Old Firm Colts in L2

[Curler]

Will the colt teams receive payment at the end of the year as the other teams do for their finishing position in the league? If so their clubs will be getting paid twice.

[SimonLichtie]

20 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Well I guess the conclusion is that loaning them out to lower league clubs isn't delivering the desired end product so an alternative plan is mooted which might indeed work better in terms of overall development - or it might not. Try something different though is a call made by fans all the time so difficult to be that critical of the basic idea. However, just looking at it in that one dimensional way is ignoring the many downsides which many will feel outweigh the potential positives.

I genuinely don't see any potential positives though? There is factual evidence in place to dispute/ prove many of the surposid 'potential positives' are utter shite. There is absolutely zero evidence to point towards the 'potential positives' and give a proper argument towards going down this route.

Genuine question - what potential positives do you see, and what (if any) factual evidence would back this up? I'm completely open to new ideas in the Scottish game, but I form opinion based on facts like any rational person with no agenda should do.

A proposal like the one being made should refer to factual information backing up why the changes being proposed would be beneficial. There is no references at all, because this information is not there. I'm sure myself and various others could link to various factual information disproving the lies regarding attendances/ financial boosts/ increased playing time for youngsters at a 'higher' level benefitting the Scottish national team if we were required too.

Example from the Berwick website posting:

' Several other European countries such as Germany, Spain, Holland and Norway have employed Colt systems to good effect. '

'good effect'. Where is the proof of this? There is no proof whatsoever that colt teams have ever benefitted a national team or the league they play in. None whatsoever. It's an absolute fucking myth purported by those wanting this to go ahead.

 

[No_Problemo]

I see Berwick also mention two overage players....

Given they can't exchange players during the season, will these players just be big standard league two players who will play with them for the reason or will they bankroll a couple of really good players for their colt teams.

[haufdaft]

Will they receive the Championship trophy and be declared champions in the unlikely event they win the league?

[Im_Rodger]

1 minute ago, haufdaft said:

Will they receive the Championship trophy and be declared champions in the unlikely event they win the league?

Yes, but the Automatic Promotion and Play off spaces all move to the teams below. (Except the other U20 Team)

[1320Lichtie]

An 18 year old midfielder from Celtic can go on loan to Arbroath have a bad game due to style of football, manager drops him and he has no other football

The loan system will remain in place. Drivel or not. Clubs need their young players playing a certain way

We should be looking at developing class players for Scotland not worried about Arbroath who never give much to Scottish Football

I want the best teams in Scotland to compete in Europe, and Scotland to do well. Arbroath is far from my thoughts

Sorry if it’s hurts

What happens if you don’t care about anything other than your own club?

You have no idea what Arbroath and other part time clubs mean to their respective communities and how much these clubs can impact local peoples lives.

Alloa are far from my thoughts too but there’s no way whatsoever I would want to see anything bad happen to them or for their fans football experiences to be ruined for some hypothetical advantage the national team might get, who play a handful of times a year by the way. Why should our experiences and footballing lives be ruined?

And is it just me or would this money not be better being invested in training facilities and coaches if we want to improve standards. Also how much can we actually improve standards, are we even that bad? We’re a tiny country in the grand scheme of things who have only been a result or two away from qualifying in nearly every single qualifying group I can remember. It’s more down to the fact we’ve had shite managers or been bottle jobs that we’ve not qualified rather than the actual quality of player surely.

Also, all the young Celtic and Rangers players I’ve seen in the lower leagues have been fucking pish anyway. Darren Ramsey and Julian Ogen quality players trotting up to Gayfield for a piss about training match at 3 on a Saturday. f**k off.

[DA Baracus]

6 minutes ago, SimonLichtie said:

I genuinely don't see any potential positives though? There is factual evidence in place to dispute/ prove many of the surposid 'potential positives' are utter shite. There is absolutely zero evidence to point towards the 'potential positives' and give a proper argument towards going down this route.

Genuine question - what potential positives do you see, and what (if any) factual evidence would back this up? I'm completely open to new ideas in the Scottish game, but I form opinion based on facts like any rational person with no agenda should do.

A proposal like the one being made should refer to factual information backing up why the changes being proposed would be beneficial. There is no references at all, because this information is not there. I'm sure myself and various others could link to various factual information disproving the lies regarding attendances/ financial boosts/ increased playing time for youngsters at a 'higher' level benefitting the Scottish national team if we were required too.

Example from the Berwick website posting:

' Several other European countries such as Germany, Spain, Holland and Norway have employed Colt systems to good effect. '

'good effect'. Where is the proof of this? There is no proof whatsoever that colt teams have ever benefitted a national team or the league they play in. None whatsoever. It's an absolute fucking myth purported by those wanting this to go ahead.

 

They've just copied and pasted huge parts of the proposal document. The document mentions 'research' but doesn't say what this 'research' is. 

The whole proposal is full of unsubstantiated pish such as;

All levels of the game in Scotland have a responsibility to contribute to the improvement of our national game which will bring a more successful national team, better players and rising standards, an improved feel good factor, more income to invest in the game and will encourage more players to play and supporters to watch. We must all play our part and we all have a responsibility.

4 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

I see Berwick also mention two overage players....

Given they can't exchange players during the season, will these players just be big standard league two players who will play with them for the reason or will they bankroll a couple of really good players for their colt teams.

From the proposal document;

1. Player eligibility

Similar to the system used in UEFA competitions, a colt team squad list containing players registered with the club would be submitted to the SPFL in advance of the season starting. Amendments to this squad list would be permitted during transfer windows. The squad list would comprise a minimum of 20 full-time players. The squad would predominantly consist of under 21 players (born on or after 1 January 1998) with the possibility of 2 over age players (not from the 1st team but actually registered in the squad list to help guide and teach the young players). The overage players would count towards the minimum squad requirement. Clubs would also have the ability to promote players into the colt team squad from CAS age groups at any time, provided they are registered with the club and aged 16 years or over. Such players would not count for the purposes of minimum/maximum squad sizes.

2. Player movement

No players from the 1st team squad would be permitted to move to the colt team out with transfer windows. Colt team players would be permitted to play for the 1st team in a competitive fixture on up to 4 separate occasions in any registration period. ‘Play’ in this context would mean appear on the pitch – being listed as an unused substitute would not count towards the quota. If a colt team player made 4 such appearances for the 1st team, he would be unable to feature again for the colt team until the opening of the next registration period.1

2 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

Will they receive the Championship trophy and be declared champions in the unlikely event they win the league?

From the proposal document;

2.3 League Integrity

• A pilot, no permanent league structure changes.

• Colt teams cannot take promotion or relegation places from League Two teams.

• Colt teams cannot bring players down from their 1st team and must register a squad list from window to window to ensure consistency of opposition for all teams.

• A minimum of two directors from the Colt team club must attend the opposition boardroom in League Two, even if their first team are playing

• The criteria for staff is very high in order to provide the elite young players with the correct environment equivalent to other countries who successfully produce players and will require clubs to make a significant financial contribution and have these staff available at the same time as their first team play on a Saturday at 3.00pm. This expense along with the need to underwrite 250 tickets for every match @£10 per ticket will restrict the number of clubs participating and ensure that the lower leagues are not flooded with Colt Teams. Discussions at the SPFL so far indicate it would only be two clubs for the pilot.

• An opportunity, while the pilot is operating for two years, for discussion to run concurrently on league reconstruction options for season 2020/21 onwards.

This would allow the views of the lower league teams to be heard and considered in full.

[HIT THE CHANNEL]

There is a lot of good questions being posed around the fact that they haven't though about the cups, what about prize money, who will be the over age players. Whilst I get that this all does a good job of showing how this particular proposal is shite, it doesn't get to the heart of the matter. Even if they solved all these problems really well (stop laughing) it doesn't chnage the fact that it fundamentally disrespects clower league clubs, brings their competition (League 2 or the challenge cup etc) into disrepute and all round just stinks.  

Back to the more nitty gritty - the Berwick statement is so short sited. Aye cos hospitality will be ram packed to watch a colt side? And I am sure the local punters will flock to see the games!! I would be confident they will lose money. Especially if there is the natural (organised or otherwise) season ticket boycott.

[DA Baracus]

21 minutes ago, Curler said:

Will the colt teams receive payment at the end of the year as the other teams do for their finishing position in the league? If so their clubs will be getting paid twice.

As far as I can see there is no mention of this in the document. 

Which means that there is a good chance they might.

[JakeSAFC]

Well I guess the conclusion is that loaning them out to lower league clubs isn't delivering the desired end product so an alternative plan is mooted which might indeed work better in terms of overall development - or it might not. Try something different though is a call made by fans all the time so difficult to be that critical of the basic idea. However, just looking at it in that one dimensional way is ignoring the many downsides which many will feel outweigh the potential positives.

There is absolutely no positives to this. Its the big guys trying to shaft the wee guys as per usual.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

23 minutes ago, Curler said:

Will the colt teams receive payment at the end of the year as the other teams do for their finishing position in the league? If so their clubs will be getting paid twice.

No, they don't get 'ladder' payments as they are termed in that document.

[1320Lichtie]

As far as I can see there is no mention of this in the document. 
Which means that there is a good chance they might.

Sure I read in the Elgin one that they wouldn’t.

Was a good point regarding the payments though. Are the SFA really going to fork out £150k for Rangers and Celtics benefit?

[Ranaldo Bairn]

2 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said:

 

 

Sure I read in the Elgin one that they wouldn’t.

Was a good point regarding the payments though. Are the SFA really going to fork out £150k for Rangers and Celtics benefit?

 

See above.

Also it is the clubs, not the SFA, paying the 30 pieces of silver 250 tickets/game.

[HibeeJibee]

Exceptionally disappointed - but not hugely surprised - to discover our Board are coming at it from the position of being favourably-minded. However our fans and stakeholders are invited to contact the club with our views: all who are opposed should do so. Supporters organisations also hold a substantial shareholding plus directorships in the club: they can influence matters that way, too.


Some of the observations and arguments are clearly very tenuous. Even if fans do not like playing 9 teams 4 times each... it's hardly an improvement to play 9 teams 3 times each and 'B' teams 3 times each too ! Having 1-2 extra home games sounds great... it doesn't sound so good when you calculate that 6 are against 'B' teams meaning a drop in home games against actual clubs from 18 to 13-14 .

It seems the main plus points are £15,000 plus "hoping" for a future league reconstruction that gives us more prizemoney and/or lifts us further up the tiers. Both seem very simplistic and even naive. SPL clubs have no track-record of benevolence - and there's considerable evidence that crowds for 'B' teams will be low, therefore costing us money.

I'm sure we're all massively relieved to discover 'B' teams will have managers & coaches and 2 club officials . Is the implication that at some point it was suggested they wouldn't?  As noted it also makes clear that, actually, over-age players would be featuring.


Nevertheless those are the views of our Board. It's up to our fans to make our views known and dissuade them of their folly.

[Ivo den Bieman]

Real back of a fag packet stuff, this, and hats off to Elgin for having the decency to publsh the proposals online. They are embarrassingly bad.

I have an awful feeling they are intent on ramming this through regardless of the views of fans.

The only way to stop it then, is to organise. Everyone is writing to their own club, or at least those who have been vocal on this thread.

Is there not some cross-club campaign that could be run across fans of the local divisions to underline how deep the opposition is to this?

[Ranaldo Bairn]

This is your moment HJ.

Go Full HibeeJibee on their asses.

[Cowden Cowboy]

Exceptionally disappointed - but not hugely surprised - to discover our Board are coming at it from the position of being favourably-minded. However our fans and stakeholders are invited to contact the club with our views: all who are opposed should do so. Supporters organisations also hold a substantial shareholding plus directorships in the club: they can influence matters that way, too.


Some of the observations and arguments are clearly very tenuous. Even if fans do not like playing 9 teams 4 times each... it's hardly an improvement to play 9 teams 3 times each and 'B' teams 3 times each too ! Having 1-2 extra home games sounds great... it doesn't sound so good when you calculate that 6 are against 'B' teams meaning a drop in home games against actual clubs from 18 to 13-14 <_>
It seems the main plus points are £15,000 plus "hoping" for a future league reconstruction that gives us more prizemoney and/or lifts us further up the tiers. Both seem very simplistic and even naive. SPL clubs have no track-record of benevolence - and there's considerable evidence that crowds for 'B' teams will be low, therefore costing us money.

I'm sure we're all massively relieved to discover 'B' teams will have managers & coaches and 2 club officials . Is the implication that at some point it was suggested they wouldn't?  As noted it also makes clear that, actually, over-age players would be featuring.


Nevertheless those are the views of our Board. It's up to our fans to make our views known and dissuade them of their folly.

It will be Rangers and Celtic fans supplying the £15k with the two clubs underwriting any shortfall per game

[Ira Gaines]

So basically a bribe then. Cool.

[JakeSAFC]

Is there not some cross-club campaign that could be run across fans of the local divisions to underline how deep the opposition is to this?

This, absolutely this.

Us lower league fans need to put rivalries aside and team together to tell the Old Firm and the SFA we do not want this.

[Cowden Cowboy]

Exceptionally disappointed - but not hugely surprised - to discover our Board are coming at it from the position of being favourably-minded. However our fans and stakeholders are invited to contact the club with our views: all who are opposed should do so. Supporters organisations also hold a substantial shareholding plus directorships in the club: they can influence matters that way, too.

Shouldn't those in favour also contact the club with their views?