Old Firm Colts in L2

[haufdaft]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42793072

[mrman2011]

I would like more pressure from the SFA. Fines & penalties will get the clubs voting for it. Oh and the fans boycott will not help your club lol

[Ira Gaines]

Just now, mrman2011 said:

trollololol

 

[strichener]

Just now, mrman2011 said:

I would like more pressure from the SFA. Fines & penalties will get the clubs voting for it. Oh and the fans boycott will not help your club lol

Agreed.  The one thing that will unify supporters is SFA exerting pressure on clubs.  Didn't work out well for them the last time and I cannot see why it would now.

[Bazil85]

31 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.

The goal of Project brave is to improve youth development and Scottish players to the level where they'll be good enough to take Scotland to a major tournament. Players of that quality don't generally play against Scottish league 2 clubs at the age of 20 and 21. The only clubs this will benefit will be Rangers and Celtic. They will use it as a way to help bring on their youth players outside the loan market. It might improve those teams but as the last 20 years have shown, we need to producing young Scottish players that are better than Celtic or Rangers quality. If the clubs and SPFL were serious about youth development they would put up home grown player rules. They're not, they pander to Rangers and Celtic and only care about generating more income to keep them happy. 

[DiegoDiego]

Oh and the fans boycott will not help your club lol

If my club want to roll over for those two ogres to the detriment of Scottish football then they can get fucked.

[Bazil85]

8 minutes ago, mrman2011 said:

I would like more pressure from the SFA. Fines & penalties will get the clubs voting for it. Oh and the fans boycott will not help your club lol

Any more of your pish, I'll tell your maw to turn the WIFI off in the basement. 

[DA Baracus]

15 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

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.
 

Don't be so fucking stupid. That goes beyond naive. Plus the theory is that it will help improve the standard of Scottish players and Scottish football; two years can't judge that. Ten years would be more like it. 

I can't believe anyone is actually falling for the line that this is to help improve the standard of player in Scotland and the national team.

[SimonLichtie]

10 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

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.
 

You are obviously perfectly entitled to your view - I have no issue with that.

However, I simply don't see any evidence. Evidence would back up the proposal - I would accept anything backing up clubs being financially better off, examples of it enhancing player development for the national team etc.

For example - there are multiple countries with this system in place. It would not be hugely difficult to assemble data to show that these B teams have produced a higher quality of player, as shown by percentage who went on to play for the national team/ percentage that made a certain amount of top team appearances etc. against the same study for loan system in place in Scotland. Data could clearly prove proposals for B teams in our leagues could enhance the opportunity/ chance of players making it past a certain level in comparison to our system. If that study was in place, the argument for this change would have more credibility. Again, this is just an example of one area they could use factual evidence to back their claims up.

Why haven't they done the above? Would any studies they could do get anywhere close to backing up their bullshit claims? None of them would, because their claims have absolutely no substance and this proposal is the work of a group of utter simpletons.

 

[Swello]

1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

two years can't judge that

Massively, this.

What can the success criteria be for the pilot after two years? That no clubs have gone bust? That no Celtic starlets have been clogged out the game by a part-time centre half? The whole pilot aspect of this is one of the most intelligence insulting things about this sham.

[BerwickMad]

They’re inviting comments on the Berwick Rangers Facebook page. Here’s mine. It was before I’d read anything on here:

“I’m totally against this idea. One reason being that it ruins the competition. As mentioned, teams playing in the same league with different objectives and outcomes (relegation and promotion) is a bit farcical. I’ve no interest in seeing Berwick play a colts team. I could go and watch English Premier League reserves down the road for £3, never mind paying a normal League 2 match price to see a far poorer standard. Also, look at the state of the old Challenge Cup. It’s become a farce. That opened the door, and they’re ploughing ahead with it regardless, despite the horrendous crowds. Let’s be honest, this won’t stop with a two year trial and who then decides whether it’s a success or not?

I also fail to be convinced that this would help Scottish football or the development of young players in any way. They always point to Spain and Germany as evidence that B teams work, but I’d suggest facilities and the number of qualified coaches per head in those countries compared to Scotland is more important. If they were really serious in trying to improve the Scottish game, maybe they’d come up with an idea to distribute revenue in a fairer way rather than the current 2% to League Two. How about using some of the pie to improve football facilities in each clubs locality. Or to train up more qualified coaches. This idea seems to benefit Rangers and Celtic more than Scottish football as a whole.

I understand the financial pressures considering the recent loses the club has made, and will continue to make, but the £15k per club will mean very little. Basically because all clubs will be getting it. Some will just spend it on players and wages. In order to keep up, Berwick will also have to do that. It won’t simply go to reducing the loss the club makes each year unless we’re happy to continue spending the same way we are whilst others use it towards their playing budget. I doubt there’s any suggestion that this money across all teams will be ringfenced to improve facilities or train up more coaches for the community.

If we get promoted there are similar sized teams in the league above. We’d lose that income and gain very little in extra revenue from promotion.

For me, Rangers and Celtic want to do this for their own benefit, and they and the SFA are desperately trying to put together an argument to support the plan. If they were to go back to the drawing board to think of the real reasons why Scottish football is failing, they wouldn’t come up with this ridiculous idea in an attempt to solve the problems.”

To add, at our supporters club meeting last week there weren’t any positive comments towards the proposal. Can’t stress how important it is that everyone tells their own clubs what they think of the plan.

[HibeeJibee]

1 minute ago, Swello said:

Massively, this.

What can the success criteria be for the pilot after two years? That no clubs have gone bust? That no Celtic starlets have been clogged out the game by a part-time centre half? The whole pilot aspect of this is one of the most intelligence insulting things about this sham.

Attempt to make it slightly less unpalatable - "c'mon it's only for 2yrs": in full knowledge it'd prove nothing of the sort.

Btw, I'd fully expect the claim Rangers 'B' & Celtic 'B playing in tier 4 will meaningfully improve the national XI is a case of everyone round the table knowing it's nonsense: but no-one wanting to say.

[DA Baracus]

11 minutes ago, Swello said:

Massively, this.

What can the success criteria be for the pilot after two years? That no clubs have gone bust? That no Celtic starlets have been clogged out the game by a part-time centre half? The whole pilot aspect of this is one of the most intelligence insulting things about this sham.

Yup. As well as them claiming to have done 'research', which they won't show us or tell us what it is (because the 'research' probably extends to 'Germany and Spain do it!') they make zero mention of what constitutes success and how that would be measured.

I also look forward to seeing Holland and Norway, two countries mentioned by name in the proposal, at the World Cup, just as I enjoyed their performances in the Euros in 2016, and before that I greatly enjoyed Norway at the World Cup in 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1990, 1986, 1982, 1978, 1974, 1970, 1966, 1962, 1958, 1954, 1934 and 1930 and the Euros in 2012, 2008, 2004, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964 and 1960. Both Holland and Norway, countries mentioned specifically by name in the document, have B teams, which is seemingly the key to success.

 

Norway, despite the massive advantage of having B teams, have only ever qualified for one Euros (2000) and three World Cups (1938, 1994 and 1998) since the inception of both tournaments

Edited January 23, 2018 by DA Baracus

[haufdaft]

Why not just force all Scottish premier league teams to play a minimum of three Scottish under 20s players in all league matches?

It'll be for the good of the Scottish national team after all.

[Swello]

4 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Attempt to make it slightly less unpalatable - "c'mon it's only for 2yrs": in full knowledge it'd prove nothing of the sort.
 

Given that it will be Rangers and Celtic the SPFL who will decide on the success of the pilot (based on criteria that either don't exist or won't be made public) - there is no realistic proposition of it ever being declared a failure, so this is a back-door reconstruction of the lower reaches of the league system and no-one should be naive enough to think otherwise.

[Ross.]

37 minutes ago, Swello said:

 

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. 

I largely agree with what you are saying. I think perhaps the UK more than anywhere would struggle to adapt this model because the lower leagues do mean so much and do have more tradition. Places like Germany, Portugal, Netherlands and Switzerland perhaps there isn’t as much tradition in terms of what the lower/regional leagues mean and where those teams rank in the bigger picture.

[DA Baracus]

Holland B Teams;

Utrecht - joined their second division in 2016

AZ Alkmaar - joined their second division in 2016

PSV - joined their second division in 2013

Ajax - joined their second division in 2013

 

Before that any B teams in Holland played in a reserve league.

Quite literally the only evidence from Holland is that since B teams have been introduced, the national team has done worse. Obviously this isn't down to B teams, but the sort of logic at play there is the sort being utilised by the SPFL.

[HibeeJibee]

It's not a linear argument anyway.

Some good quality countries don't have 'B' teams.

Some countries with 'B' teams are total rubbish.

"Aye, but Germany and Spain, ye ken" is not a justification.

[Pride Of The Clyde]

The Old Firm argue that additional income would be generated by hospitality, sponsoring and increased media interest and fan excitement.

 

That is my favourite bit, i'm sure fans are all jizzing themselves at the prospect.

 

[HibeeJibee]

Of course the Challenge Cup also indicated the precise opposite - plus this despite their first-teams not having games on the midweeks or international weekends in question, unlike Saturday league games (all away from home).

216 at Celtic 'B' v Annan... 449 at Cowdenbeath v Celtic 'B'... 324 at Rangers 'B' v Stenhousemuir... 278 at Annan v Celtic 'B'... 389 at Dumbarton v Rangers 'B'.