Jump to content

Old Firm Colts in L2


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, peternapper said:

Have always said that if this came to pass that would be me finished, no team should have two teams in the league set-up regardless of how important they think they are.

This. Clearly it's an academic discussion at present, but if the youth teams of these scumbags are allowed to pollute the lower leagues I won't be back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, realmadrid said:

The simple way around that is writing it into the rules that the B team can only stay in the set up as long as the A team does

That would flush out the real reason they are putting this proposal forward.

The best option however is just to say no to B teams.

 

Add to that - only Scotland qualified players under 21 eligible, then watch their concern for the development of Scottish players wither. 

As you recommend, NO is the only realistic choice.

Edited by AlbionMan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Not this shit again.

It's not happening again. It's some wannabe Talksport podcast trying to drum up interest.

Colts are pish. Keep them out of the league, get them out of the Challenge Cup and if the Old Firm want to develop players then play them or let them go on loan and stop asking for daft money for lower league clubs to loan them. It's really not difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Ivo den Bieman said:

This. Clearly it's an academic discussion at present, but if the youth teams of these scumbags are allowed to pollute the lower leagues I won't be back.

That is my view and I believe many others are of a similar mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think its a great idea much needed funds for L2 teams and will open up the pyramid system for ambitious LL & HL teams, the current format is heavily in favour of L2 teams happy to cling on to their league status, which for me needs to change.

I follow the HL but ultimately it will be LL and some current WOSL teams who will come to the fore if this proposal gets the go-ahead in the long term

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Samsonite said:

I think its a great idea much needed funds for L2 teams and will open up the pyramid system for ambitious LL & HL teams, the current format is heavily in favour of L2 teams happy to cling on to their league status, which for me needs to change.

I follow the HL but ultimately it will be LL and some current WOSL teams who will come to the fore if this proposal gets the go-ahead in the long term

Much-needed funds? I think you mean a promise of funds from a club which has never made a profit in its entire existence, has no credit rating, and depends on loans from its directors to keep going from month to month. Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Samsonite said:

I think its a great idea much needed funds for L2 teams and will open up the pyramid system for ambitious LL & HL teams, the current format is heavily in favour of L2 teams happy to cling on to their league status, which for me needs to change.

I follow the HL but ultimately it will be LL and some current WOSL teams who will come to the fore if this proposal gets the go-ahead in the long term

We can open up the league system without ruining the competition. Why do you have any desire to watch your HL team play Rangers Colts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EdinburghBlue said:

Population and numbers of teams in feeder structure. 

Population is always a bit of a false argument when looking at the non-league, since the national leagues already have most of the major population centres covered.

If you looked at the SPFL Playoff boundary, then population wise it favours the Lowland area about 4-1. When you look at the non-league first teams (pyramid leagues, NCL, and Juniors) its only a 2-1 advantage to the Lowland.

Edited by FairWeatherFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Population and numbers of teams in feeder structure. 
The way I see it the most important thing is the relative strength of the top teams in both leagues. Whether either area has 50 or 500 clubs is pretty irrelevant when you're talking about adding one or two of them to the national set up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Samsonite said:

I think its a great idea much needed funds for L2 teams and will open up the pyramid system for ambitious LL & HL teams, the current format is heavily in favour of L2 teams happy to cling on to their league status, which for me needs to change.

I follow the HL but ultimately it will be LL and some current WOSL teams who will come to the fore if this proposal gets the go-ahead in the long term

 

I always enjoy reading about these ambitious clubs, regardless of which division they're in.  There's been a number of 'ambitious' clubs in the leagues to date.  Below are a list of some which you may have heard of.

 

Glasgow Rangers (pre 2012)

Heart of Midlothian

Livingston FC x 2

Dundee FC x 2

Gretna (pre 2008)

Airdrieonionas FC (was it the SPL that fucked them with the 10k seating pish?)

Kelty (work in progress)

Queens Park (work in progress)

 

I'm sure there's others that can be named but they all pretty much have the same levels of 'ambition' or financial mismanagement as most others call it.  Chasing the dream with a rich backer will give a degree of short term success, yes success will bring fans in / back to the club they support / supported, but if it can't be sustained then what happens, the ambition runs out and you join the rest of the 'also rans'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, greendot said:

 

Airdrieonians FC (was it the SPL that fucked them with the 10k seating pish?)

SPL gets the blame, but the 10,000 seat rule came about following the Taylor Report's findings. There was a grace period to allow clubs to get up to standard. The first season it was a fixed requirement was the last season of the SFL Premier Division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

SPL gets the blame, but the 10,000 seat rule came about following the Taylor Report's findings. There was a grace period to allow clubs to get up to standard. The first season it was a fixed requirement was the last season of the SFL Premier Division.

Are you sure that is correct? I've read it suggested that Taylor Report applied only to the English Leagues, the SPL adopted a 10,000 seater rule for no valid reason other than false ambition. Certainly, the 1989 Football Spectators Act was not entered into Scottish Law.

My recall is that the Scottish football authorities felt they had to follow their English counterparts, but the 10,000 seater rule was one they drew out of thin air to apply to Scottish clubs, some of which are still suffering the consequences.

 

Sorry to follow off topic, as for the Colt sides, I too am finished with Scottish football should it ever be accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dundee Hibernian said:

Are you sure that is correct? I've read it suggested that Taylor Report applied only to the English Leagues, the SPL adopted a 10,000 seater rule for no valid reason other than false ambition. Certainly, the 1989 Football Spectators Act was not entered into Scottish Law.

My recall is that the Scottish football authorities felt they had to follow their English counterparts, but the 10,000 seater rule was one they drew out of thin air to apply to Scottish clubs, some of which are still suffering the consequences.

 

Sorry to follow off topic, as for the Colt sides, I too am finished with Scottish football should it ever be accepted.

It wasn't the Taylor Report itself, but following the findings Scotland had to be seen as doing something similar. It was more an agreement between the SFA and the Government (Westminster) at the time. Which is why it was so easily changed once they decided to do so, as it wasn't an actual law but something self imposed.

Certainly predates the SPL at any rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, greendot said:

 

Queens Park (work in progress)

 

I'm sure there's others that can be named but they all pretty much have the same levels of 'ambition' or financial mismanagement as most others call it.  

OK, I'll bite. 

Explain the financial mismanagement currently in progress at Queen's Park. Before you do, please bear in mind that as a member of the club ( ie one of its owners) I actually know how the club's operations - on and off the pitch- are run and funded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mick1867 said:

OK, I'll bite. 

Explain the financial mismanagement currently in progress at Queen's Park. Before you do, please bear in mind that as a member of the club ( ie one of its owners) I actually know how the club's operations - on and off the pitch- are run and funded.

I wasn't looking for bites.  As you've mentioned in the Queens topic agreeing with another member that its some year to become 'moneybags fc' Its no secret that the steps Queens have taken to step up to the professional outfit that they are and presumably significant investment which has assisted that.  The playing squad which i reckon has at least half of its players from the Championship level will be on wages far exceeding League 2 salaries for a lot of players.  How far in advance are Queens Park looking?  5 yrs, 10 yrs, and what are you trying to achieve?  Average attendances at matches (Covid excepting) are on a par with the majority in this league and the league above so the sustainability aspect isn't something which can be maintained over a long period.  It'll plateau eventually (maybe its already at its level considering the competition for fans amongst other glasgow based teams).  The last thing Queens want is a Gretna situation where there's a short term injection of cash, good times roll, then something happens, the funding isn't there and you're left with crippling debts (extreme i know) and I'm sure as a borad you wouldn't allow that to happen.

 

Football as a whole isn't sustainable though and the only thing that appears to show 'ambition' as is mentioned so often here is throwing money at the problem.  Fair play to the people who have that sort of money to band about on a football team, but to call it ambition is misguided to say the least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...