'Colt Clubs' & The Democratic Principle

[Demented Zebra]

We have such a good squad our bench has players most championship teams would have on the park. We have built a squad for promotion though needs strengthen for the top league. Can only see three points to Saints in a tough game. This is our season happy days. 

[roman_bairn]

We have such a good squad our bench has players most championship teams would have on the park. We have built a squad for promotion though needs strengthen for the top league. Can only see three points to Saints in a tough game. This is our season happy days. 

Not too sure what this has to do with the anti-colts campaign?

[Skyline Drifter]

7 minutes ago, Demented Zebra said:

We have such a good squad our bench has players most championship teams would have on the park. We have built a squad for promotion though needs strengthen for the top league. Can only see three points to Saints in a tough game. This is our season happy days. 

Thanks. Thats very interesting.

I had a haggis supper for my evening meal tonight. 

[roman_bairn]

Thanks. Thats very interesting.
I had a haggis supper for my evening meal tonight. 

Was it nice?

[roman_bairn]

For a start the very obvious distinction is one club, one entry. The ethos of the Challenge Cup originally was to allow the so called "lesser" clubs the opportunity to play out a cup competition and have a genuine chance of winning it / reaching the latter stages rather than continually making up the cannon fodder numbers in the two main cups. Personally I think a lot of where we are now goes back to getting some momentum behind the club off the back of our first Challenge Cup Final in 1997. By it's nature therefore the top 12 aren't allowed to enter it, or haven't been prior to the last two years. I don't see any issue at all with those clubs being allowed to enter a young team in the Challenge Cup. They are all members of the SPFL which runs the competition and should be allowed to enter it in some form for me. As we've seen, there's no remote threat any of them are going to actually win it or get anywhere near doing so in practice. It's some decent experience for the young players in question. If they lose in one game so be it, nothing lost. If they get a few rounds of fixtures against older established senior teams then all the better. I think I'd be inclined to deliberately seed the Colt teams apart to make sure they weren't playing one another but that's a minor point. I understand why many people choose to boycott such games on a long term view basis but I think that's a shame. As much as I enjoyed our trip to TNS, and indeed our home game with Linfield, I have far more doubts about the validity of a cross border entrance to the Challenge Cup than I do with the Colt sides. However I accept at the moment the commercial interest of tv companies in the cross Border aspect is probably the only reason we still have a Challenge Cup.
The League is a different kettle of fish. There are three separate reasons why I would be completely in opposition to that:
1 - Most importantly, I have fundamental opposition to the principle of one club having two entrants in the same competition, which is what it will be if they have two teams in the same League structure even if they can't gain promotion. I realise in principle that's not a huge leap from Stranraer reserves for instance playing in the South of Scotland League which is part of the pyramid but I think there is a distinction to be made between having a 2nd eleven playing in the "non-Leagues" which aren't allowed promotion to the League proper, and having two parachuted straight into the actual League set up without having to start at the bottom, though I wouldn't let them into the actual League set up at all even if they did start at the bottom. I've no real issue with them playing to Lowland League level I suppose but I wouldn't let them go up from there.
2 - Further to that, I also don't want the scenario to exist whereby their presence potentially means skipping places in promotion and relegation rankings at season's end. It just looks "amateur". As does the suggestion that they'll play all their games away from home.
3 - Finally, I'm fundamentally sceptical at the notion that this will somehow massively increase the development of our young players in this country. Firstly we're only talking about the young players at two clubs even if it did help. I think any truly outstanding prospects are likely to either already be part of the club's first team squad at 19 (see Kieran Tierney / Ross McCrorie) or to be loaned out at a higher level than League Two to test them against better players. It's more likely the OF Colt sides in the League will see them hoard the second tier youths to play at the level who aren't going to be the guys who eventually play international football. The sort of guys who will be released when they turn 20 and end up with Queen of the South or Dumbarton or Stenhousemuir, etc. So what are they really gaining? Even if we accept it aids their development and thereby the overall standards of the bottom half of our League set up (which it might) that's not the point of this whole grand scheme. The stated aim is to develop young players to the stage that we'll have a better international side at the end of it. I may be wrong but I just don't see that and I think it takes a pretty fanciful leap to think it would.
As a selfish aside, I also think it will make it far more difficult for clubs like us to get young players in on loan from the top tier. You simply won't get most Celtic and Rangers youngsters available for loan and as a knock on, the availability of young players from other clubs would be at a premium due to the smaller market and the more clubs looking for those players.

I can’t agree with the principle of having the Colts in the Challenge Cup either SD. I just think it devalues the whole competition.
In fact I will go as far as to say I don’t understand the whole concept of an Under 20’s team at all. If the basis of the development of these players is the experience gained from playing with seasoned professionals, why did we ever get rid of the reserve leagues? Surely if 6 or 7 under 20s were in the same team as experienced pros they would learn a lot more than 11 U20s playing in opposition to such players?

[Skyline Drifter]

1 minute ago, roman_bairn said:

Was it nice?

Meh, it was ok. Wasnt from my usual favourite chip shop. However there appeared to be just two quite young girls running this chip shop. We need to do more to encourage these 'Colt Chip Shops' in a bid to improve the overall standard of Scottish chip shops. If we encourage them along properly they could be among the top chip shop fryers in Europe by the time they are 30!

[roman_bairn]

Meh, it was ok. Wasnt from my usual favourite chip shop. However there appeared to be just two quite young girls running this chip shop. We need to do more to encourage these 'Colt Chip Shops' in a bid to improve the overall standard of Scottish chip shops. If we encourage them along properly they could be among the top chip shop fryers in Europe by the time they are 30!

Nah, we really need to boycott this. The idea of two young girls managing a deep fat fryer is surely a health and safety issue and the SFA (Scottish Fish’nchip Authority) need to be informed...

[Skyline Drifter]

9 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

I can’t agree with the principle of having the Colts in the Challenge Cup either SD. I just think it devalues the whole competition.

Well yes. I am well aware my view of the Challenge Cup is very much a minority one. I would like to think thats because people up here are focussed on the idea its a stepping stone to the League. In practice however the move seems to have gone down about as poorly down South where nobody remotely thinks its a precursor to League involvement. So I accept my view here isnt popular and isnt going to be. I'm not particularly trying to wave a flag for it here or convert anyone.

However I do think there is a clear distinction in principle between Colt teams in the Challenge Cup and having them in the League. Which is the question I was asked.

[Skyline Drifter]

5 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

Nah, we really need to boycott this. The idea of two young girls managing a deep fat fryer is surely a health and safety issue and the SFA (Scottish Fish’nchip Authority) need to be informed...

Its dinosaurs like you who will prevent the young fryers of this country reaching their potential. If you are good enough you are old enough. Everyone knows that.

[Nightmare]

[peternapper]

11 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Well yes. I am well aware my view of the Challenge Cup is very much a minority one. I would like to think thats because people up here are focussed on the idea its a stepping stone to the League. In practice however the move seems to have gone down about as poorly down South where nobody remotely thinks its a precursor to League involvement. So I accept my view here isnt popular and isnt going to be. I'm not particularly trying to wave a flag for it here or convert anyone.

However I do think there is a clear distinction in principle between Colt teams in the Challenge Cup and having them in the League. Which is the question I was asked.

The only reason they were entered into the challenge cup was to get a foothold in the leagues. So far we have not had to play a Colt team but if & when it does happen I will not be there. Same with the league made my position clear to the club, if it came to pass even if we voted against it I would no longer need a season ticket or a entry in our lotto draw as I would not be back & would look to my local junior team to support.

Ps as for the guy extolling the virtues of St Mirrens season just think yourselves lucky that Wastecoatwilly a Celtic supporter that seems to have made it his mission in life to convince/bore to tears about how Celtic colts playing in League 2 will have Scotland back as world beaters (see league 2 forum) has not appeared here  yet.

[Demented Zebra]

8 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Thanks. Thats very interesting.

I had a haggis supper for my evening meal tonight. 

Posted in the wrong thread but I'm sure you gathered that.                                                                                                                                                    As for Colts / No thank you. 

[Monkey Tennis]

10 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

For a start the very obvious distinction is one club, one entry. The ethos of the Challenge Cup originally was to allow the so called "lesser" clubs the opportunity to play out a cup competition and have a genuine chance of winning it / reaching the latter stages rather than continually making up the cannon fodder numbers in the two main cups. Personally I think a lot of where we are now goes back to getting some momentum behind the club off the back of our first Challenge Cup Final in 1997. By it's nature therefore the top 12 aren't allowed to enter it, or haven't been prior to the last two years. I don't see any issue at all with those clubs being allowed to enter a young team in the Challenge Cup. They are all members of the SPFL which runs the competition and should be allowed to enter it in some form for me. As we've seen, there's no remote threat any of them are going to actually win it or get anywhere near doing so in practice. It's some decent experience for the young players in question. If they lose in one game so be it, nothing lost. If they get a few rounds of fixtures against older established senior teams then all the better. I think I'd be inclined to deliberately seed the Colt teams apart to make sure they weren't playing one another but that's a minor point. I understand why many people choose to boycott such games on a long term view basis but I think that's a shame. As much as I enjoyed our trip to TNS, and indeed our home game with Linfield, I have far more doubts about the validity of a cross border entrance to the Challenge Cup than I do with the Colt sides. However I accept at the moment the commercial interest of tv companies in the cross Border aspect is probably the only reason we still have a Challenge Cup.

The League is a different kettle of fish. There are three separate reasons why I would be completely in opposition to that:

1 - Most importantly, I have fundamental opposition to the principle of one club having two entrants in the same competition, which is what it will be if they have two teams in the same League structure even if they can't gain promotion. I realise in principle that's not a huge leap from Stranraer reserves for instance playing in the South of Scotland League which is part of the pyramid but I think there is a distinction to be made between having a 2nd eleven playing in the "non-Leagues" which aren't allowed promotion to the League proper, and having two parachuted straight into the actual League set up without having to start at the bottom, though I wouldn't let them into the actual League set up at all even if they did start at the bottom. I've no real issue with them playing to Lowland League level I suppose but I wouldn't let them go up from there.

2 - Further to that, I also don't want the scenario to exist whereby their presence potentially means skipping places in promotion and relegation rankings at season's end. It just looks "amateur". As does the suggestion that they'll play all their games away from home.

3 - Finally, I'm fundamentally sceptical at the notion that this will somehow massively increase the development of our young players in this country. Firstly we're only talking about the young players at two clubs even if it did help. I think any truly outstanding prospects are likely to either already be part of the club's first team squad at 19 (see Kieran Tierney / Ross McCrorie) or to be loaned out at a higher level than League Two to test them against better players. It's more likely the OF Colt sides in the League will see them hoard the second tier youths to play at the level who aren't going to be the guys who eventually play international football. The sort of guys who will be released when they turn 20 and end up with Queen of the South or Dumbarton or Stenhousemuir, etc. So what are they really gaining? Even if we accept it aids their development and thereby the overall standards of the bottom half of our League set up (which it might) that's not the point of this whole grand scheme. The stated aim is to develop young players to the stage that we'll have a better international side at the end of it. I may be wrong but I just don't see that and I think it takes a pretty fanciful leap to think it would.

As a selfish aside, I also think it will make it far more difficult for clubs like us to get young players in on loan from the top tier. You simply won't get most Celtic and Rangers youngsters available for loan and as a knock on, the availability of young players from other clubs would be at a premium due to the smaller market and the more clubs looking for those players.

Sounds fair.

The point about having entrants in the same competition however, is more of a technical one than anything else.  The idea of promotion not being available to colt sides is clearly designed to counter that fact ever becoming a problem.  You're right to draw attention to the Stranraer situation though, because I suppose there is a certain contradiction in there.

The point about it not doing any good in terms of development anyway is obviously extremely valid, but surely applies at least equally, to the Challenge Cup.

I wouldn't actually see your closing aside as selfish at all.  It will be the same for several clubs around our level and regarding the theme of developing talent, it's surely the case again that the proposed replacement will be less useful than what currently exists.

[The Moonster]

Fans don't want to watch Colt sides, whether that be in the league or the Challenge Cup.  The fact that Colt sides actually made Challenge Cup attendances worse should tell everyone they should be binned. I understand where SD is coming from there but I just can't agree, it's bad for clubs, bad for fans and the benefits to the young players is negligible when most are getting one game in the competition and being horsed out.

[Guest Flash]

10 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

For a start the very obvious distinction is one club, one entry. The ethos of the Challenge Cup originally was to allow the so called "lesser" clubs the opportunity to play out a cup competition and have a genuine chance of winning it / reaching the latter stages rather than continually making up the cannon fodder numbers in the two main cups. Personally I think a lot of where we are now goes back to getting some momentum behind the club off the back of our first Challenge Cup Final in 1997. By it's nature therefore the top 12 aren't allowed to enter it, or haven't been prior to the last two years. I don't see any issue at all with those clubs being allowed to enter a young team in the Challenge Cup. They are all members of the SPFL which runs the competition and should be allowed to enter it in some form for me. As we've seen, there's no remote threat any of them are going to actually win it or get anywhere near doing so in practice. It's some decent experience for the young players in question. If they lose in one game so be it, nothing lost. If they get a few rounds of fixtures against older established senior teams then all the better. I think I'd be inclined to deliberately seed the Colt teams apart to make sure they weren't playing one another but that's a minor point. I understand why many people choose to boycott such games on a long term view basis but I think that's a shame. 

 

If a colt team beats a lower division team, at best they are denying that club prize money. At worst, they are denying them the possibility of winning it and allowing another club the momentum you believe we got from our first final. So, either the colt teams are weak and always lose in the first round (which is a waste of time for everybody). Or they are decent to strong, which means prize money is taken from smaller clubs and re-allocated to bigger ones, plus a small club is denied the opportunity to play in the later rounds, including the final.

[Skyline Drifter]

48 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I wouldn't actually see your closing aside as selfish at all.  It will be the same for several clubs around our level and regarding the theme of developing talent, it's surely the case again that the proposed replacement will be less useful than what currently exists.

Yeah, we have no right to borrow players from the OF clubs though. It's a side benefit we're not entitled to and therefore complaining about a proposal reducing the chances of that happening is inherently selfish.

9 minutes ago, Flash said:

If a colt team beats a lower division team, at best they are denying that club prize money. At worst, they are denying them the possibility of winning it and allowing another club the momentum you believe we got from our first final. So, either the colt teams are weak and always lose in the first round (which is a waste of time for everybody). Or they are decent to strong, which means prize money is taken from smaller clubs and re-allocated to bigger ones, plus a small club is denied the opportunity to play in the later rounds, including the final.

Yeah, I don't see any of that as a problem any more than it is if Albion Rovers knock us out of a cup competition and deny us progress to a cup tie against Celtic. Lesser sides sometimes beat better ones in cup ties. I don't have any issue with an SPFL member entering what amounts to a very much 4th or 5th tier quality side in an SPFL competition.

As I've said already, I'm not here to defend my view. I'm well aware it's one in a massive minority. I'm justifying my different opinion on the Challenge Cup v League involvement as MT asked me to.

[Guest Flash]

2 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

Yeah, I don't see any of that as a problem any more than it is if Albion Rovers knock us out of a cup competition and deny us progress to a cup tie against Celtic. Lesser sides sometimes beat better ones in cup ties. I don't have any issue with an SPFL member entering what amounts to a very much 4th or 5th tier quality side in an SPFL competition.

As I've said already, I'm not here to defend my view. I'm well aware it's one in a massive minority. I'm justifying my different opinion on the Challenge Cup v League involvement as MT asked me to.

You don’t think there is any difference between Albion Rovers knocking us out the Scottish Cup to deny us a game v Celtic, and Celtic U20s knocking Albion Rovers out of the Challenge Cup to deny them prize money and the possibility of a final? Really? “Shocks” can happen in cups, but the beneficiaries of those shocks are generally small clubs, not huge ones. And, it is entirely possible that colt clubs will be allowed to field overage players, thereby increasing the possibility of a “shock”.

Although you are not here to defend your view on colt teams in the Challenge Cup, the distinction you are making with the league situation throws up points that make your distinction less valid.

[peternapper]

1 hour ago, Flash said:

And, it is entirely possible that colt clubs will be allowed to field overage players, thereby increasing the possibility of a “shock”.

The number of overage players for Colt teams was increased for this seasons competition to try & make them more competitive, this was done shortly before it started for this year with little or no consultation with other entrants.  Once established can we look forward to see Celtic 1,2,3,4,5,  in the challenge cup & various leagues. If they manage to get the pilot scheme started their will be no going back for smaller league clubs.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, Flash said:

You don’t think there is any difference between Albion Rovers knocking us out the Scottish Cup to deny us a game v Celtic, and Celtic U20s knocking Albion Rovers out of the Challenge Cup to deny them prize money and the possibility of a final? Really? “Shocks” can happen in cups, but the beneficiaries of those shocks are generally small clubs, not huge ones. And, it is entirely possible that colt clubs will be allowed to field overage players, thereby increasing the possibility of a “shock”.

Although you are not here to defend your view on colt teams in the Challenge Cup, the distinction you are making with the league situation throws up points that make your distinction less valid.

Yes, really. Like I already said. If Celtic's u20's can knock Albion Rovers out of the Challenge Cup then Albion Rovers didn't deserve to advance any further. There is potentially a valid argument that Colt sides should not themselves be eligible to earn prize money from the competition. That wouldn't of course prevent them stopping other earning more of it by beating them.

I think the issue of overage player involvement is an interesting one. On balance I'd rather they weren't allowed and certainly never any more than the present limit of 2.

[Monkey Tennis]

4 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Yeah, we have no right to borrow players from the OF clubs though. It's a side benefit we're not entitled to and therefore complaining about a proposal reducing the chances of that happening is inherently selfish.

I'd contend that we actually do have such a right.

I don't mean that we, specifically as a club have any particular right, but I think that these players have a right to be performing at as high a level as their ability permits and that we, the football supporting public, have a right to see them do so.

If power and resources were divided more fairly, there wouldn't be a need for loaning players out and fooling people into the belief it's down to largesse.