Old Firm Colts in L2

[Bazil85]

5 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Exceptionally disappointed - but not hugely surprised - to discover our Board are coming at it from the position of being favourably-minded. However our fans and stakeholders are invited to contact the club with our views: all who are opposed should do so. Supporters organisations also hold a substantial shareholding plus directorships in the club: they can influence matters that way, too.


Some of the observations and arguments are clearly very tenuous. Even if fans do not like playing 9 teams 4 times each... it's hardly an improvement to play 9 teams 3 times each and 'B' teams 3 times each too ! Having 1-2 extra home games sounds great... it doesn't sound so good when you calculate that 6 are against 'B' teams meaning a drop in home games against actual clubs from 18 to 13-14 .

It seems the main plus points are £15,000 plus "hoping" for a future league reconstruction that gives us more prizemoney and/or lifts us further up the tiers. Both seem very simplistic and even naive. SPL clubs have no track-record of benevolence - and there's considerable evidence that crowds for 'B' teams will be low, therefore costing us money.

I'm sure we're all massively relieved to discover 'B' teams will have managers & coaches and 2 club officials . Is the implication that at some point it was suggested they wouldn't?  As noted it also makes clear that, actually, over-age players would be featuring.


Nevertheless those are the views of our Board. It's up to our fans to make our views known and dissuade them of their folly.

Hopefully your fans go to any meeting ready and clear on your views. If the rsponse from St Mirren is they're in favour of it I'll be going to any fan consultation with my season ticket in hand ready to hand it back. Will be the last penny the club would see from me. 

[Brother Blades]

Might be helpful if someone could draft an email which we could all send to the SFA and our clubs. this way it would be consistant in its content. Any takers?
Pesonally after supporting my club for 50 years if they vote for it I will not be back.

I’ll write the template.

Dear Chairman & BOD,

It’s with great regret that I feel the need to question our glorious clubs viewpoint on the proposal to admit two Premiership Colt teams into League 2 of the SPFL.
Get that idea into the fucking sea, as your complicity in this by voting in favour will not only reduce fan participation, season ticket sales & be the beginning of the end of Scottish Football, it will also result in your windows needing extra insurance & a good chance I’ll chib you the next time I see you.

Best Regards
Brother Blades*


*Obvs, don’t sign my name on every mail.

[HibeeJibee]

1 hour ago, Im_Rodger said:

We need 22 teams against this. 

Who are the confirmed Good and Bad Guys?

Actually it doesn't.

It can be voted down by 2 Premiership clubs... 6 Premiership/Championship clubs... or 11 clubs overall.

Note that it tries to dilute opposition by emphasising a "2-year trial"... Is there any provision for sunset clauses in the SPFL constitution? If not, how do you vote things back the way they were after 2yrs? Once encoded Rangers + Celtic have an absolute veto.

I can't honestly imagine anyone thinks that, if it's allowed in the first place, its lapse after 2yrs wouldn't be resisted.

[Bazil85]

1 minute ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Shouldn't those in favour also contact the club with their views?

Seems like anyone in favour is likely to be the overwhelming minority no? 

[Ross.]

I'm generally in the "Pro colts" camp but with a lot of caveats and conditions, none of which appear to be met by what I have read of the current proposals.

As part of a broader pyramid, starting at the bottom, open to all and treated as an equal(ie, none of this special "away games only" pish, you either set up the colts with the minimum facilities that other clubs need to adhere to or you don't do it at all) and I would consider it as potentially worthwhile.

[Cowden Cowboy]

Seems like anyone in favour is likely to be the overwhelming minority no? 

I am not sure there is such a thing as an overwhelming minority!? Minority views should still be heard and welcomed

[SimonLichtie]

14 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

All levels of the game in Scotland have a responsibility to contribute to the improvement of our national game which will bring a more successful national team, better players and rising standards, an improved feel good factor, more income to invest in the game and will encourage more players to play and supporters to watch. We must all play our part and we all have a responsibility.

Absolute fucking shite. Who says we have this 'responsibility'? Where is this written down - is it part of a manifesto SPFL clubs sign up too? Is it part of the rules of the league? Is it, per chance, utter fucking shite that the writer of this document thinks so he's just chucked it in like everyone has agreed on this responsibility?

Personally I agree with the part where it says we have to encourage more players to play and supporters to watch. There are facts, indisputable facts, that PROVE colt team participation in mens football competitions results in a hugely decreased attendance. This pathetic shite is ignoring facts, and putting the individual opinion of a small group of self invested wankstains ahead of these facts.

[Bazil85]

5 minutes ago, Ross. said:

I'm generally in the "Pro colts" camp but with a lot of caveats and conditions, none of which appear to be met by what I have read of the current proposals.

As part of a broader pyramid, starting at the bottom, open to all and treated as an equal(ie, none of this special "away games only" pish, you either set up the colts with the minimum facilities that other clubs need to adhere to or you don't do it at all) and I would consider it as potentially worthwhile.

Worthwhile on what grounds? The OF being the only clubs that could 100% afford it and strengthening their position further?

[Bazil85]

3 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

 

I am not sure there is such a thing as an overwhelming minority!? Minority views should still be heard and welcomed

 

74% of fans in a fan survey of more than 10,000 people? Taking into consideration a number of them would be Celtic or Sevco fans. It's pretty conclusive I'd say.

[Swello]

12 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Exceptionally disappointed - but not hugely surprised - to discover our Board are coming at it from the position of being favourably-minded. However our fans and stakeholders are invited to contact the club with our views: all who are opposed should do so. Supporters organisations also hold a substantial shareholding plus directorships in the club: they can influence matters that way, too.


Some of the observations and arguments are clearly very tenuous. Even if fans do not like playing 9 teams 4 times each... it's hardly an improvement to play 9 teams 3 times each and 'B' teams 3 times each too ! Having 1-2 extra home games sounds great... it doesn't sound so good when you calculate that 6 are against 'B' teams meaning a drop in home games against actual clubs from 18 to 13-14 .

It seems the main plus points are £15,000 plus "hoping" for a future league reconstruction that gives us more prizemoney and/or lifts us further up the tiers. Both seem very simplistic and even naive. SPL clubs have no track-record of benevolence - and there's considerable evidence that crowds for 'B' teams will be low, therefore costing us money.

I'm sure we're all massively relieved to discover 'B' teams will have managers & coaches and 2 club officials . Is the implication that at some point it was suggested they wouldn't?  As noted it also makes clear that, actually, over-age players would be featuring.


Nevertheless those are the views of our Board. It's up to our fans to make our views known and dissuade them of their folly.

I thought the most jaw-dropping one was that the mechanism that they propose for restricting the number of colt teams to prevent "flooding the league":

Quote

The criteria for staff is very high in order to provide the elite young players with the correct environment equivalent to other countries who successfully produce players and will require clubs to make a significant financial contribution and have these staff available at the same time as their first team play on a Saturday at 3.00pm. This expense along with the need to underwrite 250 tickets for every match @£10 per ticket will restrict the number of clubs participating and ensure that the lower leagues are not flooded with Colt Teams. Discussions at the SPFL so far indicate it would only be two clubs for the pilot.

It basically seems to come down to a blind hope that the elite acadamies (who will already have made the required staffing outlay) won't want to pay the bribe. What if they did? There is no mechanism to restrict it to a given number or proper entry criteria. And if the Bribe is the only qualifying criteria that the elite academies (and others) would fail to meet - is that an equitable way to run a league system - pay to play?

[Ira Gaines]

I'm not even sure what these minority views would entail.

[Ross.]

Just now, Bazil85 said:

Worthwhile on what grounds? The OF being the only clubs that could 100% afford it and strengthening their position further?

Worthwhile on the grounds that it will give a greater number of young players experience in real first team football against guys who are out their playing for a living as opposed to other youngsters who have been protected by the system they are in.

As it happens, Celtic are probably the only side who 100% could afford it. Rangers last set of accounts suggested they can't afford their first team without regular input from directors/investors. The financial aspect is also one that should be thoroughly looked at as part of the criteria.

[SimonLichtie]

12 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Shouldn't those in favour also contact the club with their views?

I note you have ignored my question regarding potential positives of this, and factual evidence to back that up.

Is it because there is no factual evidence whatsoever to back it up, and plenty of evidence to the contrary?

It's a genuine question - I'm not wanting to abuse you etc. for your opinion, I just want to know what these potential positives are?

[HibeeJibee]

18 minutes ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

This is your moment HJ.

Go Full HibeeJibee on their asses.

Ultimately, our Board are entitled to argue that a cheque for £15,000 in tickets that may not be used could help the finances. Free country etc.

By the same token our average crowds are about 500 so if actual crowds at "B" team games dropped to, say, 250 then that "benefit" has just evaporated. Cheques do not pay to use the car park, buy 50/50 tickets, purchase programmes, or consume food and drink either... real people attending matches do. It also takes no account of possible crowd drops, or falls in ST sales through disillusionment. This latter point is very relevant, but not addressed... 6 from 19 home games will be against 'B' teams.

Ultimately, our fans are entitled to say these things in reply to them - or, if they wish, that regardless of the finances they're against the principle anyway.

Edited January 23, 2018 by HibeeJibee

[Cowden Cowboy]

I'm not even sure what these minority views would entail.

Well there have been some on here already and why would you know without hearing them?

[HIT THE CHANNEL]

13 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Ultimately, our Board are entitled to argue that a cheque for £15,000 in tickets that may not be used could help the finances. Free country etc.

By the same token our average crowds are about 500 so if actual crowds at "B" team games dropped to, say, 250 then that "benefit" has just evaporated. Cheques do not pay to use the car park, buy 50/50 tickets, purchase programmes, or consume food and drink either... real people attending matches do. It also takes no account of possible crowd drops, or falls in ST sales through disillusionment. This latter point is very relevant, but not addressed... 6 from 19 home games will be against 'B' teams.

Ultimately, our fans are entitled to say these things in reply to them - or, if they wish, that regardless of the finances they're against the principle anyway.

This is the point I tried to make above. Even beyond 'moral' arguments - Surely clubs will consult their fans and realise they will LOSE money?

Its as if they are assuming that a home game against a colt side will generate just as many home fans, hospitality, 50/50 etc etc. All evidence would suggest these will be considerably down against colt sides. And if SIX games are against them this has finincial loss written all over it, surely? If it was the championship I would sack my season ticket and pay entry to all non-colt games. I imagine many would do the same. And when the ticket isn't already bought, and the train is expensive and your mate has aksed you to go the pub ...its easy to miss a few of these games you would pay into. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by HIT THE CHANNEL

[HIT THE CHANNEL]

One positive everyone seems to be overlooking is the The The Rangers vs. The The Rangers Colts at a packed Ibrox at the start of the Journey Vol. 2. 

[Jan Vojáček]

I've fired DFC a fairly lengthy email detailing my opposition to the plans, and the need to put our fans before any potential financial (erm) 'benefits. I'd urge all fans of other clubs to do likewise.

[Cowden Cowboy]

I note you have ignored my question regarding potential positives of this, and factual evidence to back that up.
Is it because there is no factual evidence whatsoever to back it up, and plenty of evidence to the contrary?
It's a genuine question - I'm not wanting to abuse you etc. for your opinion, I just want to know what these potential positives are?

I read your comments and didn't respond same as I didn't to most posters on here - I didn't ignore it but equally there is no requirement for me to respond.

To be factual there was some evidence of sorts put forward in the previous outline proposal. It is a pilot that is proposed - the point of a pilot is to test if a theory works and has legs. Thus if it helps young players develop and in time more make the grade and do well for Scotland then that is clearly a potential positive - the key word being potential. Having a poor national side and teams struggling in Europe has a direct and indirect knock on effects on the funds that come into Scottish football some of which percolate down the League. I am not sure the Challenge Cup experience is negative for the Old firm colts - they have concluded the opposite - An inference can easily be made that a couple of cup matches against mixed opposition is less worthwhile than a sustained league campaign where one would assume the Old Firm would also actively market and promote this to their support and seek their buy in.

[Swello]

 

25 minutes ago, Ross. said:

Worthwhile on the grounds that it will give a greater number of young players experience in real first team football against guys who are out their playing for a living as opposed to other youngsters who have been protected by the system they are in.

As it happens, Celtic are probably the only side who 100% could afford it. Rangers last set of accounts suggested they can't afford their first team without regular input from directors/investors. The financial aspect is also one that should be thoroughly looked at as part of the criteria.

Aberdeen, Hibs, Hearts (and others) could/would budget for inclusion if they felt that Rangers and Celtic were getting some sort of measurable benefit that they weren't out of this. But this isn't all about the bigger clubs and their colts - a system that benefits those that pay to play to the detriment of League 2 (as it would no longer be a meaningful competition in any sense of the word) and its clubs isn't one worth pursuing IMO. There's a fundamental question being asked about what lower division teams are there for and the proposed answer is that they are there as mere sparring partners for the biggest clubs' youth teams - and I think that's shite.

Also - an SPFL authored document that is basically written to be touted round by Rangers and Celtic proposing a league reconstruction for the singular benefit of the OF is not a good thing in any shape or form. The relationship between the governing bodies and the OF is far from a healthy and transparent one, which is ironic given that there are no two clubs more self-interested and more likely to shaft Scottish Football given half a chance. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by Swello