Lowland League General Discussion

[craigkillie]

3 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Why don't they play home and away league season giving an extra 8 games?

Probably because they didn't want to, you'd need to ask the clubs that. I assume only the teams actually playing in it get to decide on the format.

[Burnieman]

17 hours ago, craigkillie said:

There is also a cup competition with a group stage. Of course, the number of games would have increased if other clubs had not pulled out.

 

13 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Probably because they didn't want to, you'd need to ask the clubs that. I assume only the teams actually playing in it get to decide on the format.

 

So in reality the clubs don't want to play more games, regardless of how many are in the league.  If there were 12 clubs they'd only want to play 11.

It's a farce.

[craigkillie]

10 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

So in reality the clubs don't want to play more games, regardless of how many are in the league.  If there were 12 clubs they'd only want to play 11.

It's a farce.

If the clubs who wanted to play more games took part then they'd be able to vote on it to influence that.
 

[Burnieman]

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

If the clubs who wanted to play more games took part then they'd be able to vote on it to influence that.
 

All I'm pointing out is that the current reserve league doesn't need more clubs in order to play more games.   The fact that they don't perhaps illustrates why other clubs are not interested in it.

[Dev]

22 hours ago, Alberto Spencer said:

Here's the Final Reserve League Table. Congrats to QP. Only 8 games seems a tad short for a season.

POS.		P	W	D	L	GF	GA	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	PTS
1	Queen's Park Reserves	8	3	1	0	7	1	3	0	1	12	6	12	19
2	Dundee Reserves	8	2	1	1	5	3	2	2	0	6	1	7	15
3	Hibernian Reserves	8	2	1	1	9	5	2	1	1	9	6	7	14
4	Kilmarnock Reserves	8	2	0	2	18	8	2	1	1	9	8	11	13
5	Ayr United Reserves	8	1	1	2	7	12	3	0	1	7	4	-2	13
6	Dunfermline Athletic Reserves	8	1	1	2	7	10	2	0	2	7	4	0	10
7	Queen of the South Reserves	8	1	0	3	7	9	2	1	1	9	9	-2	10
8	Livingston Reserves	8	1	0	3	8	9	0	2	2	5	13	-9	5
9	Airdrieonians Reserves	8	0	2	2	3	10	0	0	4	3	20	-24	2

Strange that they cannot figure out how to play home AND away fixtures in the same season!

[Dev]

13 hours ago, parsforlife said:

Youth football as a whole is based on signing 100 and hope 1 is good enough.  That multiplies out the further down the ages you go but by the time players become first team eligible it is time to have honest conversations,  but they won't cos by that point you've identified the 1/2 that actually have a chance and you want them to have team mates of reasonable quality so you keep telling the 16 year old who may play between league 2 and EoS 2nd division that they have a chance to play premiership even tho you know that's unlikely. 

Another motivator for that is clubs are too scared to make release a player and realise they fucked up, so the keep to many than take that risk.

Part of the SFA development funding clubs get is based on how players making first team or national squads,  The flip side should also be considered about how many players are kept on too long.

That's interesting. Any info on the other parts which affect SFA Development funding?

[parsforlife]

7 hours ago, Burnieman said:

 

Reserve football is currently a farce and there's not enough clubs who will put the money in to make it what is used to be, and it's less than half the number of games the LL B teams pl. The current league plays each other only once, why not home and away to increase matches.

B team league football is only open to 2 clubs, and has age restrictions which make it development football as opposed to reserve football. Rangers play friendlies but I think only managed 8 since January which on the face of it, is hopeless.

 

I'd personally like to see a proper reserve league back in place, taking your best players from U16/U18 and mixing them with your fringe first team and those coming back from injury, have a limit to how many senior players can be in the match squad. Sounds very old skool but it did appear to work and many an International came through that system.  Play it Monday nights, promote it, free to season ticket holders etc etc, not this midweek afternoon nonsense.

But it needs clubs to support it and there just isn't enough interest. There should be, first team squads at many clubs are bloated, so there's always 6 or 7 players not getting off the bench or not in the squad, not getting game time. B teams in their current form dont help that either.

 

 

 

A few points here. The clubs don’t want to commit to a lot of games, this is mostly IMO because they don’t want to interfere much with first team fixtures, the first 2 months of the season are pretty much written off due to league cup and clubs not having completed their squads yet, you have the busy spell before Xmas where premiership clubs play quite a few midweek games to allow for a winter break which is also a time they don’t want to play reserve football and then coming into the business end of the season squads begin to get stretched 

2.  We’ve moved things around quite a lot with when to play including enforcing evening games which are available to fans(I think games are still required to have public access tho your not getting many midweek afternoon)  it seems to always drift back to playing games midweek afternoons, I guess cos it’s easier for working around training.

3. I completely disagree with there being 6-7 first team players not getting game time, it’s simply not true for huge chunks of the reserve league playing teams, one of the reasons the old fashioned style league died off is have 25+ senior players is completely unaffordable 

Just as an example, I think every player from both sides in our last game vs airdie was u18 eligible apart from max little our reserve keeper.  In the cup final vs livi little was our only over 18, livi had a couple but apart from tommy sharp they were guys getting game time out on loan instead.

5 hours ago, Dev said:

That's interesting. Any info on the other parts which affect SFA Development funding?

Honestly I can’t remember where i read it, it was an official SFA document I think. Other aspects are coaches qualifications training facilities and possibly performance schools link up, but don’t quote me on that.

 

Edited May 8 by parsforlife

[Burnieman]

6 hours ago, parsforlife said:

A few points here. The clubs don’t want to commit to a lot of games, this is mostly IMO because they don’t want to interfere much with first team fixtures, the first 2 months of the season are pretty much written off due to league cup and clubs not having completed their squads yet, you have the busy spell before Xmas where premiership clubs play quite a few midweek games to allow for a winter break which is also a time they don’t want to play reserve football and then coming into the business end of the season squads begin to get stretched 

2.  We’ve moved things around quite a lot with when to play including enforcing evening games which are available to fans(I think games are still required to have public access tho your not getting many midweek afternoon)  it seems to always drift back to playing games midweek afternoons, I guess cos it’s easier for working around training.

3. I completely disagree with there being 6-7 first team players not getting game time, it’s simply not true for huge chunks of the reserve league playing teams, one of the reasons the old fashioned style league died off is have 25+ senior players is completely unaffordable 

Just as an example, I think every player from both sides in our last game vs airdie was u18 eligible apart from max little our reserve keeper.  In the cup final vs livi little was our only over 18, livi had a couple but apart from tommy sharp they were guys getting game time out on loan instead.

Honestly I can’t remember where i read it, it was an official SFA document I think. Other aspects are coaches qualifications training facilities and possibly performance schools link up, but don’t quote me on that.

Most Premiership clubs operate with around 25 first team players give or take, or what they class as first team.  Assuming everyone is fit, that's upto 9 players not getting game time any any given matchday.  Now of course some of them may be U18 players so can drop into CAS games, but even looking at Livvy in a recent programme of theirs, they list 27 and there's only three names I didn't recognise (U18?).  Motherwell list 26 first team players on their website.

We have B teams in Lowland League, B teams that just play friendlies, Reserve teams that play a truncated season, clubs with no B or Reserve team at all.

Sounds like different clubs want different things out of Reserve/B/U18 football and hence why there are different "solutions" and it's a free for all mess.  I'm not sure there's an overall solution that all clubs will get on-board with.  

[parsforlife]

54 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Most Premiership clubs operate with around 25 first team players give or take, or what they class as first team.  Assuming everyone is fit, that's upto 9 players not getting game time any any given matchday.  Now of course some of them may be U18 players so can drop into CAS games, but even looking at Livvy in a recent programme of theirs, they list 27 and there's only three names I didn't recognise (U18?).  Motherwell list 26 first team players on their website.

We have B teams in Lowland League, B teams that just play friendlies, Reserve teams that play a truncated season, clubs with no B or Reserve team at all.

Sounds like different clubs want different things out of Reserve/B/U18 football and hence why there are different "solutions" and it's a free for all mess.  I'm not sure there's an overall solution that all clubs will get on-board with.  

Lets take motherwell, and base on their last game,  oxbourgh, not involved could do with some reserve minutes shaw, used recently as late sub maybe could have some minutes. mugabi, reasonable recent minutes.  ferrie, u18 eligible. devine- injured Montgomery- injured  elliot- seems out of favour maguire- out on loan.  slattery- injured.  obika- injured.  vale- suspended. The rest played.

So there's maybe 3 players who would benefit from a reserve game, two being involved alot in first team squads so your not going to play them in reserve football if first team games are closer than 4-5 days apart, and the other who looks like he'll be out the door in a few weeks.

Its ridiculous to presume everyone fit,  you expect to be 4-5+ short most weeks.  

Clubs do want different things, not just season to season but also week to week.  That's why we get wild score lines when suddenly you have 6 experienced pros and older teens come up against a team with a 17 year old captain where his 3 first team games 4 tiers down is considered experienced, you've just got to accept that, we're never going to get a perfect solution, but any solution that involves B teams playing in otherwise first team leagues is unacceptable no matter the package.

Edited May 8 by parsforlife

[EdinburghBlue]

If Edinburgh City fail to get their bronze licence (or Airdrie or Kelty for that matter) would this be treated as a relegation to the Lowland League or would they go right to the bottom of the East?

[Burnieman]

9 hours ago, parsforlife said:

Lets take motherwell, and base on their last game,  oxbourgh, not involved could do with some reserve minutes shaw, used recently as late sub maybe could have some minutes. mugabi, reasonable recent minutes.  ferrie, u18 eligible. devine- injured Montgomery- injured  elliot- seems out of favour maguire- out on loan.  slattery- injured.  obika- injured.  vale- suspended. The rest played.

So there's maybe 3 players who would benefit from a reserve game, two being involved alot in first team squads so your not going to play them in reserve football if first team games are closer than 4-5 days apart, and the other who looks like he'll be out the door in a few weeks.

Its ridiculous to presume everyone fit,  you expect to be 4-5+ short most weeks.  

Clubs do want different things, not just season to season but also week to week.  That's why we get wild score lines when suddenly you have 6 experienced pros and older teens come up against a team with a 17 year old captain where his 3 first team games 4 tiers down is considered experienced, you've just got to accept that, we're never going to get a perfect solution, but any solution that involves B teams playing in otherwise first team leagues is unacceptable no matter the package.

You said having 25+ first team squads is completely unaffordable, I'm pointing out that probably ever single Premiership club has a 25 man first team squad, and as such 6-7 first team players could potentially be missing out on game time. That's a fact regardless of how you dress it up.

If you agree clubs all want different things and that an overall solution acceptable to the majority of clubs is unattainable, then B teams will continue in the Pyramid and there's nothing really wrong with that, although the manner of their introduction to it and the Conference idea was wrong, and their continuation as "guest teams" is also wrong. 

A solution needs to be found because as I keep saying, B teams are not going away (not for the next 3 years anway). The SFA support the concept, support their inclusion in the Pyramid, and want a permanent solution.  You may not like hearing that, but that's where we are.

 

[Burnieman]

2 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said:

If Edinburgh City fail to get their bronze licence (or Airdrie or Kelty for that matter) would this be treated as a relegation to the Lowland League or would they go right to the bottom of the East?

Presumably they are expelled from the SPFL and then have to seek membership of another league, and start at the bottom.

[tamthebam]

12 hours ago, Burnieman said:

Presumably they are expelled from the SPFL and then have to seek membership of another league, and start at the bottom.

Ach well, I quite enjoyed my pie at Linton Hotspur.. 

Maybe the Edinburgh Ammies is the place to be instead! 

[To B or not B]

12 hours ago, Burnieman said:

Presumably they are expelled from the SPFL and then have to seek membership of another league, and start at the bottom.

That should be the way, but I’m sure there will be some cunning plan being devised at Hampden just now.

[GordonS]

12 hours ago, Burnieman said:

Presumably they are expelled from the SPFL and then have to seek membership of another league, and start at the bottom.

Is there anything in the LL constitution or pyramid rules that would prevent the LL from voting another club in, like they did with the B teams? 

[Burnieman]

5 minutes ago, GordonS said:

Is there anything in the LL constitution or pyramid rules that would prevent the LL from voting another club in, like they did with the B teams? 

There's no vacancy to fill and the LL isn't allowed to expand beyond 16 member clubs.  The B teams are "guest clubs", not members.

[Dev]

On 09/05/2024 at 09:32, Burnieman said:

Presumably they are expelled from the SPFL and then have to seek membership of another league, and start at the bottom.

Surely failure to reach a particular level of Licence would mean that they might be relegated to the next highest division within the pyramid which accepts whatever level of Licence which they end up with? That would mean filling the gap in the SFL which it would create. How to do that is the real question as I see it (FWIW).

Presumably the clubs to benefit would be  Stranraer and EK with both being in the SFL2 next season. That would create a gap in the LL. How would/should that be filled?

[Burnieman]

8 minutes ago, Dev said:

Surely failure to reach a particular level of Licence would mean that they might be relegated to the next highest division within the pyramid which accepts whatever level of Licence which they end up with? That would mean filling the gap in the SFL which it would create. How to do that is the real question as I see it (FWIW).

Presumably the clubs to benefit would be  Stranraer and EK with both being in the SFL2 next season. That would create a gap in the LL. How would/should that be filled?

I doubt the SPFL have the power to place expelled clubs into the next level down.  Clubs are expelled for failing to meet membership requirements, that's it, they're then on their own.

[To B or not B]

28 minutes ago, Dev said:

Surely failure to reach a particular level of Licence would mean that they might be relegated to the next highest division within the pyramid which accepts whatever level of Licence which they end up with? That would mean filling the gap in the SFL which it would create. How to do that is the real question as I see it (FWIW).

Presumably the clubs to benefit would be  Stranraer and EK with both being in the SFL2 next season. That would create a gap in the LL. How would/should that be filled?

According to LL rules it should be filled by application.

[RampantFM]

On 09/05/2024 at 06:57, EdinburghBlue said:

If Edinburgh City fail to get their bronze licence (or Airdrie or Kelty for that matter) would this be treated as a relegation to the Lowland League or would they go right to the bottom of the East?

There's no obligation for the Lowland League to accept Edinburgh City, it would most likely go down to a member's vote. I would expect the runner-up of the Lowland League Playoff to have a chance of an invite too, if there was an additional space in the league.

I've heard the Lowland League are bringing in a certificate of undertaking similiar to the SPFL, so City would need to pass that also.