Bazil85

https://twitter.com/notobteams/status/1663229764402921474?s=46&t=o7cZTRZQdQRmoiuMLXLeXw No to B Teams have updated their tracker to show clubs consulting fans & highlight where there has been complete radio silence. If there is anything missing on here, please let them know. Also, if your club is one of those not engaging fans, there’s just over a week to try & change their minds on that.

If the Scottish sports media had more coverage to it, more fans would engage. One of the biggest issues in this country is the near complete media bias to the needs of the bigot brothers. If something comparable that went against the benefits for Celtic & Rangers was being proposed, the media & as such the fans would be all over it. If you explain and have a conversation on this to most fans of clubs outside the big two, evidence suggests they’d be against it.

My point ONLY relates to the issues when they get to the senior levels (League 2 and above). I said so in the first response. I also don't think they should have been allowed anywhere near the Lowland league in the way they were, it was hugely unethical when considering the number of clubs working their way up to there the right away. As far fans not caring, (again only from the professional league perspective) there was a fan survey completed with thousands of responses and Colts in the professional structure was extremely unpopular. There are bigger fish to fry in Scottish football yes, but for me I think Celtic and Rangers have hoped to use this to sneak in under the radar. Fortunately the backlash has been enough and the voting structure means we won't likely see these factually unfair proposals pass anytime soon. We also need to remember when considering fan view, the Glasgow bigots dominate fan power and media in Scottish football. Any fan backlash will be diluted because of this. When Colts comes up the media hardly covers at all the views of other clubs fans.

I think most fans and clubs would still have massive issues with them being in the pyramid at senior level, regardless of them getting there via promotion or not. It still offers them a significant advantage over other clubs (like they need it) and devalues the competitions. Fans of the impacted clubs don't generally want the association with Celtic and Rangers because of the bigotry either. I mean that's fine but my original point to you was pretty clear on having them in the "pyramid at Senior level" I have reiterated it several times since.

That goes for any change in Scottish football, just takes the members to vote it through. Your point was "likely" to happen. It isn't "likely" at all to happen given it has been rejected around a dozen times in 25 years. For it to happen, 11 Scottish Premier clubs would have to vote yes on the changes and 75% of the remaining member clubs. Given fan ownership in the top division and the negativity to the previous proposals from fan, it isn't close to likely they would get 11 votes to trigger the rule changes needed.

They can't tick all the boxes though because by the rules of the league, Colts aren't allowed in the professional league structure. The same glass ceiling would still exist below the professional game as there is now.

Every day is a school day.

Absolutely not but that's the argument when talking about Colts in Spain, Netherlands, etc

Spain and other leagues with Colts are not comparable. To my knowledge there is no other major football nation on earth with Colts steered only by the wants of two clubs at the expense of others. I also don't think it is comparable when looking at the professional leagues in Scotland (the 42 professional member clubs) and the very bottom of the Scottish pyramids which are generally aimed at amateur players playing for recreation, not to make it as professional football players. There has been very limited progression in B teams/ Colts at these levels into professional teams, in fact I can't think of a single example. As for where do I draw the line, it at a minimum needs to be at the professional league levels (league 2) as Colts in those leagues will require more fundamental changes to competitions, voting rights and professional player movements. I personally wouldn't have any colts for full-time senior clubs without massive contingency that meant Scottish youth development is the priority, including rules which meant they had to feature in Senior 11s after a grace period. Say for example, five years from now, any club with Colts MUST play 3-4 of the Colt graduates (homegrown ones so Scotland eligible) in every starting 11 at senior club level. That would actually have real benefit for the Scotland national team. Finally, the unfair distribution of income in this country means generally, only Celtic & Rangers and possibly a couple of others can prop up professional Colts. It is a non-argument to discuss other clubs having Colts up the structure. If we want to make that argument, let's have an income distribution model that allows it. That's fine to an extent at such a low level where the player development is mainly recreational & there is little expectation or likeliness that they will go on to give professional clubs a competitive advantage. If people on here genuinely don't think there is a difference between B teams in amateur leagues to them being allowed in the professional structure to progress the two biggest clubs by far in the country, fine. But there really, really is.

There absolutely and categorically is. A club having a second team within the professional pyramid has a sporting advantage far more so than the arrangements at amateur and junior levels which we have only seen until now. If they follow the same path as other clubs, what happens when they get drawn in league or Scottish cups against their parent clubs? rules would need to be implemented to avoid this and "cap" how far up the pyramid they can get like other nations colts. Also to allow for movement between colt clubs and senior clubs for players with professional contracts. All of which, again, represents a sporting advantage over clubs that do not have colts. Long and short, given Celtic and Rangers advantages, special treatment and different conditions of professional club entry to the SPFL over other clubs does give a very real basis for rejection.

I think most fans and clubs would still have massive issues with them being in the pyramid at senior level, regardless of them getting there via promotion or not. It still offers them a significant advantage over other clubs (like they need it) and devalues the competitions. Fans of the impacted clubs don't generally want the association with Celtic and Rangers because of the bigotry either. I am personally against the Colts in any proposed format to date, however I would be a bit more receptive if rules were introduced that benefited Scottish youngsters. Said it before but as an absolute minimum for me to be onboard with Colts, I would need: - Colt squads made up almost exclusively (9 or 10 of every starting 11 and 90% of overall squad) from parent club, homegrown talent. That would need to be, through parent club youth teams for at least four years before 18th birthday (making all Scotland eligible). It would also stop foreign youngsters being signed at a drop of a hat and allowed to play and protect other Scottish clubs from losing their best young talent from ages 15 and up, as they wouldn't be Colt eligible. - Caps on all youth squad sizes. Rangers had over 50 senior youths last year, that can't be allowed. I would cap it around 25 at all age levels to again protect other clubs losing quality youth players through the ages. - Rules based commitment to play Colt players in senior starting 11s after a grace period. For me, clubs should be held responsible to their colt project. After say a five year grace period, senior starting 11s must feature at least four Colt graduates (home grown) with two being under 21. Don't see Celtic & Rangers ever agreeing to these rules right enough and as long as they don't, the Colt proposal should be completely shelved.

That still shouldn't be allowed, having colts in the professional structure (even if they work their way up) still offers a massive advantage to the parent club. To relax rules and allow this would mean something in it for the other 40 voting clubs. I'm yet to see a single good argument for other clubs voting on letting the Glasgow Derby Colts up the league. Arguments of "bigger crowds" and "prioritise and develop Scottish youngsters" have been completely blown apart by the Lowland League trial. For me, the only way the needle can be moved on this is with rules forcing the issue of Scottish youth development while protecting other clubs. - Colt squad sizes limited to around 22 players with a requirement of around 20 being club homegrown talent. Developed through the parent clubs youth structure at least three years before the players 18th birthday making Scotland eligible (regardless of nationality). This will stop the recruitment of promising young Columbian, American, Irish, English, etc talent bought in the summer before a league campaign. It also protects other Scottish clubs from losing their best players as the "club homegrown talent" rule would mean players raided from other youth academies wouldn't meet the squad rules unless signed before they turned 15. - Maximum squad sizes at all youth levels, similar to above this will protect other clubs from losing the best young talent at a young age and will stop the stockpiling of young players by Celtic & Rangers meaning better distribution of youngsters and less players on books that likely won't make it as professional footballers, allowing them to focus on education and careers elsewhere. - Rules on homegrown players in starting 11s of senior teams after a grace period. Say after five years, all Scottish clubs (with colts or otherwise) must play four players in their starting 11 that have been developed by the club (the actual club, not just any Scottish club) from youth. This will mean a complete re-focus on youth & the Glasgow derby putting their money where there mouth is with Scottish youth development. Basically "if you want Colts you can have them but it better work because you'll have to play a number of these players in senior games soon" These points satisfied and I would warm to a colts proposal. Right now it's take, take, take and it has been in every version of the colts we have heard. Celtic & Rangers have not being willing to compromise one bit to date on player development rules to get Colts. If they say no to the above, the Colts idea needs to be permanently binned.

That could be how it goes yeah. Would be a bit more palatable than B teams though given club rules demand they remain separate entities and I believe there are rules on the numbers of loans that can be sent between clubs. For me there are other more pressing issues in Scottish football on player development. For example the capability of a team to field 11 players of different nationalities other than Scottish and zero players they have personally developed through their youth academies. Sevco have done this on occasion, in fact many of their starting 11s only only have one homegrown player from the old club and that's a near 40 year old goalkeeper. For me, it is long overdue for the SPFL/ SFA to get together and introduce homegrown, club developed rules. Even if it's quite small, say three of every starting 11 must have been developed at the parent club for three years before their 18th birthday. It would soon see a big swing back to focusing on youth academies.

The voting rules in the SPFL and the number of fan owned clubs means it's extremely unlikely they will get any further up the pyramid. The backlash at Lowland league as well makes it quite unlikely this will continue in that league. Even if it did, the results show the players aren't getting the experience they would need so don't see why Celtic & Rangers would be happy to stay there indefinitely. Celtic & Rangers have failed to get near identical proposals over the line around a dozen times in two decades, don't see why that will change. The only way B teams could be palatable to other clubs is if there is big changes in how they are presented. For example: - Remove the capability to sign foreign talent at short notice & rules that mean club developed homegrown players make up the vast majority of the squad. For example, 10 of every starting 11 and 16 of the 18 man squad MUST be developed at the parent club for three years before they turn 16 (Scotland eligible) - Limits on all squad sizes throughout youth levels to protect other clubs from further losing their best young talent to colts at short notice. Rangers had around 50 pro youths last season, I think that's went up with Colts. Far too many. - Rule based pathways to senior squads meaning clubs are accountable to their youth development. For example, after a five year grace period, senior clubs with colts MUST play 3-5 homegrown colt developed players in senior starting 11s. This way there is consequences if they don't develop Scottish talent. Celtic & Rangers have had practically zero give in Colt proposals over the years, they want all the benefits and none of the responsibilities. That needs to change otherwise, I can only see them continuing to fail to get 11 votes out of 12 at Scottish Premier level. If what they say is true about it benefiting Scotland youth development, make it rules based.

Kelty abstained.

They will get very little in the way of development this season. There's a reason they want up the structure and they can continue to jog on.

44% of the Rangers squad for this game were not eligible / declared for Scotland. More proof the agenda behind Colts is ONLY to progress their own needs & any claims it would help the Scottish national team was false. Rightly rejected by the SPFL clubs, Lowland League clubs that voted for it should be ashamed. Sold out their fanbases for a handful of silver, hopefully lessons learned and they are binned for future seasons.

Has anyone heard any rumours, whispers or more concrete information on clubs voting intentions ahead of the latest deadline tomorrow?

Kenny McLean went with six months left on his contract and Aberdeen still received a fee. Technically Norwich could have went down the pre-contract route and they may have gotten nothing. Your view completely ignores the free will of players not to sign longer term contracts to win themselves a bigger move. Norwich is a massive jump from Aberdeen and well done to Kenny for making the leap. Your next sentence is a continuation of this, you make it out like it's something Scottish clubs can take control over. It's down to the player what kind of contract they sign and where they go at the end of it. You might say "get them to sign longer term deals" that's a double edged sword, for every Tierney you get down for five years you might end up having to pay five Jamie McCart's a decent wage for the same time. Clubs are aware of the issue, you aren't having a revelation, they're just powerless to stop it. I don't think it's a good thing at the lower levels but I'm also a realist. At the higher levels, yes there will be some failures but outside of Scotland is the only option for players to develop at a level suitable for where we need the national team to go so yes, I think the more players we get out like your Billy Gilmour's, John McGinn's and Andy Robertson's the better. My moral compass tells me it isn't a good thing to put plans in place that will disenfranchise thousands of Scottish football fans and impact some of our smaller clubs with extremely patient and generous fans. You can't say the same.

I think it definitely has an effect, quality players move to better leagues, that's just natural progression. Not sure what it has to do with this debate though, colts wont stop that. In fact it could very well amplify it when clubs financial bottom-lines drop after thousands of fans turn their back on Scottish football. And of course it's progression, progression is linked to financial capability. All these players going to England will improve the quality of the leagues over Scotland, that's just common sense. Do you think these better players go down south and immediately get worse? Outside the big two, the rest of the SP teams would be lucky to perform above mid League 1 level, most would be league 2 at best. Rangers would be upper championship and Celtic (current squad) might be lucky to sneak into the top flight. Our standard is hopeless and that's down to financial capability. As long as the money available to clubs stays low, players will leave to be better financially rewarded and that in turn will widen the quality gap.

There is no backtracking in the slightest. The point is on the mutually beneficial nature of the current loan market which we were not discussing, we were discussing colts which are not beneficial to all, they only benefit two clubs overall. It's also a completely accurate conclusion. Our national team have failed for almost a full generation with little sign of improvement, in fact there's signs we are still going backwards given where the players are being taken from for the current squad. The league is no different, just look at our collective performances in Europe over the last decade and the quality of our players. We can't even get a sponsor for crying out loud. Our "best ever" TV deal is miles behind almost any other football nation in Europe and our international TV deal which was considered the worst of the major European leagues turned out to not even be all that profitable for the distributor. It makes no sense to rate Scottish football highly when it factually isn't remotely a high level. You seem to confuse a will for Scottish football to be better with where we factually are. There is no benefit to other clubs in colts, I have not said the same for the current loan structure, is this a point you've misunderstood? I agree colts will do that, I have never said they wouldn't but it isn't required for that to happen. I also don't imagine it would make a big difference overall. Colts will also disenfranchise thousands of Scottish football fans, devalue our lower leagues and disadvantage many other Scottish teams in the transfer market. So because it is not needed for players to find their level and it has massive drawbacks, it's a non-starter. There is no appetite for colts, I know you want them to benefit Celtic but there are too many Scottish football fans of other clubs, that aren't naive enough not to strongly oppose this idea. As such it won't happen. It would be an own goal for other clubs to go against their fans. The quality down south is factually way higher than any player we have in Scotland. This is proven given any player that shows such talent at the top of our game, more often than not goes to a bang average EPL team or somewhere else in world football. There isn't a single Scottish based Scottish player good enough for the level we need to be at as a national team. I don't know how much more evidence you need of this, than the last 10 failed football tournament qualifiers. I don't understand your point about losing players to England, we lose players to England more often than not because it's a progression. St Mirren for example, one of our top 12 teams in the country regularly lose players to L1 and L2 English teams, players that we would rather keep and that would play first team football here. I would love to see us close the gap but that's a completely different issue. Scottish football has been going backwards largely because it isn't exciting, entertaining or attractive to fans in a connected modern world. Who wants to watch a competition where you know who the champions will be one of two teams? (one in the last nine years) Answer is, not all that many people. The very downfall of Scottish football is linked to the consolidation of power between Celtic and Rangers. Now you want a proposal to go through that will further consolidate that power, turn thousands more fans away from or game and you talk about bridging gaps? It would have the opposite effect. Colts is a red line for many Scottish football fans (including me) you can't support colts and support a better more attractive Scottish football product. They are conflicting views.

They shouldn't, have you misunderstood what I've said? the issue is we need Scotland to be producing young, quality talent that they want in their teams. No one is asking bigger teams to take our youngsters and hope they develop. It's about making them attractive to bigger clubs based on their quality. More Gilmour's, Robertson's, Mctominey's are needed. It's a pretty safe bet they won't likely end up far superior to what Scotland for the most part has now, which is what we need. That mutually beneficial part is fine, it doesn't point to the need for colts because it stops being mutually beneficial for the multiple reasons I've given you. Not least of all, thousands of fans walking away from Scottish football.

I don't expect them to do us a favour, the development would only come from it being mutually beneficial. In other words players good enough for their teams, that's the issue we face and the challenge to overcome. That's where colts differ, it is not mutually beneficial, it only furthers two clubs at the determent to practically all others.

Which is another reason not to have the colt teams in the structure, there is nothing to guarantee it would support developing young Scottish players to any level let alone the level we need. As for your previous points on players loaned out, no they shouldn't get credit, this is about clubs willingness to support a much needed improvement in developing Scottish players for us to be more competitive at international level. There is currently little to no will for that at Celtic or Rangers. The proposal highlights this.