Conference League Good Guys List

[Bundesliga Boy]

29 minutes ago, stanley said:

I'm not sure the EoS would have accepted them. I believe the last time they accepted any new B teams into the league was in 2013 after the formation of the Lowland League. Spartans and Stirling University left behind reserve sides, Hibs came in for one season only and Berwick had their last of a four season spell in the league. Since then, Spartans have gone and Stirling University remain just because they were already in the league. 

If allowed in, they certainly wouldn't have been allowed promotion to the Lowland League. 

 

You may well be right about not being accepted, but Hearts are very good at communicating with their supporters and it doesn't look like they even asked the question of EOS participation in the first place.

Hearts struggled in the Lowland League and in all honesty going forward as the bigger clubs (albeit slowly) replace the smaller community clubs, then Hearts B would likely be just a little out their depth.  In short I'd have been absolutely fine with a hearts B team that was capped at EOS Premier level as I think that's about right for them.

If they have any youngsters that they truly believe are real standouts then I'd be expecting them to be going out on loan much further up the football league. 

[Bundesliga Boy]

1 hour ago, Pyramid Watcher said:

I reckon you will a see a few clubs come out, who may previously have been yes, against it. They’ve waited to the last minute to see which way it was going and will now declare to allow them to be on the winning side.

 

Completely concur with that summation.

[Burnieman]

6 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Points have already been well covered - not here to answer ah but questions ad infinitum.  A new league can be created without SFA members voting.  

You've avoided the question again and no, nothing has been posted here to irrefutably prove the SFA have that power.

 

[Cowden Cowboy]

10 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

You've avoided the question again and no, nothing has been posted here to irrefutably prove the SFA have that power.

 

None so blind as those that will not see

[Burnieman]

3 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

None so blind as those that will not see

Let's face it, you can't explain why the easiest implementation of a new league ever - the WoSFL - which already had the full agreement of the PWG, had to be passed at SFA AGM rather than the SFA Board just doing it using their special powers.  That kinda undermines you're whole argument, which you never understood in the first place.

Either way, we'll soon find out if these special powers exist.

Edited June 4, 2023 by Burnieman

[beachboy]

1 hour ago, Pyramid Watcher said:

I reckon you will a see a few clubs come out, who may previously have been yes, against it. They’ve waited to the last minute to see which way it was going and will now declare to allow them to be on the winning side.

Berwick & Cowdenbeath to start with PW.

[Dev]

Thanks to the alleged Cowdenbeath supporters on here who have provoked sound responses from others for so many hours. You have defied your club's stance on this - so who are you really supporting? Must be closet OF fans? 

What are you going to try next after the vote goes against the proposed new conference league?

[Footballfirst]

27 minutes ago, Bundesliga Boy said:

 

You may well be right about not being accepted, but Hearts are very good at communicating with their supporters and it doesn't look like they even asked the question of EOS participation in the first place.

Hearts struggled in the Lowland League and in all honesty going forward as the bigger clubs (albeit slowly) replace the smaller community clubs, then Hearts B would likely be just a little out their depth.  In short I'd have been absolutely fine with a hearts B team that was capped at EOS Premier level as I think that's about right for them.

If they have any youngsters that they truly believe are real standouts then I'd be expecting them to be going out on loan much further up the football league. 

I disagree about Hearts communications. They choose their statements very carefully and avoid being contentious.  FOH can't even make a statement on topical issues without it being approved by the club Board. Now who owns who?

As far as the EOS is concerned, I have suggested it to Hearts coaching staff previously as an alternative to CAS U18s and above, although there were concerns about its impact on SFA funding of "elite" academies.  I have previously posted about the benefits of a pathway that involved playing EOS football rather than academy football for the first and second year professionals.

I agree on your last point that those who are going to make it with a premiership club need to be playing at a higher level than tier 5. 

Re Hearts B team least season, they were generally younger than the OF B teams and took half the season to come to terms with playing against adults.  They only had 11 points from the first 15 games, but turned it round and ended up with 37 points from next 21. Had they maintained the later rate of points accumulation for the whole of the season, then they would have finished on 63 points, just below EK. 

I've also spoken to a couple of SFA staff who are involved in player development and they both believed that Hearts got better development outcomes for their B Team players than either of the OF. 

[Cowden Cowboy]

24 minutes ago, Dev said:

Thanks to the alleged Cowdenbeath supporters on here who have provoked sound responses from others for so many hours. You have defied your club's stance on this - so who are you really supporting? Must be closet OF fans? 

What are you going to try next after the vote goes against the proposed new conference league?

CFC and its fans are united in opposition to the Conference.  No Cowden fan on here has supported the Conference.  But I guess facts for a number of folks on here aren’t a strongpoint rather they feel making unsubstantiated claims to be a valid   Methodology.  

[It's Me]

51 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Let's face it, you can't explain why the easiest implementation of a new league ever - the WoSFL - which already had the full agreement of the PWG, had to be passed at SFA AGM rather than the SFA Board just doing it using their special powers.  That kinda undermines you're whole argument, which you never understood in the first place.

Either way, we'll soon find out if these special powers exist.

It does exist under Article 18.4. 

[Bundesliga Boy]

25 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I disagree about Hearts communications. They choose their statements very carefully and avoid being contentious.  FOH can't even make a statement on topical issues without it being approved by the club Board. Now who owns who?

As far as the EOS is concerned, I have suggested it to Hearts coaching staff previously as an alternative to CAS U18s and above, although there were concerns about its impact on SFA funding of "elite" academies.  I have previously posted about the benefits of a pathway that involved playing EOS football rather than academy football for the first and second year professionals.

I agree on your last point that those who are going to make it with a premiership club need to be playing at a higher level than tier 5. 

Re Hearts B team least season, they were generally younger than the OF B teams and took half the season to come to terms with playing against adults.  They only had 11 points from the first 15 games, but turned it round and ended up with 37 points from next 21. Had they maintained the later rate of points accumulation for the whole of the season, then they would have finished on 63 points, just below EK. 

I've also spoken to a couple of SFA staff who are involved in player development and they both believed that Hearts got better development outcomes for their B Team players than either of the OF. 

 

Dictionary definition of contentious - "likely to cause disagreement or argument".  I mean they literally took legal action against the SPFL - not exactly playing ball and falling in line with their masters.

The updates on the website on various issues are both frequent and very welcome.

Had they maintained that form screams of if's, buts and maybes.  I guess next year we'll have a better idea of said progress - I really hope you're right on that issue for what it's worth.

 

 

[invergowrie arab]

11 minutes ago, It's Me said:

It does exist under Article 18.4. 

The power the board has under Article 18.4 is the ratification of changes to the rules or constitution of a league not run by an affiliated national association.

The paragraph could certainly do with some commas though.

 

[Cowden Cowboy]

1 hour ago, beachboy said:

Berwick & Cowdenbeath to start with PW.

You couldn’t be more wrong about Cowden - but presume this is you simply stirring the pot.  

[Bestsinceslicebread]

8 hours ago, Burnieman said:

As long as Maxwell remains in post, this will not go away.

My guess is that once it's punted they will concoct a further plan, this time for a 16 team Conference, and go back to AGM next year, or call an EGM.

They will not listen, they will not hold their hands up and start engaging constructively with all leagues/clubs to move the Pyramid forward.

As far as I'm lead to believe, if the conference goes ahead / implemented, it will then come under the jurisdiction of the SPFL, so Highland and Lowland leagues will not be allowed to vote on the conferences league changes or growth in the future / next 5 years, ultimately destroying what we have in the way of a pyramid.

 

There is no doubt in my mind, any team, even premiership teams who vote on this conference as a yes will lose fans, some might not make a difference but without doubt fans will know this is wrong and even corrupt.

[Salvo Montalbano]

11 hours ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

I thought the view now debunked was that the SFA couldn’t set up a new league?!  But seems most were wrong about that - and CFC perfectly well understood the agreement between the leagues.  

I think most people happily accept the SFA can't set up a new league but a few people seem to think that by twisting a few words and paragraphs here and there and by ignoring precedent and by taking phrases out of context it can be done. So just to humour those thoughts for a second, I said that if "in theory" they could (narrator: they can't) there would still be the issue of promotion and relegation (which has to be be agreed across the three - now would be four - leagues). And that ignores the fact that it would have to be set up, rules agreed, teams added etc in a little under 10 weeks. And that they would be making changes mid-way through or at the end of a season which has always been a big no-no (a team who could have finished 4th in the Lowland but rested players/let players go on holiday as they didn't see any advantage to finishing 4th rather than 5th suddenly finding out they could have won "promotion" after the event etc). And that is the issue - it's not whether your board thought that the SFA could have set up a new league (and I repeat, I'm firmly of the opinion that they can't within their own articles of association), but could they have really set up a new league with promotion and relegation etc with all those issues to overcome within the short time frame they had. The bluff should have been called out at the time and the B Teams in the Lowland League rejected rather than believing in something that even the most devout believer would have a hard time accepting.

[Blue Brazil Forever]

9 hours ago, beachboy said:

Hibs to start with PW.

 

Fixed it for you

[Cowden Cowboy]

1 hour ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

I think most people happily accept the SFA can't set up a new league but a few people seem to think that by twisting a few words and paragraphs here and there and by ignoring precedent and by taking phrases out of context it can be done. So just to humour those thoughts for a second, I said that if "in theory" they could (narrator: they can't) there would still be the issue of promotion and relegation (which has to be be agreed across the three - now would be four - leagues). And that ignores the fact that it would have to be set up, rules agreed, teams added etc in a little under 10 weeks. And that they would be making changes mid-way through or at the end of a season which has always been a big no-no (a team who could have finished 4th in the Lowland but rested players/let players go on holiday as they didn't see any advantage to finishing 4th rather than 5th suddenly finding out they could have won "promotion" after the event etc). And that is the issue - it's not whether your board thought that the SFA could have set up a new league (and I repeat, I'm firmly of the opinion that they can't within their own articles of association), but could they have really set up a new league with promotion and relegation etc with all those issues to overcome within the short time frame they had. The bluff should have been called out at the time and the B Teams in the Lowland League rejected rather than believing in something that even the most devout believer would have a hard time accepting.

No I think there is a mob that doesn’t accept (or want to accept) SFA can authorise a new league set up by SPFL which is what the situation would be when they in fact can.  The rest of your comments refer to other issues and don’t think our Board thought it was very likely that such a league could be made operational in short order.  They have also been open and honest with fans throughout and not afraid to confirm how they vote each time 

Edited June 5, 2023 by Cowden Cowboy

[welshbairn]

Quote

The majority of clubs in the north and north-east are set to vote against the proposed Conference League.

Tomorrow Scottish FA member clubs and associations will vote on the plan for a new fifth tier to be introduced from season 2024-25 between the SPFL and the Breedon Highland League and Lowland League.

The concept has sparked frenzied debate in recent weeks and months and ahead of the vote at Hampden the Press and Journal has surveyed the member clubs in our patch and asked them how they intend to vote.

Although some clubs across our area such as Peterhead, Brora Rangers and Nairn County have publicly nailed their colours to mast regarding their views on the Conference League, others have not commented.

We surveyed all 26 clubs in our area anonymously and the results are as follows.

Two clubs have indicated they will vote for the proposal, 22 intend to vote against it, one failed to respond and one club plans to abstain.

That works out as 85% of the member clubs in the P&J patch who plan to vote against the Conference League.

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/sport/football/highland-league/5791756/survey-reveals-north-clubs-conference-league/

[CityDave94]

10 hours ago, Bundesliga Boy said:

 

You may well be right about not being accepted, but Hearts are very good at communicating with their supporters and it doesn't look like they even asked the question of EOS participation in the first place.

Hearts struggled in the Lowland League and in all honesty going forward as the bigger clubs (albeit slowly) replace the smaller community clubs, then Hearts B would likely be just a little out their depth.  In short I'd have been absolutely fine with a hearts B team that was capped at EOS Premier level as I think that's about right for them.

If they have any youngsters that they truly believe are real standouts then I'd be expecting them to be going out on loan much further up the football league. 

Hearts like any other club if they have a 16-18 year old with huge potential they will be in the 1st team squad or as you say loaned out, probably Championship. If Hearts are there for the long run in the LL season by season they will be pushed down as better teams pass them on the way up. Can't see how LL football is of any benefit to them, they like any other b' team outside the Of would be out of their depth in a Conference.

[LongTimeLurker]

7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/sport/football/highland-league/5791756/survey-reveals-north-clubs-conference-league/

26 = 18 HL, Golspie, FW, Ross C, ICT, Elgin, Peterhead, Aberdeen, Cove Rangers? If so, 22-2 out of that lot is not a bad outcome for NO. Not sure if Fort William is viewed as P&J territory so maybe Montrose sneak in there as well.