Cannibal Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 20 minutes ago, The Minertaur said: 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. Yes exactly that. Many people would expect there to be some record of a request/denial and documented reasons given if any genuine attempt was made to expand the league. You are free to believe it and others are free to conclude no genuine effort was made. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) 2 hours 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 first point is a fact and Lowland League clubs know it. The LL applied to have the 16 limit removed from its rules and the SFA rejected it. The LL have that in writing. The second point is the general belief and understanding of LL clubs following on from point 1. Edited August 21 by Cowden Cowboy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannibal Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 2 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said: The first point is a fact and Lowland League clubs know it. The LL applied to have the 16 limit removed from its rules and the SFA rejected it. The second point is the general belief and understanding of LL clubs following on from point 1. Facts can be proven in general rather than simply "known". Let's take it at face value though, if there was an actual proposal to increase to 18 teams, where were these teams coming from? Presumably some form of agreement/discussion would have been had with those leagues if it was a genuine proposal. People might expect there to be some evidence or minutes of meetings where these were agreed/rejected. Maybe that was confirmed on a different podcast? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted August 21 Author Share Posted August 21 30 minutes ago, Cannibal said: Facts can be proven in general rather than simply "known". Let's take it at face value though, if there was an actual proposal to increase to 18 teams, where were these teams coming from? Presumably some form of agreement/discussion would have been had with those leagues if it was a genuine proposal. People might expect there to be some evidence or minutes of meetings where these were agreed/rejected. Maybe that was confirmed on a different podcast? Can you share the latest SPFL minutes from the AGM or any recent meeting? Apparently this should be readily available information. As a supporter of a fan owned club like Clyde you should have easy access and can share with the rest of us. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde01 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 2 hours ago, Burnieman said: 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...... It’s an open forum so I’ll post where I want thanks. My interest in Scottish football extends beyond Clyde. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Clyde01 said: It’s an open forum so I’ll post where I want thanks. My interest in Scottish football extends beyond Clyde. Your knowledge clearly doesn't Edited August 21 by Burnieman -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Thought that document was very interesting and if that's the SFA's policy it basically kills stone dead any thoughts of B teams progressing through the pyramid. It also says they're basically a complete waste of time at this level, so hopefully they won't be around much longer. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, Cannibal said: Facts can be proven in general rather than simply "known". Let's take it at face value though, if there was an actual proposal to increase to 18 teams, where were these teams coming from? Presumably some form of agreement/discussion would have been had with those leagues if it was a genuine proposal. People might expect there to be some evidence or minutes of meetings where these were agreed/rejected. Maybe that was confirmed on a different podcast? They were coming from the Tier 6 leagues below the LL. Why would there be a discussion with the Leagues below on the number of clubs in the Lowland League under its rules? There is ample evidence but naturally it’s not all published in the public domain Edited August 21 by Cowden Cowboy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 1 hour ago, Cowden Cowboy said: The first point is a fact and Lowland League clubs know it. The LL applied to have the 16 limit removed from its rules and the SFA rejected it. The LL have that in writing. The second point is the general belief and understanding of LL clubs following on from point 1. There's as much evidence for this as there was for the conference being a done deal and would go ahead without a vote. Thomas Brown asking Maxwell if they could change the number to 18 and Maxwell saying "naw, ye cannae" is on the same level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted August 21 Author Share Posted August 21 Just now, Cowden Cowboy said: They were coming from the Tier 6 leagues below the LL. Why would their be a discussion with the Leagues below on the number of clubs in the Lowland League under its rules? Would it take place this season or next? Is it by applications? Change to the LL Playoff? Keep the existing LL Playoff rules and just not relegate anyone until the LL gets to 18? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannibal Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 49 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said: Can you share the latest SPFL minutes from the AGM or any recent meeting? Apparently this should be readily available information. As a supporter of a fan owned club like Clyde you should have easy access and can share with the rest of us. Minutes of the AGM would be shared with SPFL clubs and as one of the "owners" of Clyde, yes I would expect to be notified of any issues that affected Clyde or any proposals Clyde were involved in putting to the SFA. I'm not asking to see these minutes personally. I'm simply saying I wouldn't expect the only mention of such a thing to be one conflicted Chairman making a comment on a podcast. As you suggest in your later post, any serious proposal would have impacted others and involved consulting with them. Again, no one seems to have any evidence of that happening 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 48 minutes ago, craigkillie said: Thought that document was very interesting and if that's the SFA's policy it basically kills stone dead any thoughts of B teams progressing through the pyramid. It also says they're basically a complete waste of time at this level, so hopefully they won't be around much longer. It doesn't actually. For those clubs who operated a B Team in the Lowland League, they believed this experience was more beneficial than playing U18s Academy football, but still felt that a middle step was needed to prepare the players for 1st team level. That's the only direct reference in the report to B teams in the LL. The "middle step" includes B teams progressing further up the Pyramid [and loans], but is without support so it's not an option being considered. As was shown in Section 3, the B Team Model abroad (where the teams are able play at a higher level of league than in the Scottish set-up, which limits them to Tier 5) has been shown to be effective both in ECA and FIFA reports. However, based on the feedback we have received, the model of allowing these teams to advance through the pyramid is without support in our country, and we should look to generate other solutions. So if the report is to be taken seriously, what it should do is kill Maxwell's Conference stone dead. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 56 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said: Would it take place this season or next? Is it by applications? Change to the LL Playoff? Keep the existing LL Playoff rules and just not relegate anyone until the LL gets to 18? No you get the rule changed - then consider what approach to take. It would not normally be introduced during a season but prior to commencement of a new campaign. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 39 minutes ago, Cannibal said: Minutes of the AGM would be shared with SPFL clubs and as one of the "owners" of Clyde, yes I would expect to be notified of any issues that affected Clyde or any proposals Clyde were involved in putting to the SFA. I'm not asking to see these minutes personally. I'm simply saying I wouldn't expect the only mention of such a thing to be one conflicted Chairman making a comment on a podcast. As you suggest in your later post, any serious proposal would have impacted others and involved consulting with them. Again, no one seems to have any evidence of that happening The LL doesn’t need to run rule changes past its Tier 6 pyramid leagues eg the change to FFP rules which impacts on candidate clubs seeking promotion. Likewise the SPFL doesn’t need to get LL and HL to agree to its rule changes - witness the bronze licence criteria issue. The proposal was to remove the 16 club limit for the LL and it to have the same flexibility as regards numbers as the HL - then the LL would have considered what the next steps would have been once approved 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 18 minutes ago, Burnieman said: It doesn't actually. For those clubs who operated a B Team in the Lowland League, they believed this experience was more beneficial than playing U18s Academy football, but still felt that a middle step was needed to prepare the players for 1st team level. That's the only direct reference in the report to B teams in the LL. The "middle step" includes B teams progressing further up the Pyramid [and loans], but is without support so it's not an option being considered. As was shown in Section 3, the B Team Model abroad (where the teams are able play at a higher level of league than in the Scottish set-up, which limits them to Tier 5) has been shown to be effective both in ECA and FIFA reports. However, based on the feedback we have received, the model of allowing these teams to advance through the pyramid is without support in our country, and we should look to generate other solutions. So if the report is to be taken seriously, what it should do is kill Maxwell's Conference stone dead. Yes, I read the report. It is clear that the B Teams in the Lowland League are not serving their intended purpose of preparing players for the first team, and that there is no prospect of B teams being anywhere else in the pyramid. In other words, a complete dead end. Celtic did not get into this with a long-term plan of having a B Team in the 5th tier indefinitely, so it seems unlikely they'll be continuing to waste their money on it when they can use some of the other options. Hearts may still find it useful for them but let's be honest they are purely tag-alongs here and the Lowland League have no genuine interest in them. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shannon Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) With Gala bottom and one of the favourites for relegation I can genuinely see Thomas Brown saying actually we will increase to 18 permanent teams from next season but no relegation this season with at least 2 up from West, East & South. As has been said Lowland League should be asking the question every season about 18 permanent teams for as long as Highland League have but perhaps happy with 2 - 4 guest B teams and money that comes with it. Edited August 21 by Shannon 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyro Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 43 minutes ago, Shannon said: With Gala bottom and one of the favourites for relegation I can genuinely see Thomas Brown saying actually we will increase to 18 permanent teams from next season but no relegation this season with at least 2 up from West, East & South. As has been said Lowland League should be asking the question every season about 18 permanent teams for as long as Highland League have but perhaps happy with 2 - 4 guest B teams and money that comes with it. He needs punted ASAP. Fraser and himself have caused irreparable damage to the LL over the last few seasons by allowing the B teams in and pulling up the relegation drawbridge to save their own skins. Neither of them have an ounce of credibility left with supporters of the lower leagues 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 18 minutes ago, Spyro said: He needs punted ASAP. Fraser and himself have caused irreparable damage to the LL over the last few seasons by allowing the B teams in and pulling up the relegation drawbridge to save their own skins. Neither of them have an ounce of credibility left with supporters of the lower leagues The Lowland League need a strong Thomas Brown. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) 1 hour ago, craigkillie said: Yes, I read the report. It is clear that the B Teams in the Lowland League are not serving their intended purpose of preparing players for the first team, and that there is no prospect of B teams being anywhere else in the pyramid. In other words, a complete dead end. Celtic did not get into this with a long-term plan of having a B Team in the 5th tier indefinitely, so it seems unlikely they'll be continuing to waste their money on it when they can use some of the other options. Hearts may still find it useful for them but let's be honest they are purely tag-alongs here and the Lowland League have no genuine interest in them. No you read into it what you wanted to read. The desire is that B teams can progress higher than tier 5 [I think Naismith was quoted along those lines] but given that's not a majority view within the game that won't happen (as I quote from the report), therefore that further step isn't open to them. The further step that's being proposed is cooperation agreements. Nothing in the report criticises B teams, it acknowledges that different teams have different approaches to bridging the gap between U18 and first team and B teams are currently one of those. B teams are highlighted as being beneficial in other countries who allow them further up the pyramid. Hearts have probably benefitted more from having a B team than Celtic with Tait and Wilson making competitive first team appearances from the B team since it was created, with others making the bench. Some have also went out on loan. Whether that approach changes with the recommendation of cooperation agreements remains to be seen, it's not going to happen tomorrow and may not happen at all. The suggestion is that clubs can send out 4 or 5 players to a lower tier team where they have an agreement - almost at will at outwith transfer windows - and recall them as and when required. Not sure how that impacts these clubs who are on the receiving end. Makes no difference to me if B teams stay or disappear, but what is abundantly clear is a solution is needed given the mess that exists between U18 and SPFL, which helps no one. Edited August 21 by Burnieman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connor7 Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Would expect EK to start motoring ahead now. Braves have made a positive start to the season. Pretty competitive start to the season, most teams taken points from each other. 1 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.