7 Eleven

They were probably supportive of some aspects of it but not necessarily the whole thing. It also takes far more than a majority to vote this through, it would need 11 of 12 Premiership clubs in favour for example. You are absolutely right. There in lies the first problem. The proposal has three different objectives: better players, better finances and better opportunity for positive change. Each of these objectives could be achieved independently of each other, but are all lumped into the one plan. Remember this is getting driven by one club in particular and very much behind the backs of (lower league) supporters.

I have been fortunate to have read the 'Making Scottish Football Better' document and I can see why it has not been publicly released and why it is provided to clubs with short notice before looking for responses. Anyway, one of the key objectives is to create a "complete pathway" for players to "transition from Academy to 1st team". However, if people think that Rangers and Celtic are going to suddenly start promoting 21 year old players from a B team playing 3rd tier football into the first team they need to give their head a wobble. Therefore, if these two genuinely want to develop the standard of player in Scotland all of the bullet points need to be implemented at Premiership level. Start with these then some sort of discussion can be had about colt teams. Lastly, across all four divisions the feedback from individual clubs was that the majority were generally supportive of the proposals, so I am a bit confused as to why it seems to have flunked so miserably at the indicative vote phase, other than maybe tell them what they want just to get them off the phone

Likewise, it will only take two Premiership teams to veto their B team idea for it to be binned. This only shows where the first problem lies.

Below is an excellent long read article that tries to provide some objectivity to the debate about B teams. For what it is worth, I do believe that there should be a publicly available feasibility study done on this topic by an independent organisation (e.g., Twenty First Group - formally 21st Club) before it is ever brought back to the table. For example, how easy is it to answer the question 'what are the benefits of B teams - to national football, to the leagues they will impact & those surrounding them, to the clubs who have B teams and to the clubs who do not?' The article linked below tries to answer the question 'does B team football significantly benefit young players more than joining a club on loan?' From the small sample size presented the answer would be no. If Rangers Innovation paper has alternative data then they should be sharing it with everyone. http://argyle.life/analysis/b-team-myth/ Also, I think the SPFL and clubs should also be aware of fans feeling about this topic. I cannot find any full report, but Supporters Direct Scotland surveyed fans: http://www.scottishsupporters.net/b-teams-in-spfl-league-two/

Below is an excellent long read article that tries to provide some objectivity to the debate about B teams. For what it is worth, I do believe that there should be a publicly available feasibility study done on this topic by an independent organisation (e.g., Twenty First Group - formally 21st Club) before it is ever brought back to the table. For example, how easy is it to answer the question 'what are the benefits of B teams - to national football, to the leagues they will impact & those surrounding them, to the clubs who have B teams and to the clubs who do not?' The article linked below tries to answer the question 'does B team football significantly benefit young players more than joining a club on loan?' From the small sample size presented the answer would be no. If Rangers Innovation paper has alternative data then they should be sharing it with everyone. http://argyle.life/analysis/b-team-myth/ Also, I think the SPFL and clubs should also be aware of fans feeling about this topic. I cannot find any full report, but Supporters Direct Scotland surveyed fans: http://www.scottishsupporters.net/b-teams-in-spfl-league-two/

League reconstruction and colt teams are not mutually exclusive.

Lower league club owners need to start getting tough with this continuous nonsense and call Rangers bluff. I say Rangers because they seem to be the main protagonists of this. If this is genuinely about improving the national team then there needs to be a clear pathway into the first team once they are too old for the B team. For that to happen Rangers and Celtic need to make some concessions at first team level (or these concessions should be Premiership wide). This could include all or a combination of the following: Nationality rules (e.g., can’t have more than x foreign players in squad or on the pitch at any time). locally/club-trained player rule (similar to above) Squad size limits (e.g., 18 or 20 first team players over the age of 21) Loan limits & removal intra-league loans (which is basically a form of league doping when the player can play against every other team except their parent club) I am 100% certain that each and every one of the proposals would be rejected by Rangers and Celtic based on the belief that it would limit their ability to compete at European level. However, I’d cite Athletic Bilbao’ s (Europa League finalists 2012) self-imposed Basque policy or Celtic’s very own Lisbon Lions as counter arguments to that. The cynic in me can’t help but think that Rangers are pushing this as a way of stockpiling players and creating an additional revenue stream by selling players to the English Championship, and/or a way of Rangers having a ready-made SFA/SPFL licence/membership if they were ever to go into liquidation again. Also, they would likely want to replace the B team in whatever league they were occupying at that time, opposed to starting at the bottom of the pyramid. Finally, I believe that SPFL should be investing all of their time and effort into trying to make the Premier League more competitive rather than turning three engaging already competitive leagues into glorified development leagues. To further help two teams who have dominated the top tier for the last 36 years is nonsensical. Maybe focus on Premiership reconstruction and a redistribution of playing talent. This would require an increase in the number of clubs in the top division and a more balanced sharing of prize money, which are another two suggestions that I believe would be immediately shot down. This all starts to ask the question as to who are the ones actually holding the Scottish game back?

Lower league club owners need to start getting tough with this continuous nonsense and call Rangers bluff. I say Rangers because they seem to be the main protagonists of this. If this is genuinely about improving the national team then there needs to be a clear pathway into the first team once they are too old for the B team. For that to happen Rangers and Celtic need to make some concessions at first team level (or these concessions should be Premiership wide). This could include all or a combination of the following: Nationality rules (e.g., can’t have more than x foreign players in squad or on the pitch at any time). locally/club-trained player rule (similar to above) Squad size limits (e.g., 18 or 20 first team players over the age of 21) Loan limits & removal intra-league loans (which is basically a form of league doping when the player can play against every other team except their parent club) I am 100% certain that each and every one of the proposals would be rejected by Rangers and Celtic based on the belief that it would limit their ability to compete at European level. However, I’d cite Athletic Bilbao’ s (Europa League finalists 2012) self-imposed Basque policy or Celtic’s very own Lisbon Lions as counter arguments to that. The cynic in me can’t help but think that Rangers are pushing this as a way of stockpiling players and creating an additional revenue stream by selling players to the English Championship, and/or a way of Rangers having a ready-made SFA/SPFL licence/membership if they were ever to go into liquidation again. Also, they would likely want to replace the B team in whatever league they were occupying at that time, opposed to starting at the bottom of the pyramid. Finally, I believe that SPFL should be investing all of their time and effort into trying to make the Premier League more competitive rather than turning three engaging already competitive leagues into glorified development leagues. To further help two teams who have dominated the top tier for the last 36 years is nonsensical. Maybe focus on Premiership reconstruction and a redistribution of playing talent. This would require an increase in the number of clubs in the top division and a more balanced sharing of prize money, which are another two suggestions that I believe would be immediately shot down. This all starts to ask the question as to who are the ones actually holding the Scottish game back?

Hopefully if they keep last seasons strip they will put white numbers on the back.

Am I reading this differently? This statement doesn’t state that Collins has been released, just put on the transfer list. Does that mean if he cannot find another club he will remain with the EF for his final year of his contract or has he actually been released?

A pictorial view of the post shutdown fixtures. This should never be allowed to happen again in my opinion, but greedy clubs are more to blame I suppose. The last column has been cut off slightly, but I shows the number of games played with less than 48hrs recovery. I would really be interested in club-by-club injuries over this period if any fans of each club can be bothered? Also, I put this together quite quickly, so feel free to point out any mistakes.

Contracts run till May 31st. Club probably already have a new GK signed up, but can’t/won’t announce it till the player has officially left their own club. Note that the club has not announced any player leaving until the player themselves have made it public. Once again I trust that the people working behind the scenes know what they are doing, we just don’t find out about things in real time. There is no way the Manager would let Long & Hart leave without having something else lined up. Lastly, none of us know how many of the players that have left the club wanted to retain, not that it matters anyway.

Why? Do you think the team are going to start playing without a goalie? People correctly said the squad needs freshened up and that’s exactly what’s happening. I’m sure that the manager knows exactly what he is doing.

Last four seasons SPFL1 data adjusted for number of games. I haven’t bothered including the split games as they seem to be classified as play-off games rather than regular season.

Player minutes & squad age profile SPFL1 20-21 Season (18 games)

... just like some of the fans eh?

This is an excellent post and something I think has been generally disregarded by many fans this season. What these players and others from SPFL1 and SPFL2 has been asked to do is unbelievable. I am glad that, I don’t think, any player to my knowledge has suffered a serious injury due to the crazy schedule. Hopefully, the players will look forward to the next couple of games. Whatever happens with the results fans should re-visit the post above before trying to analyse this season in any depth.

What specific decisions are you questioning?

I am willing to bet it wasn’t meant to be 4-2-4. It was either meant to be 4-3-3 and Dunsmore decided to play RM or it was meant to be 4-4-2 and Smith wasn’t tracking back at LM. Felt sorry for Higgins for continuously being pulled into the LB area with Slattery MIA. It was unsurprising that all three were hooked at half-time. The whole team were miles off it tonight and I think we were spoiled having Jack Hamilton in the first part of the season. That’s the last two games there hasn’t been much attacking threat when the ball goes into the penalty box.

I think the table below clearly answers question 1. My personal option is that some fans expectations of the club are beyond what the club can deliver at this point in time, especially during a worldwide pandemic and irrespective of who is the manager in charge. Results and performances have been poor so far, but like Doug I believe they will improve. I'm sure that the players are aware that they are under-performing, but the only way they can change that is on the park. Hopefully, they can start on Saturday against Forfar.

The manager literally changed that part of the team two weeks ago, moving from two players in there to three. It worked the first time (i.e., Agnew was more effective), but not so much yesterday. Maybe it needs more time to bed in? What do you think the response would be if the manager went back to 4-4-2, he dropped Agnew and the team lose to Forfar?

Where’s the fun in that?

Specifically who and what would be your alternative teams?

Wyscout, so I am not sure how accurate it is.

East Fife performed pretty much bang on their xG for and against last season. However, Montrose massively over-performed in 4th place, which is another indication of the great job Stewart Petrie and co. are doing there.