Old Firm Colts in L2

[oneteaminglasgow]

No need to précis me in a leading manner - the answer is I don’t know as the proposal would need a great deal of reshaping and work - but even then might not be worthwhile overall.  You would have to factor in the impact of the sum of money in terms of how it impacts on a club plus its impact on Scottish football ad these clubs economic power would chagr

The only work the proposal needs is putting it in the bin and, at the very least, publicly executing those responsible for it.

I genuinely don’t think any amount of money is worth the reduction of our lower leagues to little more than a playpen for Rangers reserves. There is no benefit to the national team, no benefit to the other clubs in the Premiership, Championship or League One, and other than a paltry amount of money which can easily be cut out through lack of interest and can boycotts, no benefit to the League Two clubs. The only possible benefit is to the clubs with Colt sides, and even then I’d argue that it won’t make a meaningful difference in their ability to produce talent for their first team.

[Dunning1874]

19 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

No you are right a forum isn’t a place for a debate or even  to expand to consider possibilities

The only one ducking a debate here is you. People have put up constructive, well reasoned arguments against the proposal; you've engaged with none of them, addressed none of the arguments against and declined to state your own position on it.

You dismiss any argument that contains references to Rangers, Celtic or the Chief Executives of the SPFL or SFA on the grounds that anyone bringing them into it must be basing their view on the proposals on their wider prejudice against those parties. When it's pointed out that discussing the motives of those who may want to make this change is central to any discussion around the issue, you ignore that point and fall back to accusing everyone of ad hominem attacks regardless of how constructive their point is.

You raise a hypothetical scenario of a change that could be made to the proposal to make it more palatable to League Two clubs and ask people their thoughts, when people respond on that basis then ask you your thoughts on the hypothetical scenario that you raised yourself you weasel out of giving a straight answer.

This kind of ridiculous performance might be par for the course on P&B from ordinary fans, but for a club director to be indulging in this nonsense is an absolute embarrassment.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Dunning1874

[1320Lichtie]

The only one ducking a debate here is you. People have put up constructive, well reasoned arguments against the proposal; you've engaged with none of them, addressed none of the arguments against and declined to state your own position on it.
You dismiss any argument that contains references to Rangers, Celtic or the Chief Executives of the SPFL or SFA on the grounds that anyone bringing them into it must be basing their view on the proposals on their wider prejudice against those parties. When it's pointed out that discussing the motives of those who may want to make this change is central to any discussion around the issue, you ignore that point and fall back to accusing everyone of ad hominem attacks regardless of how constructive their point is.
You raise a hypothetical scenario of a change that could be made to the proposal to make it more palatable to League Two clubs and ask people their thoughts, when people respond on that basis then ask you your thoughts on the hypothetical scenario that you raised yourself you weasel out of giving a straight answer.
This kind of ridiculous performance might be par for the course on P&B from ordinary fans, but for a club director to be indulging in this nonsense is an absolute embarrassment.

Very well said.

He doesn’t even realise how badly he’s coming off here. Scary.

Even when people have gave him the benefit of the doubt because he’s maybe looking at it from a different point of view he’s come back with condescending replies.

[RandomGuy.]

1 hour ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Well you see in the real world you do properly consider the options and don't just gut react based on your prejudices. But here in the virtual world you can indulge yourself with that luxury. Here's an interesting poser for you - what if the incentive was £200,000 not £15,000 and that level of finance might be transformative for your club and also nine other small Scottish clubs?

Tells people to live in the real world, before inviting people into a fantasy situation. Incredible. 

Terrifying to think folk like this hold any form of sway in this vote, seems totally determined to defend it at any cost. This "bribe" for 24 months isn't the answer to Cowdenbeaths issues. 

[JakeSAFC]

No you are right a forum isn’t a place for a debate or even  to expand to consider possibilities

Answer my question. Whats the need for different, made up, scenarios?

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

I know you can’t understand sophisticated arguments but that completely misrepresents my point. Most of those who speak of the gruesome twosome, sevco, Doncaster and Regan are starting from a position of prejudice.  I have no problem concluding this isn’t a great idea without any of that baggage being involved.  Many many folk posting views pepper them with those references and others.  So at no time have I said or implied that everyone on here is reacting through prejudice so why do you spout such nonsense - the clear point I made is that some posters (note not everyone) allow prejudice to influence their views - rather than just the merits of the proposal.  But again like some maybe you just want a bunch of folks ranting and agreeing with each other rather than allowing for a range of views

It's not prejudiced to base your view on past experiences. My experience of Rangers and Celtic is that they are greedy corporate machines intent on taking any action they think will benefit them, regardless of the impact on others. Doncaster and Reagan are complicit in all of those actions. They have also proven to be completely incompetent when left to their own devices on matters that don't interest Rangers or Celtic.

If it is, then I'm prejudiced, but I can live with that. 

[Marshmallo]

If your club can't afford to pay wages then it's being poorly run. Drop down levels until you can compete sustainably. There's a pyramid system now which allows that to happen. 

[The Spider]

1 hour ago, wastecoatwilly said:

If you put full time development players into a part-time set up what do you think would happen?

They would quickly be brought down to part-time level because they haven't yet got the physical maturity to cope with the senior players they would be playing against. Now if you made it U-23 players instead of development then your argument would probably very well stand up, but you still haven't quite grasped this "men v boys" concept have you?

[San Starko Rover]

There is no amount of money that makes the proposal acceptable even if it was £200,000 it’s still a bribe and is very questionable ethically. So as per the example a team are in financial trouble and the Old Firm bribe them £200,000 to support their Colt proposals. The team agree and take the money. You then have one Organisation member bribing another, what if they meet the big team in the cup? You’d have a team playing against their benefactor in a competitive match. What’s to stop the bigger team leaning on them with vague threats of removing their financial backing if they knock them out.

No member club should be giving brides to another member club it should be against the rules for the integrity of our competitions.

[strichener]

3 hours ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Well you see in the real world you do properly consider the options and don't just gut react based on your prejudices. But here in the virtual world you can indulge yourself with that luxury. Here's an interesting poser for you - what if the incentive was £200,000 not £15,000 and that level of finance might be transformative for your club and also nine other small Scottish clubs?

I have no doubt that the figure could be £200,000 and it could also be league 2 clubs getting £200,000 without accepting Colts.  However, if there are excess funds within the game that would allow these distributions then I would rather the SPFL looked at the distribution model rather than use the situation to the advantage of < 5% of their membership.

[Brother Blades]

It's not prejudiced to base your view on past experiences. My experience of Rangers and Celtic is that they are greedy corporate machines intent on taking any action they think will benefit them, regardless of the impact on others. Doncaster and Reagan are complicit in all of those actions. They have also proven to be completely incompetent when left to their own devices on matters that don't interest Rangers or Celtic.
If it is, then I'm prejudiced, but I can live with that. 

Exactly this, if the protagonists had been two clubs who didn’t have a history of milking the entire Scottish game for their own benefit, but instead had taken an altruistic view in the past, even though the alternatives may have benefitted their own club at that moment in time, then maybe, just maybe, other fans & clubs would have reason to listen to the case being argued.
However, that is not the case & in the case of Rangers & Celtic they have both previously shown their true colours & let’s not pretend for 1 second, should an invite from the EPL or English Championship drop through the letterboxes at Ibrox & Parkhead, however unlikely that is, they would be off quicker than Ross Jack in battle mode.

[wastecoatwilly]

1 minute ago, The Spider said:

They would quickly be brought down to part-time level because they haven't yet got the physical maturity to cope with the senior players they would be playing against. Now if you made it U-23 players instead of development then your argument would probably very well stand up, but you still haven't quite grasped this "men v boys" concept have you?

We both agree that under 20 players lack the physical maturity but in a season long stint in league 2 we could separate the men from the boys
I'm sure the skill and technical ability they already have from playing in the development league will shine through with the riggers of league 2 football.

[Brother Blades]

We both agree that under 20 players lack the physical maturity but in a season long stint in league 2 we could separate the men from the boys
I'm sure the skill and technical ability they already have from playing in the development league will shine through with the riggers of league 2 football.

You are a blethering idiot. Some under 20s lack the physical maturity, some don’t. The point is that, an entire team of under 20’s can be railroaded by older, bigger, stronger teams, where a solitary u20 can be protected by the more experienced guys & therefore be allowed to develop his superior technical ability, kind of like the loan system we have at present?
Also, it’s rigours.

[strichener]

5 minutes ago, Brother Blades said:

You are a blethering idiot. Some under 20s lack the physical maturity, some don’t. The point is that, an entire team of under 20’s can be railroaded by older, bigger, stronger teams, where a solitary u20 can be protected by the more experienced guys & therefore be allowed to develop his superior technical ability, kind of like the loan system we have at present?
Also, it’s rigours.

Unfair -  He may actually have meant the riggers in league 2 based on their full-time employment.    Although quite why the U20s and specifically riggers will shine through.  Surely there is just as much chance of the posties, painters and electricians shining as riggers.

[Monkey Tennis]

There are posters you might in such circumstances suspect of a bit of witty rigours/riggers based wordplay.

This however was wastecoatwillie.

[big al]

even if we (cowden) got a 200k payment, we would still be at the bottom of the wages pile, the least attractive club to come and play for, the team fans least liked to spectate at and basically in the same hole we are currently in.

the rest of the league would have the same payment  so we would be no better off really, except for the short term ability to pay the wages/bills without cash flow concerns.

[Brother Blades]

even if we (cowden) got a 200k payment, we would still be at the bottom of the wages pile, the least attractive club to come and play for, the team fans least liked to spectate at and basically in the same hole we are currently in.
the rest of the league would have the same payment  so we would be no better off really, except for the short term ability to pay the wages/bills without cash flow concerns.

Well said! A 200k payment would only alleviate the immediate financial burden of running the club, but it would be a short term fix, as some clubs would spend the entire amount trying to progress to L1 by paying higher wages, getting better players, it would be a rush to the top & net result would be after a couple of seasons, all the money would be gone & instead of 2 colt teams in the league, there would be 5 or 6, hence further removing the competitive element & fan drop off & resulting in dropping through the pyramid as real fans became disillusioned.

[Doonhamer doon south]

2 hours ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

But the serious point I make is is there a price where with reshaping such a proposal might find favour with clubs - because if I was pushing this proposal that is what I would be looking at.  Seems an interesting and valid debating point for a forum - but maybe folks prefer just running with pack - of course your response is a sensible one based on the question posed 

Yes perhaps every club has a price they would sell out on. But you would have to hope that it's a ridiculous price that would never be met. I agree on the principal of the promotion of young scots. But it should not be at the expense of the league or clubs within that league. Premiership clubs should look more at the home market than bringing in dross foreigners. I actually believe that situation is improving but there is more work to be done. 

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, San Starko Rover said:

There is no amount of money that makes the proposal acceptable even if it was £200,000 it’s still a bribe and is very questionable ethically. So as per the example a team are in financial trouble and the Old Firm bribe them £200,000 to support their Colt proposals. The team agree and take the money. You then have one Organisation member bribing another, what if they meet the big team in the cup? You’d have a team playing against their benefactor in a competitive match. What’s to stop the bigger team leaning on them with vague threats of removing their financial backing if they knock them out.

No member club should be giving brides to another member club it should be against the rules for the integrity of our competitions.

So that's bribes and brides off the agenda. What about bridies?

[scot-gcar709]

Here another question, if they are willing to stump up around £300k over two seasons towards getting clubs to accept this idea, why aren’t they using these funds now to promote coaching, loaning players out for experience etc. I assume there are a variety of ways this money could be used to promote youth development that wouldn’t negatively impact in one of your countries senior league competitions.