Lowland League General Discussion

[Burnieman]

7 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

Define the “LL”. The same joke outfits who voted for B teams? The league as whole? The league board and chairman? 

The League Board clearly as every member club had a vote, the league itself didn't.  The Highland League for that matter did not come out in outright opposition either, just expressing disappointment at the way it's been handled.

[Burnieman]

1 minute ago, The Moonster said:

Just as well the LL don't decide on structural changes by themselves then. 

It's really not difficult, SPFL sides have been threatened by the Old Firm with shite like this for years now and at every turn it was rejected. It's the LL that is keeping the idea alive, it would be dead if those clubs didn't let them in. 

Yet those self same SPFL clubs would have waved though the Conference (with 4 B teams) had it not been for fan opposition, or at least a majority of them.  The barrier it presented between L2 and the HL/LL was attractive to many.

[Cowden Cowboy]

2 hours ago, Bestsinceslicebread said:

Some fantastic points raised here>
A...  Yip out of the 3 x B teams the teams who has benefited the most is Hearts as they have seen the young lads, 16,17,18 all doing great with experience playing in the Lowland men's league, having improved from last year with games that I have watched past couple of seasons but correct it is part, at the expense of Scottish football.  There is only one thing should happen, a reserve league.

B...  The Lowland with 16 teams officially and including two guests but the Highland is officially 18.  If the Lowland wanted more, take the SFA to task, the SFA/SPFL would lose. You cannot have it for one league on a level and not have it the same for the other league in the same level.

C... If teams are weak then they get relegated and your comments if it happened this season making both bottom clubs relegated would be ideal, not because the teams are weak but on a bigger scale, there is bigger movement relegation/promotion which does get people excited.

D... So true, every team relegated from the SPFL2 I bet, wishes now they had voted for relegation opened up from the SPFL2, especially Brechin as it would be a higher chance of going back up. 'Be an example', totally agree with you but the Lowland league, in their greed & self  is known for doing what's best for them even though they know its not the best thing for Scottish Football.  When you have Civil Service Strollers nominating that there should be no talk of relegation from the Lowland league until the SPFL2 open their relegation is a total joke.  Don't these teams realise that if they get relegated from the Lowland league, they will not automatically got straight back up.  if they opened it up it would give any relegated team a greater chance of going back.  Just look at Cowdenbeath, East Stirlingshire, Berwick Rangers, Albion Rovers and Brechin City.   

I wouldn't say the league is corrupt as they have been given power to veto relegation but there are people in position thinking of themselves to the detriment of Scottish football, again when the chairman Tom Brown was the deciding vote to allow B teams in the league in the first place and then recently telling everyone that the conference tier 5 league was a done deal and no matter what they Lowland and Highland leagues vote, the league is coming in, relegating some 200 teams, (His position to me is untenable but the league allow him to continue) and then you have Civil Service Strollers voting in the AGM that relegation from the Lowland league should not be talked about until the SPFL2 opens up their relegation.

I have been to games involving the Lowland, East, West, South, highland and North in past few years and its been enjoyable and personally all I was to see is our Scottish Pyramid thrive having an enthusiastic fan base of our Scottish pyramid, something we can all be, yes, all be proud of even if not right now but we are getting there, slowly. I will say that in the past 4 years we have actually came a long way from where we are, its still a long road but hopefully we will get it right and enjoy Scottish football and watch it thrive once more

 

B - how would the SFA lose?  Any LL rule change needs SFA ratification and they have confirmed they will not sanction an increase beyond 16.

D - you don’t know if every team relegated wishes they had voted to open up ventilation between L2 and Tier 5.  Are the teams who stepped up from Tier 5 agitating for such a change - no evidence of that.  Asking current SPFL clubs to make demotion easier doesn’t seem to have much traction as part of an overall rationale.

[To B or not B]

10 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

B - how would the SFA lose?  Any LL rule change needs SFA ratification and they have confirmed they will not sanction an increase beyond 16.

D - you don’t know if every team relegated wishes they had voted to open up ventilation between L2 and Tier 5.  Are the teams who stepped up from Tier 5 agitating for such a change - no evidence of that.  Asking current SPFL clubs to make demotion easier doesn’t seem to have much traction as part of an overall rationale.

Thats the most disappointing thing, my own team were very vocal and weren’t adverse to writing a statement or two re the perceived injustices of the various decisions re promotion/relegation votes, and now they don’t seem to be doing much to change from within in League 2. It’s very much a case of teams not wanting to rock the boat. Its the same for teams dropping out of the leagues.

Edited January 17 by To B or not B

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

36 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Yet those self same SPFL clubs would have waved though the Conference (with 4 B teams) had it not been for fan opposition, or at least a majority of them.  The barrier it presented between L2 and the HL/LL was attractive to many.

SPFL clubs voting based on what fans want should be commended not turned into some bizarre negative. You’d be as well just accepting that the sole reason that B teams are still a thing is because 9 loser clubs in the Lowland League didn’t vote against them. 

[Burnieman]

4 minutes ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

SPFL clubs voting based on what fans want should be commended not turned into some bizarre negative. You’d be as well just accepting that the sole reason that B teams are still a thing is because 9 loser clubs in the Lowland League didn’t vote against them. 

It wasn't a negative, read what I wrote and not what you thought I wrote.

The Conference was a complete nonsense and thankfully fan power won, but the inconvenient truth is, without it we would be facing a Conference League at tier 5 next season (or even this). Plenty SPFL clubs would have voted it through (and LL and HL).

Edited January 17 by Burnieman

[The Moonster]

1 hour ago, Burnieman said:

Yet those self same SPFL clubs would have waved though the Conference

Citation needed (and a daily rag article won't cut it). 

[Burnieman]

Just now, The Moonster said:

Citation needed (and a daily rag article won't cut it). 

It's ironic we have two Dumbarton fans on here giving it this and that whilst providing board and lodgings to a team who probably votes for B teams and would have backed the Conference.

[Bestsinceslicebread]

52 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

B - how would the SFA lose?  Any LL rule change needs SFA ratification and they have confirmed they will not sanction an increase beyond 16.

D - you don’t know if every team relegated wishes they had voted to open up ventilation between L2 and Tier 5.  Are the teams who stepped up from Tier 5 agitating for such a change - no evidence of that.  Asking current SPFL clubs to make demotion easier doesn’t seem to have much traction as part of an overall rationale.

B - if the Lowland had balls and wanted an 18 team league and even better increased relegation because of such, would most be in the same mindset of that, and with the SFA and SPFL being governing bodies and if they make one rule for one league and a different rule for another league for no good reason with no justification then if the Lowland wanted to take it further, even outwith the SFA ruling then i don't see any reason why the Lowland would lose, again my view. Would they do it?, (NO), do they want and 18 team league?, (doubt it)

D - I said its my view on the posts and at that particular point I said I bet they would change their view with hindsight if they had originally  voted for no relegation previously.   Every year, I've seen it, not all but most think they will come straight back up from relegation from the SPFL2 and it doesn't happen.

If each of these teams, Cowdenbeath, East Stirlingshire, Berwick Rangers, Albion Rovers and Brechin City had contributed and voted for no automatic relegation when in the SPFL2, do you think they are all still in the same mindset, knowing now that it will take a while for them to get back up to SPFL2 if they ever do, I doubt it very much, but that's my views.  I will say those former Spfl2 teams mentioned will be in this league for quite a while, unless they become worse run than they are now and end up being relegated or they have changes and become better run giving them a chance to be promoted.  Again my viewpoint, as it is a forum but most what they have voted for has backfired on them
 

[Cowden Cowboy]

5 minutes ago, Bestsinceslicebread said:

B - if the Lowland had balls and wanted an 18 team league and even better increased relegation because of such, would most be in the same mindset of that, and with the SFA and SPFL being governing bodies and if they make one rule for one league and a different rule for another league for no good reason with no justification then if the Lowland wanted to take it further, even outwith the SFA ruling then i don't see any reason why the Lowland would lose, again my view. Would they do it?, (NO), do they want and 18 team league?, (doubt it)

D - I said its my view on the posts and at that particular point I said I bet they would change their view with hindsight if they had originally  voted for no relegation previously.   Every year, I've seen it, not all but most think they will come straight back up from relegation from the SPFL2 and it doesn't happen.

If each of these teams, Cowdenbeath, East Stirlingshire, Berwick Rangers, Albion Rovers and Brechin City had contributed and voted for no automatic relegation when in the SPFL2, do you think they are all still in the same mindset, knowing now that it will take a while for them to get back up to SPFL2 if they ever do, I doubt it very much, but that's my views.  I will say those former Spfl2 teams mentioned will be in this league for quite a while, unless they become worse run than they are now and end up being relegated or they have changes and become better run giving them a chance to be promoted.  Again my viewpoint, as it is a forum but most what they have voted for has backfired on them
 

Why would LL clubs be against an 18 team league when that is their current match programme anyway?  Cloud cuckoo land re ‘taking it further’.

 

I don’t recall any club relegated into the LL giving any indication they expected to immediately bounce back.  
 

In essence the SPFL already gave a promotion opportunity that did not previously exist - can’t see any real reason why they would wish to be even more generous by extending that with nothing really offered in return.  

[Cowdenleith]

1 hour ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

SPFL clubs voting based on what fans want should be commended not turned into some bizarre negative. You’d be as well just accepting that the sole reason that B teams are still a thing is because 9 loser clubs in the Lowland League didn’t vote against them. 

Have you got some short term memory problems or something, if so I apologise for what follows?

You’ve now made pretty much the same point 4 times in the last 10 hours with varying degrees of vindictiveness.  
 
With one or two exceptions where people make some decent points, this thread has become an echo chamber of tediousness.

It’s easy to spot that fans of teams actually in the Lowland League, that pay their money through the gate, barely even bother with this thread anymore.  The b teams are there in the background, true, but it doesn’t make a difference week to week, I enjoy the match or sometimes (like Bo’ness at home last Saturday) I don’t.  The b team issue seems to consume so much energy of a few people here, it’s quite bizarre.

[Bestsinceslicebread]

14 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Why would LL clubs be against an 18 team league when that is their current match programme anyway?  Cloud cuckoo land re ‘taking it further’.

 

I don’t recall any club relegated into the LL giving any indication they expected to immediately bounce back.  
 

In essence the SPFL already gave a promotion opportunity that did not previously exist - can’t see any real reason why they would wish to be even more generous by extending that with nothing really offered in return.  

I never said they were against an 18 team league, i doubt it, the only benefit to the league teams was that the league would have more teams thus saving themselves a chance of being relegated.  Also who cloud cuckoo land?  its a governing body and if they say to the two leagues in tier 5, you will be an 18 team  league and you will be a 16 team league, what is that, bullying, victimization etc...  at the end of the da, they wouldn't take it further as the cost would outweigh the benefits for all the teams.

Not talking about the teams, the committees will have their own chat in meeting what they think, but fans will do make comments, and not just ones on here and again, i didn't say vast majority.

Agreed about nothing in return, but there should be anything rewarded except better, strong teams coming into a higher league, that's the reward.  The SFA and SPFL know its wrong and know there are better , stronger teams below at this current time so they should put pressure to get relegation in order.  One idea,  just tell the SPFL2 teams that if relegated there will be no parachute payments or help when relegated but there will be if relegation is opened up.

Everyone knows its wrong, the only reason why there's no automatic relegation is purely down to self preservation, as I said before, any teams relegated from the SPFL2, i don't see them coming back soon on the twist side, do we think teams like Kelty, Edinburgh City, Bonnyrigg, who are in the SPFL would vote against no relegation from the SPFl2.  then again, teams like Tranent and Linlithgow Rose, would they vote for to open up relegation from the Lowland league having come up in the past couple of years from the EOSFL, (it would be great to think, yes, they would)

Edited January 17 by Bestsinceslicebread

[kevsmart]

2 hours ago, Bring Back Paddy Flannery said:

Correct. Any league that contains B teams should not be taken remotely seriously and should not be part of our national pyramid. 

So what happens with the play off between Club 42 and winner of HL/LL?

[kevsmart]

3 hours ago, Burnieman said:

I think Hearts are definitely benefitting by the looks of it, they are playing a consistent squad and seem to have a structure towards it, no requests for weeks off because of, well just because.  Naismith starting out as B team manager probably also helps.  I do wonder what Rangers and Celtic get out of it, I'm not entirely sure there will be too many who make the step-up, and I'm surprised the likes of Hibs or even Motherwell or Killie don't look more closely at it ie clubs who really need to develop their younger players into the first team.

As you point out a proper reserve league would be desirable but really, nobody is interested. Even getting an U20 league together looks unlikely. Heads need banged together for a solution to the B team/Reserve issue but this is Scottish football, and everyone has their own self-interested position to defend first.

There is a proper Reserve League in place just now!

[Cowden Cowboy]

12 minutes ago, Bestsinceslicebread said:

I never said they were against an 18 team league, i doubt it, the only benefit to the league teams was that the league would have more teams thus saving themselves a chance of being relegated.  Also who cloud cuckoo land?  its a governing body and if they say to the two leagues in tier 5, you will be an 18 team  league and you will be a 16 team league, what is that, bullying, victimization etc...  at the end of the da, they wouldn't take it further as the cost would outweigh the benefits for all the teams.

Not talking about the teams, the committees will have their own chat in meeting what they think, but fans will do make comments, and not just ones on here and again, i didn't say vast majority.

Agreed about nothing in return, but there should be anything rewarded except better, strong teams coming into a higher league, that's the reward.  The SFA and SPFL know its wrong and know there are better , stronger teams below at this current time so they should put pressure to get relegation in order.  One idea,  just tell the SPFL2 teams that if relegated there will be no parachute payments or help when relegated but there will be if relegation is opened up.

Everyone knows its wrong, the only reason why there's no automatic relegation is purely down to self preservation, as I said before, any teams relegated from the SPFL2, i don't see them coming back soon on the twist side, do we think teams like Kelty, Edinburgh City, Bonnyrigg, who are in the SPFL would vote against no relegation from the SPFl2.  then again, teams like Tranent and Linlithgow Rose, would they vote for to open up relegation from the Lowland league having come up in the past couple of years from the EOSFL, (it would be great to think, yes, they would)

You make pretty sweeping claims.  Simply put the SFA don’t want any more clubs in Tier 5.  
 

Thus going to 18 would help in likely increasing ventilation on an ongoing basis from Tier 6 to LL.  
 

Nobody is proposing no relegation from L2 so teams like Kelty, etc aren’t being asked to vote for that

 

Why would Sfa and especially the SPFL to the detriment of its own member clubs exercise the pressure you suggest - there is no evidence they are pushing to enhance ventilation to Tier 4.  The SFA have stepped back from direct involvement in this area 

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

23 minutes ago, Cowdenleith said:

Have you got some short term memory problems or something, if so I apologise for what follows?

You’ve now made pretty much the same point 4 times in the last 10 hours with varying degrees of vindictiveness.  
 
With one or two exceptions where people make some decent points, this thread has become an echo chamber of tediousness.

It’s easy to spot that fans of teams actually in the Lowland League, that pay their money through the gate, barely even bother with this thread anymore.  The b teams are there in the background, true, but it doesn’t make a difference week to week, I enjoy the match or sometimes (like Bo’ness at home last Saturday) I don’t.  The b team issue seems to consume so much energy of a few people here, it’s quite bizarre.

Eh? 

I’m making the same point because some people are talking in riddles and clearly failing to understand what is a fairly black and white fact.

[The Moonster]

1 hour ago, Burnieman said:

It's ironic we have two Dumbarton fans on here giving it this and that whilst providing board and lodgings to a team who probably votes for B teams and would have backed the Conference.

We're not against the Lowland League or indeed youths getting match experience. We are against teams having more than 1 club in the league system, which we have consistently voted against and even stated that we would not be voting for the Conference before the authorities pulled the motion before anyone could lodge a single vote, such was the opposition to it. Broomhill rent our ground, as much as I'd like them not to I can't do much about it, nor can I stop them voting for B teams. 

But you carry on playing the poster instead of the post, it's really good for debate...

[Bestsinceslicebread]

1 hour ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

A.  You make pretty sweeping claims.  Simply put the SFA don’t want any more clubs in Tier 5.  
 

Thus going to 18 would help in likely increasing ventilation on an ongoing basis from Tier 6 to LL.  
 

B. Nobody is proposing no relegation from L2 so teams like Kelty, etc aren’t being asked to vote for that

 

C.  Why would Sfa and especially the SPFL to the detriment of its own member clubs exercise the pressure you suggest - there is no evidence they are pushing to enhance ventilation to Tier 4.  The SFA have stepped back from direct involvement in this area 

Honestly the SFA has many jobs and one of them is to improve Scottish football and get more people involved, not keep it stale and even corrupt, that wont improve bigger attendances at all levels

A.     Where does it say claims, most are my views, a bit different to claims
And again, the SFA don't want any more clubs in tier 5, that maybe true, (which I believe), may not be true, i aint privy but if that's the case, they should not be allowed to make it one rule for one league and a different rule for another league at the same level.  Have you realized its a governing body and there are bodies above them who could interdict and they make decisions that interfere with a place of work so obviously things can be taken further in different avenues but again, the cost and with self preservation, it wont happen.

B.  Again worried that your either ignoring this or not taking it in!!   It is already here, its a NO for automotive relegation from the SPFL2, the clubs voted on that but allowed club 42 to be in a relegation playoff to try and calm the situation.   Teams like Bonnyrigg, Tranent and Linlithgow Rose realize how hard it is to get promoted and you'd hope they would vote the same views to have relegation opened up in the SPFL2 and Lowland leagues.

C.   Again  the SFA has many jobs and one of them is to improve Scottish football and get more people involved, not keep it stale and even corrupt, that wont improve bigger attendances at all levels.  Did I say the SFA are pushing for enhanced ventilation, there not going to as we all know how corrupt it is.  They are stepping back from it, because they know its wrong and don't want to be plagued down with it.

if you can do a favour, if you read my posts or maybe others, do read it a couple of times as you've said a few things that I'm saying it true etc.. when I've plainly put it across as a viewpoint,  I don't get what you have to gain by changing it, I will only correct you and thus dilute your comments when others read it

Edited January 17 by Bestsinceslicebread

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, Burnieman said:

As I was saying about an open, serious debate.  Not that you will find it here, just head in sand stuff.  B teams aren't going away,

Do you normally start 'open serious debate' by incorrectly packaging your assertions as 'facts' without any supporting evidence?

And do you then follow up this high-minded intellectual opener by stating 'END OF' like a Facebook maw being called out for being a massive racist? 

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

And do you then follow up this high-minded intellectual opener by stating 'END OF' like a Facebook maw being called out for being a massive racist? 

Simples.com