want a governing body or a mere facilitator for their whims.

In Scottish football one of the chief problems is the bloody obvious not being stated very often.

I think the most sensible option is just an elected executive of seven or so. Accountable to the clubs but not from the clubs.

Asking clubs to vote on things constantly is just daft. It's basically sending clubs an email saying 'Do you want to be relegated?'

[Dons_1988]

4 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

In Scottish football one of the chief problems is the bloody obvious not being stated very often.

I think the most sensible option is just an elected executive of seven or so. Accountable to the clubs but not from the clubs.

Asking clubs to vote on things constantly is just daft. It's basically sending clubs an email saying 'Do you want to be relegated?'

Of course, it's like strict liability, you're asking the clubs 'do you want to be punished for the actions of fans?'. The obvious answer comes back. 

The problem is the clubs would need to give that power back to the SPFL executive, which they won't do. As a body it is powerless.

 

[RandomGuy.]

If people cant see the issue with giving all reconstructive powers to 7 people, rather than allowing clubs to have their own say, then they're being naive as f**k.

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

If people cant see the issue with giving all reconstructive powers to 7 people, rather than allowing clubs to have their own say, then they're being naive as f**k.

It wouldn't be as simple as that. I certainly wouldn't advocate handing all powers to the executive to make all decisions.

The voting structure is the biggest problem that needs to change, but you can't do it now. Not when the stakes are so high.

[Guest JTS98]

12 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

If people cant see the issue with giving all reconstructive powers to 7 people, rather than allowing clubs to have their own say, then they're being naive as f**k.

Not sure it's naive. It's similar to how we run countries. We realise that there are umpteen competing priorities, desires, fears, capabilities etc, so we entrust some people to make the decisions and have elections to hold them accountable.

Decisions can be researched, taken, explained. If clubs have a problem with the people making them, they get to vote them out. People could stand for election based on experience, qualifications, expertise etc.

I don't see it as any less workable than constantly trying to find change that will elicit agreement and a positive vote from clubs as diverse as Celtic and Brechin City with loads in between.

Edited June 9, 2020 by JTS98

[Dons_1988]

6 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Not sure it's naive. It's similar to how we run countries. We realise that there are umpteen competing priorities, desires, fears, capabilities etc, so we entrust some people to make the decisions and have elections to hold them accountable.

Decisions can be researched, taken, explained. If clubs have a problem with the people making them, they get to vote them out. People could stand for election based on experience, qualifications, expertise etc.

I don't see it as any less workable than constantly trying to find change that will elicit agreement and a positive vote from clubs as diverse as Celtic and Brechin City with loads in between.

Nah, you can't just give them powers to reconstruct the leagues and 'vote us out if you don't like it'.

A reconstruction should only happen very rarely and for the right reasons/objectives. It's not a good look for the game to constantly be chopping and changing the format.

I'd advocate them having more power to take decisions but there needs to be limitations.