Old Firm Colts in L2

[wastecoatwilly]

1 hour ago, Clyde01 said:

 

So rangers and Celtic can hoard more of the better young players?

 

Apparently celtic are doing a great job of that already?

[Bazil85]

2 hours ago, The Spider said:

Don't agree with that personally, but can see both sides so respect that viewpoint. Whatever the method, my original theme remains. How do you get bums off bloated Ist XI benches and get talented 21-23 year olds the game time they need by playing in a reasonably competitive environment on Saturday afternoons if not in reserve games? We both know and agree it ain't by putting Colt teams in L2, so how does our game move forward and resolve that issue?

I'm just not sure I understand what people are saying when they mention reserve league? Is it as in scrap the U20 development league and bring back reserves? Have reserves and U20s development league at the same time? I don't get it.

If it's scrap and replace then i don't see the difference because you'll generally still have the 3/5 over aged players and padded out with U20s because that's the situation the majority or clubs are in. Maybe an argument for putting more over aged players but then what about developing the younger boys?

If it's having both reserve and development I think realistically a majority of clubs couldn't sustain that. 

[Bazil85]

2 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

With or without this proposal Celtic will remain at the top of Scottish football,there is a thousand reasons why fans are against this proposal and it has nothing to do with young kids developing in the Scottish game,there is fans all around the country that hate Celtic and everything they do why? Ex Celtic youth players play in all the leagues in Scotland,the national team has more Celtic players in it than any other club,to say Celtic are pushing an agenda what fecking agenda?
 

You keep saying Celtic as well as if they're different from Rangers, they're both one and the same for most other fans. Always vote together and protect each others interests. 

What I'm hearing from you is 'fans don't want to further Rangers and Celtic at their own clubs expense, they don't want to give up their competition to turn it into a development function and they don't want to compromise sporting integrity... they just hate Celtic.' 

It's so detached from the truth it's unreal. 

[Bazil85]

2 hours ago, craigkillie said:

I'm not convinced Scottish football has ever had a three-foreigner rule.  And quite rightly so.  The way to get more Scottish players into our teams is to make them better, not just make it easier for them to be picked.

 

There aren't many bloated first team benches in Scotland.  Even the biggest clubs outside of Celtic and Rangers are running with very small first team squads.

We 100% did man, went in 1995. One of the best ways to get Scottish players better is first team football. Having rules in place that force clubs to play more Scottish players will mean they need to invest more in youth development in order to get the players to a higher level. It'll improve Scottish players overall I'm sure. Other countries have similar rules in place. 

[RandomGuy.]

On 08/02/2018 at 12:45, wastecoatwilly said:

All 12 premier clubs are for the proposal
I think the clubs in the championship biggest concern would be how it effects the currant loan system most of them i think will be for it.
The tipping point will be league 1  
Most clubs in league 2 are against it,
So for me it's very tight,the fact it's only a pilot scheme may get it approved,then have another vote in 2 years time.

Any proof of St Johnstone backing the proposal? 

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, The Spider said:

 

 Which is it you snivelling weasel?

 

1 hour ago, Mick1867 said:

 Tad harsh

Do you think so?

[The Spider]

13 minutes ago, Bazil85 said:

I'm just not sure I understand what people are saying when they mention reserve league? Is it as in scrap the U20 development league and bring back reserves? Have reserves and U20s development league at the same time? I don't get it.

If it's scrap and replace then i don't see the difference because you'll generally still have the 3/5 over aged players and padded out with U20s because that's the situation the majority or clubs are in. Maybe an argument for putting more over aged players but then what about developing the younger boys?

If it's having both reserve and development I think realistically a majority of clubs couldn't sustain that. 

Baz, it's scrap and replace but with no age limitations, so that clubs don't have to artificially sign players for quota purposes. That way clubs can mix and match their squads on a rotational basis as they see fit or circumstances (injuries & suspensions) dictate. I hate the concept that 21-23 year olds are missing game time because they regularly sit on benches as unused subs and/or the coach can play them as often as he would like because of a quota system. To me it's wrong that a coach can't field whatever side he thinks will best further develop his 21-23 year olds because he feels he needs to fill his  over-age quota with older players to give his youngsters a bit more protection.

The present system is currently designed to help the U-20s push on, but to me at any rate it also creates a void beyond that. Some will accuse me of being a dinosaur for that stance, but they'll probably be the same people who think we're racist for wanting the re-introduction of the three-foreigner rule which I agre would very much help by creating the space for those very same 21-23 year olds to feature more prominently in first teams.

[Bazil85]

4 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Baz, it's scrap and replace but with no age limitations, so that clubs don't have to artificially sign players for quota purposes. That way clubs can mix and match their squads on a rotational basis as they see fit or circumstances (injuries & suspensions) dictate. I hate the concept that 21-23 year olds are missing game time because they regularly sit on benches as unused subs and/or the coach can play them as often as he would like because of a quota system. To me it's wrong that a coach can't field whatever side he thinks will best further develop his 21-23 year olds because he feels he needs to fill his  over-age quota with older players to give his youngsters a bit more protection.

The present system is currently designed to help the U-20s push on, but to me at any rate it also creates a void beyond that. Some will accuse me of being a dinosaur for that stance, but they'll probably be the same people who think we're racist for wanting the re-introduction of the three-foreigner rule which I agre would very much help by creating the space for those very same 21-23 year olds to feature more prominently in first teams.

yeah it makes sense when you put it like that mate. I think it comes down to what's best for players at all levels not having a big void when a player hits 21. shame we can't fund a couple different levels like in England. I think they have U23 squads as well as U21 and U18. 

[The Spider]

4 minutes ago, Bazil85 said:

shame we can't fund a couple different levels like in England

Ooops, bit of a schoolboy error there sunshine. Weren't you the one advocating that when I didn't support your proposal to ditch the Old Firm for reduced revenue reasons, that you retorted that it would be better to find the proper level and then live within our means? That's exactly what we should be doing here......finding the best solution to our problems using the resources we have available. The fact that we're not I would suggest is more down to a lack of invention and leadership at the top of our game, rather than funding shortfalls.

To get you back onside again, the money's there...................it's just not distributed sufficiently to create the environment for part-time clubs to provide the level of competition that fringe full time players need. Worse still, if followed to it's natural conclusion, you'll be left with 10-15 clubs who'll then complain that they have too many players and not enough opportunity to get them meaningful non-1st team games

[Bazil85]

8 minutes ago, The Spider said:

Ooops, bit of a schoolboy error there sunshine. Weren't you the one advocating that when I didn't support your proposal to ditch the Old Firm for reduced revenue reasons, that you retorted that it would be better to find the proper level and then live within our means? That's exactly what we should be doing here......finding the best solution to our problems using the resources we have available. The fact that we're not I would suggest is more down to a lack of invention and leadership at the top of our game, rather than funding shortfalls.

To get you back onside again, the money's there...................it's just not distributed sufficiently to create the environment for part-time clubs to provide the level of competition that fringe full time players need. Worse still, if followed to it's natural conclusion, you'll be left with 10-15 clubs who'll then complain that they have too many players and not enough opportunity to get them meaningful non-1st team games

Have you heard of idealistic? In an idealistic world I'd love several levels of youth football and the three foreigner rule. I know it will never happen. 

What we might actually be left with one day is a situtation where Rangers and Celtic do actually leave Scotland, if that happens in the long term I think that will be great for fans. Scottish football finding its level and competition returning. 

I fail to see any 'schoolboy errors or lack of consistency.' I would love to get a promotion in work but in an idealistic world it would be great to win the lottery. See my point? 

[parsforlife]

Baz, it's scrap and replace but with no age limitations, so that clubs don't have to artificially sign players for quota purposes. That way clubs can mix and match their squads on a rotational basis as they see fit or circumstances (injuries & suspensions) dictate. I hate the concept that 21-23 year olds are missing game time because they regularly sit on benches as unused subs and/or the coach can play them as often as he would like because of a quota system. To me it's wrong that a coach can't field whatever side he thinks will best further develop his 21-23 year olds because he feels he needs to fill his  over-age quota with older players to give his youngsters a bit more protection.
The present system is currently designed to help the U-20s push on, but to me at any rate it also creates a void beyond that. Some will accuse me of being a dinosaur for that stance, but they'll probably be the same people who think we're racist for wanting the re-introduction of the three-foreigner rule which I agre would very much help by creating the space for those very same 21-23 year olds to feature more prominently in first teams.

I doubt removing the quotas would make a single bit of difference to 99% of teams selected, by the time injuries(including minor niggles) suspensions and guys who played/will likely play for the first team are taken into account the coach at best might have 15/16 players to pick from, 14 of which he knows he will use.

And the development of 21-23 year olds needs to be happening within an environment where they will be starting 20 + first teams games a season. Any player that isn't doing this at least on loan is unlikely to make it as a full-time professional, never mind be in international squads.

[The Spider]

33 minutes ago, Bazil85 said:

in an idealistic world it would be great to win the lottery

if you do, I trust you'll do the decent thing and donate it all to the Old Firm to help them better prepare their Columbian, Croation and Portugese internationalists of the future.

[Bazil85]

7 minutes ago, The Spider said:

if you do, I trust you'll do the decent thing and donate it all to the Old Firm to help them better prepare their Columbian, Croation and Portugese internationalists of the future.

It's only fair

[Karpaty]

Clyde are confirmed good guys. There won’t be an official statement as the proposals are not official but 100% the Clyde chairman is against it. I’ll receive an email from him by Monday. 

[craigkillie]

2 hours ago, Bazil85 said:

We 100% did man, went in 1995. One of the best ways to get Scottish players better is first team football. Having rules in place that force clubs to play more Scottish players will mean they need to invest more in youth development in order to get the players to a higher level. It'll improve Scottish players overall I'm sure. Other countries have similar rules in place. 

This definitely wasn't the case.  The three foreigner rule which was scrapped in 1995 was a UEFA rule for European tournaments rather than anything domestic.  For example, I found a Rangers line-up from a 3-1 win over Motherwell in December 1994 where Craig Moore, Basile Boli, Peter Huistra and Brian Laudrup all started.  Similarly, there were Aberdeen teams in the early 90s featuring Theo Snelders, Peter van de Ven, Willen van der Ark and Hans Gillhaus.

Which other countries have similar rules in place?

[lionel hutz]

30 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

This definitely wasn't the case.  The three foreigner rule which was scrapped in 1995 was a UEFA rule for European tournaments rather than anything domestic.  For example, I found a Rangers line-up from a 3-1 win over Motherwell in December 1994 where Craig Moore, Basile Boli, Peter Huistra and Brian Laudrup all started.  Similarly, there were Aberdeen teams in the early 90s featuring Theo Snelders, Peter van de Ven, Willen van der Ark and Hans Gillhaus.

Which other countries have similar rules in place?

I think China has a 3+1 rule, but that's something else entirely

Edited February 9, 2018 by Marr1

[Bazil85]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

This definitely wasn't the case.  The three foreigner rule which was scrapped in 1995 was a UEFA rule for European tournaments rather than anything domestic.  For example, I found a Rangers line-up from a 3-1 win over Motherwell in December 1994 where Craig Moore, Basile Boli, Peter Huistra and Brian Laudrup all started.  Similarly, there were Aberdeen teams in the early 90s featuring Theo Snelders, Peter van de Ven, Willen van der Ark and Hans Gillhaus.

Which other countries have similar rules in place?

IN EUROPEAN competitions, clubs are restricted by the

''three-foreigner rule''. This means that the squad listed to play can

include no more than three non-nationals.

The minor exception to this is that a club can list two assimilated

players in addition to the three foreigners. In essence, assimilated

players are non-nationals who have played youth-team football for a

number of years in the country where they are playing senior football.

I always thought the rule was just UK but if it was European wide it doesn't change facts. It would deter our best sides filling their teams with foreign talent. It's something we should look to bring back at a a national level.

The rule meant and would mean that teams like Rangers and Celtic would not fill their teams with foreign talent as they couldn't use them in European games. That would be great for the Scottish game right now. 

Other countries (that I know of, no doubt will be more) Parts of Spain, America, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, China. All implemented as a way to protect national players. 

I also believe Germany had something similar in place until recently. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Bazil85

[gannonball]

I'm confused Gannonball. First you say that Celtic developed McGeady (and he was 15 not 14), but now you say Queen's Park (the derogatory amateur club from your first statement) in fact had something to with it after all. Which is it you snivelling weasel?

We did mainly develop Mcgeady, as did Queens park With Robertson. Both clubs had a hand the two but the point I was arguing that somebody was claiming Mcgeady was developed by Queens park which wasnt massively true.

I dont see Queens Park being amateur as derogatory as far as I am aware they still are?

[peternapper]

47 minutes ago, gannonball said:

 

 

We did mainly develop Mcgeady, as did Queens park With Robertson. Both clubs had a hand the two but the point I was arguing that somebody was claiming Mcgeady was developed by Queens park which wasnt massively true.

I dont see Queens Park being amateur as derogatory as far as I am aware they still are?

 

Quite some time ago I asked your mate wasteofspacewilly how many caps McGeady gained for Scotland & in so improved our international team which was the reason behind all this. The fact he went on to play first team football for Celtic is of no interest or benefit to anyone else in the country.

[wastecoatwilly]

4 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Any proof of St Johnstone backing the proposal? 

Yes