[sparky88]

Bain as Child Wefare Officer

What a twat. "No doubt other clubs believe we are acting out of self interest but that is not our motivation."

Erm, lets look at the facts Mr Bain. The only 2 clubs to vote against the compensation increase were Rangers and Celtic. The clubs which are adversely affected the most are Rangers and Celtic. He even says he's not against compensation, just the increase that is being proposed. So a smaller compensation package is 'thinking about the rights of kids' but once its increased, it harms their welfare.

He's kind of right that it ends up a transfer market for kids. I'd even agree that paying money for 10 year olds is not particularly pleasant. But lets face it, if a club tried to take a talented youngster out of Rangers (or Celtic's) hands they would fight for every bit of compensation they could get.

[seamus]

Rangers are against transfers in any shape or form.

[TheScarf]

I'm incredulous at this revelation.

[Willie Gray Ate My Hamster]

TheScarf, on 12 March 2010 - 13:14, said:

I'm incredulous at this revelation.

[7-2]

Quote

His outspoken comments have revealed a growing rift between the Old Firm and the ten other Scottish Premier League clubs over the issue.

Excellent. The first of many rifts between the bigots and the diddies hopefully. They aren't going anywhere...diddies unite and vote through a fairer financial situation for all clubs whilst we can.

This post has been edited by 7-2: 12 March 2010 - 14:01

[mighty meadow]

seamus, on 12 March 2010 - 13:10, said:

Rangers are against transfers in any shape or form.

I don't think Rangers are actually against transfers to be honest but while Celtic are so p!sh thy don't really have any need for them

[ScottyC]

Martin Bain's thing lately seems to be trying to make smaller clubs feel guilty for doing things in their interest. Obviously Martin Bain would take into consideration "what best for scottish football" before doing the exsact opposite.

[Ned Nederlander]

Surely this is good news for Rangers considering the steady stream of youngsters flowing out of Murray Park

[Trevor the tractor]

7-2, on 12 March 2010 - 13:43, said:

Excellent. The first of many rifts between the bigots and the diddies hopefully. They aren't going anywhere...diddies unite and vote through a fairer financial situation for all clubs whilst we can.

Agreed, They're stuck with us. More power to the diddies

It's about time we took control back from the OF

[sparky88]

Ned Nederlander, on 12 March 2010 - 14:12, said:

Surely this is good news for Rangers considering the steady stream of youngsters flowing out of Murray Park

Schoolboy error, you've forgotten all about 'the Scottish Rooney' John Fleck

[javary]

sparky88, on 12 March 2010 - 14:38, said:

Schoolboy error, you've forgotten all about 'the Scottish Rooney' John Fleck

Almost pissed maself laffing at that Scottish Rooney tageven when Rangers supporters first banded it about, the only things he's got in common with Rooney is that he's a small, ugly f**ker an all. Fleck looks like a junky Mr Potato Head.

[javary]

on the compensation front i dont personally believe that £50,000 for a 17year old you have trained since 11 is enough!!! and im a Celtic fan. I'd be raging if i was at a small club and either Celtic or Rangers poached away a potential star for a measly £50,000 or less which would disappear into the running costs of the club anyway. Good on the (so-called) smaller clubs for standing their ground on this, or as previous posters put it CMON THE DIDDIES

[sjc]

Trevor the tractor, on 12 March 2010 - 14:33, said:

Agreed, They're stuck with us. More power to the diddies

It's about time we took control back from the OF

Not really guys...........to change anything in the SPL an 11-1 vote is required (i.e : you need to split the Old Firm) and anyone that thinks Bain & Lawell don't pick up the phone to each other to discuss whats best for them is deluded !

So in short........still power to the Old Firm

[NorthernLights]

sjc, on 12 March 2010 - 18:05, said:

Not really guys...........to change anything in the SPL an 11-1 vote is required (i.e : you need to split the Old Firm) and anyone that thinks Bain & Lawell don't pick up the phone to each other to discuss whats best for them is deluded !

So in short........still power to the Old Firm

From a 2003 BBC article

Quote

The 10 non-Old Firm clubs had demanded a change in the voting procedure, requiring an 11-1 majority, which had effectively given the Glasgow giants a veto over attempts to change SPL rules.

Celtic and Rangers have agreed to an 8-4 majority on most issues and 10-2 to change the number of clubs in the league, although 11-1 will remain for major issues like the division of television money.

http://news.bbc.co.u...rem/2683577.stm

[caleycasual]

sjc, on 12 March 2010 - 18:05, said:

Not really guys...........to change anything in the SPL an 11-1 vote is required (i.e : you need to split the Old Firm) and anyone that thinks Bain & Lawell don't pick up the phone to each other to discuss whats best for them is deluded !

So in short........still power to the Old Firm

Are you sure it's not 8-4? Bain is moaning about a 10-2 vote going against him in the article in the opening post.

edit: damn my slow computer

This post has been edited by caleycasual: 12 March 2010 - 18:18

[sjc]

NorthernLights, on 12 March 2010 - 18:16, said:

From a 2003 BBC article



http://news.bbc.co.u...rem/2683577.stm

Apologies..........thanks for posting this.........I stand corrected

[Mr Mojo Rising]

Even though Bain's motivation is purely selfish, I think he isn't far wrong. Potentially restricting youngsters chances of developing further isn't really the best way to go.

Let's not forget that this can work the other way. As far as I'm aware (the situation might have changed recently, not been keeping on top of it) Scott Fox currently can't play professional football because Celtic aren't allowing it until they recieve payment. This isn't a case of a bigger club coming in and snatching him, it's smaller clubs unable/unwilling to take a gamble on a potentially decent young player because of the obligation to pay a set amount of money regardless of whether the big club actually wanted to keep the guy.

I think a much better set up would be to have certain contractual stipulations required when youngsters move club. Have a mandatory sell-on clause and, if the player doesn't move on, stipulate that if he is still at the club for a certain amount of time, or has made a certain amount of appearances, a fee needs to be paid to the club that developed him.

[R.Gray95]

Trevor the tractor, on 12 March 2010 - 14:33, said:

Agreed, They're stuck with us. More power to the diddies

It's about time we took control back from the OF

Im a Rangers fan and I believe Martin Bain is out of order its supposed to be a league of 12 teams not run by Celtic and Rangers. I hope a team does split the old firm because its got boring season after season scrapping against Celtic for the title. Hopefully John Hughes or Peter Houston can get something good going at Hibs and Dundee United because we need a new contender. Back to the point If a group of fans were to petiton about this i'd be more than happy to sign one.

[Dosser91]

mighty meadow, on 12 March 2010 - 13:47, said:

I don't think Rangers are actually against transfers to be honest

Of course they're not its just that they're against paying any kind of fee. Celtic are every bit as bad - Paul Slane anyone?

The of are the saviour of the Scottish game? Don't make me laugh ..or cry.

[7-2]

sjc, on 12 March 2010 - 18:23, said:

Apologies..........thanks for posting this.........I stand corrected

Sadly you're right in that it's still 11-1 for the likes of tv monies. Bugger. Didn't realise that. Why on earth did they agree to something as ridiculous as that. Diddies indeed.

Love the way its 10-2 for reconstructing the league but 11-1 for 'major issues'. Good to see the size of the league isn't really important.

[ScottyC]

Mr Mojo Rising, on 12 March 2010 - 18:58, said:

Even though Bain's motivation is purely selfish, I think he isn't far wrong. Potentially restricting youngsters chances of developing further isn't really the best way to go.

Lets face it the OF are the clear big clubs in this country with bigger supports than the others. Because of this they have the pick of all the best young players (including James McCarthy, thats another topic though), why is it years down the line they still feel the need to potch players from other clubs that they probally overlooked.

Whats worse is the fact that most of these youngsters have very little chance of playing for the OF as foreign duds or other scottish players (who have followed the development system with other teams taken the gamble and giving them first team football) are brought in ahead of them.

Potentialy it might restrict young players developing, but its more important to safe guard these players who might be needlessly brought in, preventing them from the opurtunity of one day playing at a decent level.

The constant stealing of players of all ages is preventing other teams from progressing.

[Mr Mojo Rising]

ScottyC, on 12 March 2010 - 20:10, said:

its more important to safe guard these players who might be needlessly brought in, preventing them from the opurtunity of one day playing at a decent level.

Lets not kid ourselves, this has nothing to do with the best interests of players.

Celtic and Rangers aren't in favour of it because it is less beneficial to Celtic and Rangers. The rest of the league are in favour of it because it is beneficial to them. It has nothing to do with the players' interests.

[ScottyC]

Mr Mojo Rising, on 12 March 2010 - 20:18, said:

Lets not kid ourselves, this has nothing to do with the best interests of players.

Celtic and Rangers aren't in favour of it because it is less beneficial to Celtic and Rangers. The rest of the league are in favour of it because it is beneficial to them. It has nothing to do with the players' interests.

Someone needs to be right, and as usaul its not Celtic and Rangers. If the OF or anyone else is serious about a player then they should rightly pay up..

[Captain_Sensible]

Mr Mojo Rising, on 12 March 2010 - 20:18, said:

Lets not kid ourselves, this has nothing to do with the best interests of players.

Celtic and Rangers aren't in favour of it because it is less beneficial to Celtic and Rangers. The rest of the league are in favour of it because it is beneficial to them. It has nothing to do with the players' interests.

Actually its got EVERYTHING to do with the best interests of the players.

If we don't have this transfer system in operation then all that will happen is that the OF will pinch all the best players from other clubs at other age groups. This will mean that the rest of the clubs will be less willing to operate their Pro Youth systems - which wouldn't be in the best interests of the players, would it?

St. Mirren run teams down to Under 8 level and scout players as young as 4 would you believe, looking for the best players they can find in order that they can sign them at U11 for Pro Youth. If you didn't have this transfer system in operation then you could have the situation where a club has been bringing a player along since the age of 4 then just to lose him to the OF at the age of 14 - 10 wasted years. Why would clubs invest money in that?

If parents don't want to tie up their children with senior clubs on Pro Youth contracts then they are under no obligation to sign them in the first place. They know up front what they are signing their children up for and are usually more than willing to do so.

[Mr Mojo Rising]

Captain_Sensible, on 12 March 2010 - 20:27, said:

Actually its got EVERYTHING to do with the best interests of the players.

If we don't have this transfer system in operation then all that will happen is that the OF will pinch all the best players from other clubs at other age groups. This will mean that the rest of the clubs will be less willing to operate their Pro Youth systems - which wouldn't be in the best interests of the players, would it?

St. Mirren run teams down to Under 8 level and scout players as young as 4 would you believe, looking for the best players they can find in order that they can sign them at U11 for Pro Youth. If you didn't have this transfer system in operation then you could have the situation where a club has been bringing a player along since the age of 4 then just to lose him to the OF at the age of 14 - 10 wasted years. Why would clubs invest money in that?

If parents don't want to tie up their children with senior clubs on Pro Youth contracts then they are under no obligation to sign them in the first place. They know up front what they are signing their children up for and are usually more than willing to do so.

Fair argument, and of course, indirectly some may think that this is in the players' best interests but my point was that that wasn't the consideration of the clubs when they voted, they voted for what was best for themselves.

Like I said, I don't really like the idea of restricting young people's freedom, in almost any other walk of life away from sport it wouldn't be tolerated. Again, as I mentioned, I do think there needs to be a system where clubs are not hard done by after all the work they've put in, but I think there are better alternatives.