welshbairn Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 2 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said: If it was the only possible reason, then when does the cap on 16 date back to the inception of the Lowland League? Planning ahead. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 On 18/08/2024 at 15:59, tamthebam said: Another Westie whinging. When the LL was set up there were places left for any Central/Ayrshire Juniors who would be interested. A couple of clubs were but had their arms twisted by the SJFA. This is the reason EK, BSC and Cumbernauld got in and not, say, Pollok, Clydebank and Talbot. Having seen Beith get taken apart by Bo'ness Ath I'm not sure who these "superior" clubs are. I've been to Shotts v Clydebank this season and am not sure either club would trouble Lithgae, Bo'ness United, Tranent or Broxburn overly. Get the B teams out though Aye we wouldnt trouble Bo’ness, apart from a half strength team of ours pumping them preseason at their own ground. But aye, im sure we’d struggle…. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 2 hours ago, Clyde01 said: There is absolutely no reason why the lowland league shouldn’t be allowed to expand to 18 proper teams (and fire the b-teams into the sun). Whoever at the SFA has apparently blocked this needs to give a clear rationale as to why. The highland league having 18 teams when (a) they struggle to get games played and (b) they have a much smaller pyramid of clubs below them; makes a complete mockery of any argument. You’ve also got Cowdenbeath justifying their b-team sympathising as down to a desperate need for more gate money from the extra 2 home games. The obvious solution is expand the league to 18 teams, it’s a certainty the likes of talbot or Clydebank would bring more fans than a b-team anyway. The only possible reason I can see for capping the league at 16 is to leave space for ‘guest clubs’. What is it with Clyde fans all of a sudden? their brush with death seems to have spooked them. As explained, capping at 16 clubs has little to do with B teams and everything to do with politics and not wanting a further 2 full voting members at tier 5, further tipping the voting balance between SPFL and the rest. The SFA would quite like the HL to reduce to 16 as well. Remember, only clubs at tier 5 and above, plus the legacy members below that, have voting rights. The likes of Talbot, Pollok, Musselburgh etc, despite being SFA members, do not have a vote at AGM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 2 hours ago, Clyde01 said: Then challenge it! As a club so financially impacted they had to resort to voting for b-teams in desperation surely Cowdenbeath should be at the forefront of challenging this. Maybe they're happy with the 2 extra home games and the £100k fee paid to the league every season, allied to the fact the B teams neither stop teams from being promoted or relegated? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 (edited) Just released today, fill your boots. A tad more thorough than Maxwell's back of fag packed Conference solution. Transition phase is fancy words for how to get from U18 fitba to first team fitba. B teams mentioned. "Cooperation agreements" is the next idea, ie Rangers can send 4-5 youngsters to Clyde over and above any loan deals so they can get senior first team minutes. Reserve football doesn't seem very popular. Scottish FA Transition Phase Report 190824.pdf Edited August 20 by Burnieman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowenan Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwullieac Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 2 hours ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: Aye we wouldnt trouble Bo’ness, apart from a half strength team of ours pumping them preseason at their own ground. But aye, im sure we’d struggle…. Pre-season friendlies arent competitive matches, behave yourself 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 1 hour ago, Burnieman said: Maybe they're happy with the 2 extra home games and the £100k fee paid to the league every season, allied to the fact the B teams neither stop teams from being promoted or relegated? Nothing desperate about Cowdenbeath’s voting - logical and thought out and not based on the simplistic, partial scenarios that posters on here like to suggest 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 2 hours ago, Burnieman said: What is it with Clyde fans all of a sudden? their brush with death seems to have spooked them. As explained, capping at 16 clubs has little to do with B teams and everything to do with politics and not wanting a further 2 full voting members at tier 5, further tipping the voting balance between SPFL and the rest. The SFA would quite like the HL to reduce to 16 as well. Remember, only clubs at tier 5 and above, plus the legacy members below that, have voting rights. The likes of Talbot, Pollok, Musselburgh etc, despite being SFA members, do not have a vote at AGM. Why would 2 more teams from tier 5 with voting rights be such a big deal? No precedent set for teams below. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 40 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said: Nothing desperate about Cowdenbeath’s voting - logical and thought out and not based on the simplistic, partial scenarios that posters on here like to suggest I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that before they were asked to vote on B-teams they were solidly against introducing them into the leagues, and then after they approved them they were thrown unmerited cup entries like confetti. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde01 Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 46 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said: Nothing desperate about Cowdenbeath’s voting - logical and thought out and not based on the simplistic, partial scenarios that posters on here like to suggest Aye, pandering to the destruction of competitive football in the lower leagues to allow a few teams to develop their kids for a few extra £s a season seems well thought out. Funny how all the other proper clubs stood up to this leaving Cowdenbeath voting with a bunch of boys clubs, universities and no mark vanity projects. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 11 minutes ago, Clyde01 said: Aye, pandering to the destruction of competitive football in the lower leagues to allow a few teams to develop their kids for a few extra £s a season seems well thought out. Funny how all the other proper clubs stood up to this leaving Cowdenbeath voting with a bunch of boys clubs, universities and no mark vanity projects. You guys use the Farage and Kelvin Mackenzie approach - your grasp of the true facts are limited and skewed by your prejudices - therein is the real pandering 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannibal Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 6 hours ago, Cowden Cowboy said: You guys use the Farage and Kelvin Mackenzie approach - your grasp of the true facts are limited and skewed by your prejudices - therein is the real pandering This is quite funny because when I posted true facts such as the actual league rules, hosted on the league website, the response was to ignore that but that we should take someone's word on it that the league wanted to expand. The evidence for this was...something someone mentioned on a podcast . Above we also hear things like the 'SFA want to reduce the Highland League to 16 teams' being used as a defence of the lowland league for some bizarre reason. This also appears to just be speculation/opinion. The only genuine fact we have is an admission from some of you that the league (overall) is happy to devalue itself for £100k. It is only a very small step from that to accept this devaluing has an impact on the argument to open up further promotion spots but you will get there I am sure. And yes, Clyde fans are interested in the league they could fall into. It may surprise fans of certain clubs in the lowland league but most Scottish football fans want a working pyramid and not one that has this anti-competitive nonsense and bribery going on at level 5. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Two Clyde fans suddently apppear on the Lowland League forum and start bashing it from pillar to post, and when posters explain the facts to them, they just ignore it and carry on bashing with ridiculous crap like "anti-competitive and bribery" FFS Perhaps scuttle off back to L2 forum until such times as we formally welcome you here as members...... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) 8 hours ago, welshbairn said: I don't think it's entirely a coincidence that before they were asked to vote on B-teams they were solidly against introducing them into the leagues, and then after they approved them they were thrown unmerited cup entries like confetti. 1 hour ago, Cannibal said: It may surprise fans of certain clubs in the lowland league but most Scottish football fans want a working pyramid and not one that has this anti-competitive nonsense and bribery going on at level 5. Maybe check your own house to find some anti-competitiveness and bribery. Edited August 21 by Burnieman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 8 hours ago, welshbairn said: Why would 2 more teams from tier 5 with voting rights be such a big deal? No precedent set for teams below. You may want to ask the SFA that. SPFL - 42 votes, Tier 5 - 34 votes, legacy votes 16-ish There is talk of the legacy clubs having voting rights removed unless they reach tier 5, in line with other member clubs at tier 6 and below. So far that's not been tabled as a proposal and so it remains that in theory, non-league clubs can outvote the SPFL at an SFA AGM. You and I may not see that as a big deal, there's people at Hampden who disagree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Minertaur Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 1 hour ago, Cannibal said: This is quite funny because when I posted true facts such as the actual league rules, hosted on the league website, the response was to ignore that but that we should take someone's word on it that the league wanted to expand. The evidence for this was...something someone mentioned on a podcast . Above we also hear things like the 'SFA want to reduce the Highland League to 16 teams' being used as a defence of the lowland league for some bizarre reason. This also appears to just be speculation/opinion. The only genuine fact we have is an admission from some of you that the league (overall) is happy to devalue itself for £100k. It is only a very small step from that to accept this devaluing has an impact on the argument to open up further promotion spots but you will get there I am sure. And yes, Clyde fans are interested in the league they could fall into. It may surprise fans of certain clubs in the lowland league but most Scottish football fans want a working pyramid and not one that has this anti-competitive nonsense and bribery going on at level 5. You mean the quote from the Lowland League chair who was on a podcast? Seems a credible source to me and I'd imagine anybody with an IQ higher than 5. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted August 21 Author Share Posted August 21 The whole boundary change debacle played out in the press and online docs. Not really from internal communications being leaked from what I remember. Apparently that didn't happen going by the standards applied. I know there's a certain belief that the B teams don't count to the number of clubs, but they only bumped up the rule to 19 when Hearts/Celtic/Rangers were all competing. If they had to go running to the SFA for minor tweaks and have had public facing people saying they've asked to expand to 18 proper clubs. I don't see why anyone would doubt them. The issue is more on the LL not pushing the matter. That there are those happier to pocket the £100k a year to the league and no impact on the status quo. Whereas 18 proper clubs would push clubs down and out. In the same way there are clubs that tried to close the door on relegation changes until the SPFL did something. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 5 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said: The issue is more on the LL not pushing the matter. That there are those happier to pocket the £100k a year to the league and no impact on the status quo. Whereas 18 proper clubs would push clubs down and out. In the same way there are clubs that tried to close the door on relegation changes until the SPFL did something. Not sure how they would push it, perhaps by formally voting it through at AGM and presenting it to the SFA for approval, and if refused then look to push it but in what manner? 18 permanent clubs would/should allow for increased relegation/promotion, they could also still retain 2 B teams. An 18 club + 2 "guests" league is probably about it's limit. However as we know, the SFA do not like being pushed or exposed on stuff like this and most of what goes on is behind closed doors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) 11 hours ago, Burnieman said: Just released today, fill your boots. A tad more thorough than Maxwell's back of fag packed Conference solution. Transition phase is fancy words for how to get from U18 fitba to first team fitba. B teams mentioned. "Cooperation agreements" is the next idea, ie Rangers can send 4-5 youngsters to Clyde over and above any loan deals so they can get senior first team minutes. Reserve football doesn't seem very popular. Scottish FA Transition Phase Report 190824.pdf 2.51 MB · 26 downloads https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/news/scottish-fa-publishes-extensive-report-on-transition-from-academy-to-first-team-football/?rid=13929 https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/24531309.shocking-lack-minutes-young-scots-laid-bare-report/ Edited August 21 by Burnieman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.