Old Firm Colts in L2

[Ross.]

48 minutes ago, Bazil85 said:

The goal of Project brave is to improve youth development and Scottish players to the level where they'll be good enough to take Scotland to a major tournament. Players of that quality don't generally play against Scottish league 2 clubs at the age of 20 and 21. The only clubs this will benefit will be Rangers and Celtic. They will use it as a way to help bring on their youth players outside the loan market. It might improve those teams but as the last 20 years have shown, we need to producing young Scottish players that are better than Celtic or Rangers quality. If the clubs and SPFL were serious about youth development they would put up home grown player rules. They're not, they pander to Rangers and Celtic and only care about generating more income to keep them happy. 

I imagine the long term goal would be to have players at 16/17 getting experience at that level rather than guys who are 20/21.

Manuel Akanji has recently broken into the Swiss National side at the age of 21. He started his pro career at 16 playing for the FC Winterthur second team who were in the 4th level of the Swiss game. After a year there he moved to their first team in the second league, then onto Basel, who have punted him in the last few weeks to Dortmund.

That is the kind of development I would hope this produces over the long term. It’s also why I would only back it if it was open to all teams in a fully integrated pyramid set up.

[BerwickMad]

The Old Firm argue that additional income would be generated by hospitality, sponsoring and increased media interest and fan excitement.
 
That is my favourite bit, i'm sure fans are all jizzing themselves at the prospect.
 

Haha. Aye, the arrogance of that. Even if it were true, 6 times a season would soon become tedious.

Another point. One of the good things about supporting teams is rivalry with other clubs. Even at this level, you enjoy beating those around you and there are games you look forward to going to more than others. With this, beyond the devalued 3 points, I wouldn’t actually care win, lose or draw. There’s no pride in beating a Colts team who aren’t even playing for the same reason as your club. It’s basically beating a nothing team with no fans.

[Ya Bezzer!]

Every single lower league supporter needs to tell their club that they will not step inside the ground to watch a colt team.

Simple as that.

If they do that, it won't happen.

The people in charge of our game really are sickening goons.

[strichener]

7 minutes ago, Ross. said:

I imagine the long term goal would be to have players at 16/17 getting experience at that level rather than guys who are 20/21.

Manuel Akanji has recently broken into the Swiss National side at the age of 21. He started his pro career at 16 playing for the FC Winterthur second team who were in the 4th level of the Swiss game. After a year there he moved to their first team in the second league, then onto Basel, who have punted him in the last few weeks to Dortmund.

That is the kind of development I would hope this produces over the long term. It’s also why I would only back it if it was open to all teams in a fully integrated pyramid set up.

So basically what is probably going to happen with Callum Morrison but using Development squads and the loan system instead of second teams?

Edited January 23, 2018 by strichener

[Swello]

Regarding the Spain/Germany example - using that to the exclusion of other countries where B teams exist without stellar success is just simple confirmation bias and should be disregarded (even though it won't be).

[FairWeatherFan]

29 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Holland B Teams;

Utrecht - joined their second division in 2016

AZ Alkmaar - joined their second division in 2016

PSV - joined their second division in 2013

Ajax - joined their second division in 2013

 

Before that any B teams in Holland played in a reserve league.

Quite literally the only evidence from Holland is that since B teams have been introduced, the national team has done worse. Obviously this isn't down to B teams, but the sort of logic at play there is the sort being utilised by the SPFL.

I hadn't realised that Holland had entered B teams, especially as high as the 2nd tier.

Last year's attendances:

Ajax 'B' - 919 , PSV 'B' - 597, Utrecht 'B' - 837 

(first teams Ajax- 49,620, PSV - 33,724 & Utrecht - 18,276)

[Ross.]

9 minutes ago, strichener said:

So basically what is probably going to happen with Callum Morrison but using Development squads and the loan system instead of second teams?

If Morrison is a stand out in the premier league and gets a big money move to a  top European team in the next 3 or 4 years, then yes, like him but with a different system.

[bhoonaman]

Do Iceland have colt teams? They seem to be doing OK on the international stage. Surely has f**k all to do with proper covered facilities to suit the climate?

[Bully Wee Villa]

Andorra has B teams in its league but has yet to win the World Cup. I can't understand it.

[HibeeJibee]

35 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

I hadn't realised that Holland had entered B teams, especially as high as the 2nd tier.

Last year's attendances:

Ajax 'B' - 919 , PSV 'B' - 597, Utrecht 'B' - 837 

(first teams Ajax- 49,620, PSV - 33,724 & Utrecht - 18,276)

Until recently there was not a pyramid in the Netherlands... indeed automatic promotion/relegation between tiers 2 & 3 only began last season... and few clubs in non-league football, which is divided on Protestant/Catholic lines playing on Saturday/Sunday respectively, wanted to step-up.

When 4 clubs went bust between 2011-2013 they were replaced by 1 willing non-leaguer and 3 'B' teams. When the 3rd tier started last season some more again made-up the numbers.

It's not comparable to the proposal here - no-one has folded, there are no vacancies, there are levels below in the pyramid with plenty of willing and eligible non-league clubs.

In any case, if we're supposed to take a literal correlation to the performance of national teams, the Netherlands have done dreadfully over the last 4-5yrs.

 

29 minutes ago, bhoonaman said:

Do Iceland have colt teams? They seem to be doing OK on the international stage. Surely has f**k all to do with proper covered facilities to suit the climate?

They don't except for 2 'nursery' affiliates in the 'bottom rung' localised 5th tier, AFAICS.

[Sao Paulo]

Full-time, sub-first-team-football in Scotland has long been the place where players with potential go to have it reduced or removed entirely. It's an environment almost completely without incentive; a passing place which barely simulates the reality of a competitive match and where the participants are all justified pessimists about their chances in the big team. I'd like to see that changed. But it's a hard-sell, when the gains are so dispersed and the losses are so concentrated.

Think about tariffs on imported goods. You hear a lot about those in the news at the moment. Sometimes, a government creates them to preserve a domestic industry - like steel manufacturing - which is being out-competed by an equivalent foreign industry. The gain is a concentrated one: thousands of jobs are spared; the unions and the politicians celebrate. And the loss is dispersed: the price of anything made of steel goes up, and any non-steel-industry business which needs steel doesn't hire so many workers because of its cost or, alternatively, it pays-off a whack of workers as a result of the increased price. It's easier to notice and measure the concentration of 'saved jobs' than the dispersal of lost jobs.

Where am I going with this? Well, let's say we let the Scottish Premiership teams field sides in League 2 on the condition that no players older than 21 could feature. The concentrated loss is in the reaction of League 2 and SFL clubs generally. And you can see it expressed on this thread: 'Points are devalued'; 'We hear enough about the Old Firm!'; 'It'd ruin competition!' and so on. The dispersed gain would be in the number of full-time players between the ages of 16-21 who got to experience a genuinely competitive match on a regular basis and who, consequently, were able to realise their potential; at least to a greater extent. Put another way, the floor of quality would be lifted throughout the country. Sure, the 'rich might get richer', but, as is the case now, they don't need all the players they bring into the game. Difference would be they'd get a much better return on their investment if they could get them playing as a unit primed for the first team and have them faced with a proper challenge every week. Connectedly, we'd all see a spill-over supply of better quality players to the lower leagues; and a spill-out of those who were replaceable with the newly better quality feed from above, demanding similar or less wages.

This is all long-term of course; most things worthwhile are. And so it follows that the national team would be likely to see an increase in the quality of players coming into its ranks over time.

Arguments about crowd increases or decreases don't persuade me; I think we'd see only small increased attendance if anything. And noise-making about the sting being taken out of things, or that the Old Firm rule the land; those arguments just bore me.

This is  well worth trying. And you don't need to frame it as 'good for the game'; you'll see a better quality of player at your club over time. Putting up with arrogant derision from Premiership teams' supporters is already inscribed in our system by fact of the U20 teams being allowed-into cups. I don't mind it, even it becomes more frequent. Though on that point - would we get humped every week? - the answer is blatantly 'No'. You don't take a group of young boys into a league of experienced, largely ex-professional players, albeit part-time players, and dish out a drubbing each week. Maybe you pick them off in a midweek game when their legs are gone, but otherwise you're in for a shock if you're expecting an easy ride.

Everyone, critics of this proposal included, seems to acknowledge that the game's in a bad way in Scotland and not just because of Rangers recent destruction. Quality's sliding. Interest is waning. And nobody's got an alternative with any evidence behind it; god forbid we rehash the several tiers of Unders-and-Reserves we had a while back.

I'm a minority of one, I know. But that's nothing new. I say we give it a bash.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Sao Paulo

[parsforlife]

Can we hurry up and get this to f**k already?

These proposals are fucking ridiculous as pointed out by many above.

Mind what happened to the 'c' division?

[dee_62]

Couple of points to throw into the mix.
Re the 3 less matches meaning fewer midweek games. Anyone want to make a stab at how many of the lower league games are actually scheduled for midweek (away from xmas and new year)?

On the subject of moving to 33 league games and getting the 15000 for taking on 6 games v the colts. Moving to 33 games means that you're potentially losing out on a home match against your nearest rivals. Last season saw Arbroath, Forfar and Montrose all in the same league. Potentially you may only get 1 home game against both of these teams - would the colts games make up for those losses? Food sales, 50/50s programmes and social club drinks.

This is only designed to suit Rangers and Celtic and I don't think I can be persuaded otherwise. How on earth can a decision be made on the success of this after only 2 years?

So much more to say but it's just depressing me.

[HibeeJibee]

There are no midweek rounds in SPFL1 or in SPFL2 except for the New Year game this season, although even that was a new development (possibly due to everything ending 1 week early for WC 2018).

Your sums are also correct. Currently clubs get 18 home games against actual clubs... so 2 against everyone. Under this proposal it drops to 13-14 home games against actual clubs... 2 against 4-5; only 1 against the other 4-5... and 6 against 'B' teams.

As noted cheques in lieu of actual people don't buy HT draw tickets, programmes or refreshments.

[Poet of the Macabre]

4 hours ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Try something different though is a call made by fans all the time so difficult to be that critical of the basic idea. 

Nah, considering the basic idea is fucking terrible I think it's really, really easy to criticise.

45 minutes ago, Sao Paulo said:

Arguments about crowd increases or decreases don't persuade me; I think we'd see only small increased attendance if anything. And noise-making about the sting being taken out of things, or that the Old Firm rule the land; those arguments just bore me.

Well, they might bore you but they're still perfectly valid.

I won't nitpick every single part of your tedious bore of a post but can't resist with this particular nonsensical part:

Quote

Quality's sliding. Interest is waning. 

Based on what? I see people every year make this claim but it's almost never backed up by any facts. 

Just because Clyde are fucking pish, it doesn't mean Scottish football is going down the gutter.

[Pride Of The Clyde]

So the reasoning behind this whole proposal is to develope Scotland's brightest and most talented potential players  for the  future and the best they can come up with for their development is to hone their skills against joiners and brickies etc, that play part time football, no disrespect to these players but come on tae fcuk, the reasons the vast majority of them play In a very poor league is because to put it bluntly this is the highest level most will ever reach with their ability, what are youngsters going to learn from this?

[DA Baracus]

2 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

I hadn't realised that Holland had entered B teams, especially as high as the 2nd tier.

Last year's attendances:

Ajax 'B' - 919 , PSV 'B' - 597, Utrecht 'B' - 837 

(first teams Ajax- 49,620, PSV - 33,724 & Utrecht - 18,276)

I never knew either until a quick 5 minute Google, which is probably 5 minutes more research than those behind this did

[Yellow Feet]

I’ve tried to summarise the financial pros/cons of these Colt teams to Berwick as an example of what we’re looking at, please bear with my post if it waffles a bit.

The average attendance of Irn Bru Cup round one games was 232. If you work out a rough income per head from Berwick’s statement and attendance figures, gate receipts before the Colt Boost would be roughly £4300. Add the colt boost of £15,000 and assume all sponsor packages and hospitality sells out (prices from Berwick site) that’s another rough £9300. Total income £28600. Here we’ll add £2000 saving of travel costs (I assume £500 a bus for four games). Total benefit to club £30600.

At present, using the same maths, four league games would bring in £12200. If you add two more home games, say if Cove and Spartans were promoted, the figure is £18300.

So on the face of it the benefit of a 12 team league including colts not HL/LL team is £12300. Now all that money is subject to VAT. Now it’s £10250.

Now there are additional costs/losses associated purely with the six games v colt teams. I’ve estimated here but if you say £1500 for extra policing/stewards (probably be more), loss of sales of other stuff (in the event colts fans don’t fill tickets) of say £250, you piss of half a dozen season ticket holders that’s £700 odd, you lose half a dozen fans from every other away game who are also pissed off… goodbye another £1300. Whilst you’re at it a couple of season ticket holders were also sponsors in one way or another, common at this level, that’s another £500. Costs/losses associated with colts = £4250

So you’re looking at a total profit of £6000 for having those colts. But hang on, what if the Colt system means you lose out on cheap loan players and need an extra £150 a week over a 40 week season for wages?

Ladies and Gentlemen we arrive at £0.

[DA Baracus]

https://mobile.twitter.com/SimpsonsSPFL/status/955863451913609216

 

[Sao Paulo]

40 minutes ago, Poet of the Macabre said:

1. Well, they might bore you but they're still perfectly valid.

2. Based on what? I see people every year make this claim but it's almost never backed up by any facts. Just because Clyde are fucking pish, it doesn't mean Scottish football is going down the gutter.

1. Believe it or not, 'the Old Firm rule the land' isn't a valid argument. It's a statement; the kind of which I was parodying. The 'sting out of things' is valid in the sense that there's logic behind; just no evidence. As for negative attendance fluctuations - supporters boycotting games against colts teams - it won't happen and everyone knows it. You'd need to be a chump not to cheer-on your team, irrespective of opponent.

2. I'm just indulging the thought that you might've hoped tearing strips off of Clyde might injure my feelings. Delicious.

As for evidence, excluding the Rangers effect, you'll only see a small net average decrease in what are now Leagues 1 and 2 attendances over the past decade. But still a decrease. And the risible demise of all of: Hearts, Hibs and Dundee Utd is the only thing keeping Championship attendance at what's been only a very slight net decrease over the decade. ESPN/Wiki have the statistics.

But why examine only the last decade? For a great deal of the post-war era, right up until the seventies and eighties really, average attendances would embarrass the same clubs today. And the country's populations grown in that time; not shrunk.

Then there's the national team. Anyone want to say we've gone forward in the last 30-40 years?  Or are likely to? Thought not. My question is: where's the evidence we're not getting worse as a game? You'd be hard pressed to find any. Measure it by money (remember to inflation-adjust), attendance, European success of domestic clubs, success of International teams. Sure there's been a highlight or two. But they're so few and far between that we can all call them to mind instantly; and that's an indictment in itself.

Edited January 23, 2018 by Sao Paulo