Jump to content

Old Firm Colts in L2


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Oldster said:

I maybe they should all do a deal on a 10-2 voting system, with 12-12-20 league structure, including the two Old Firm colt teams no higher than the third level, with an automatic relegation place from the third level to the LL/HL.

 

How many times are you going to try to sell this pup?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest a 12-10-10-10 structure

the old firm colts teams are both moved to a specially adapted oil rig in the North Sea. It could be named the Collins-levein stadium. They play each other 6 times per day, 365 days per year. They are allowed to leave on their 65th birthday and will be considered for the national team. By then they should have mastered the basic skills of the game

Edited by true fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh right. Thank you. Amazing how easy it is to misunderstand something
Beep! Stand well back, numpty reversing.
Beep! Stand well back, numpty
 
I think maybe they should all do a deal on a 10-2 voting system, with 12-12-20 league structure, including the two Old Firm colt teams no higher than the third level, with an automatic relegation place from the third level to the LL/HL.
 


It’s too late now as Rangers are back in and the Old Firm will never vote against the 11-1 system as it lets them control everything, basically Stewart Milne f**ked everyone and ended the only chance we had to change the voting rights.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The voting stuff should be that the majority always wins, not the ludicrous pish we currently have.

This would have the opposite problem of nearly every single piece of half-baked nonsense having a chance of passing. I think there's a lot to be said for a conservative system that protects the status quo, it's just that perhaps sometimes the balance swings a bit more the other way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


This would have the opposite problem of nearly every single piece of half-baked nonsense having a chance of passing. I think there's a lot to be said for a conservative system that protects the status quo, it's just that perhaps sometimes the balance swings a bit more the other way.


Certain things should be 50%+1 but major changes should require 75%.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, San Starko Rover said:

 


Certain things should be 50%+1 but major changes should require 75%.

 

10-2 would be a step towards that. Trade it off with colts. Park them in a big division where other clubs have to hold their noses, playing against them, less often. Like matches travelling the length of the country on a wet Tuesday evening in winter. 

They'd probably be the biggest anti-climax, anyway. Underperforming, forgotten about, relegated back to some sort of a development league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Oldster said:

10-2 would be a step towards that. Trade it off with colts. Park them in a big division where other clubs have to hold their noses, playing against them, less often. Like matches travelling the length of the country on a wet Tuesday evening in winter. 

They'd probably be the biggest anti-climax, anyway. Underperforming, forgotten about, relegated back to some sort of a development league. 

Naw!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10-2 would be a step towards that. Trade it off with colts. Park them in a big division where other clubs have to hold their noses, playing against them, less often. Like matches travelling the length of the country on a wet Tuesday evening in winter. 
They'd probably be the biggest anti-climax, anyway. Underperforming, forgotten about, relegated back to some sort of a development league. 


We can’t change it unless they vote for it! The Old Firm have all the power and can force through their Colts by refusing to vote for any changes unless it includes their Colts. They will not compromise their influence no matter what, why would they when they literally hold all the cards.

I do not see any scenario where they will give up their 11-1 voting rights, it gives them the power to block anything they don’t like, change prize money - veto, change league setup - veto, change league sizes - veto. The clubs who agreed to this when the SPL was set up are utter fools.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Agree to include colts in exchange for changing voting rights to end the Celtgers stranglehold.
  • Immediately vote to expel colts from the league.

Sounds good to me. Sign me up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Oldster said:

 

 

 

 

Just wanted to correct the record on this.

It was Stewart Gilmour of St. Mirren and Roy MacGregor of Ross County who voted down the changes to the voting system alongside voting down the proposed 12-12-18 league structure. 

Stewart Milne of Aberdeen was very annoyed about it at the time.

Seemingly Mr Gilmour was acting as de facto representative of Rangers, who weren't full league members at the time, due to their financial implosion, and so had no say.

It does seem to be that a change in voting structure to 9-3 was to be traded off against a change in league structure.

If I've misread these articles, where I found this information, I do apologize.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22151308

 

Interestingly, the initial plan was to have tier 5 champions automatically promoted to tier 4.

 

Yes, I agree with your interpretation of those events.

If the representatives of St. Mirren and if Ross County could have seen the bigger picture that day, then they would have been on the same side as the representative of Aberdeen, and we now would have a different voting structure for certain key votes.

They chose to base their decision on the new league structure as proposed at that time, which was of course their prerogative, but which would have been much more open to any future change had they agreed to the change in voting structure at that time.

The BBC article seems to me to reflect the details well.

A 10-2 voting system would certainly be unconventional, yet it would give some balance back towards the rest. But colts or B teams shouldn't really be in the pyramid: I don't think I could support your proposed trade-off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SecretCEO said:

Yes, I agree with your interpretation of those events.

If the representatives of St. Mirren and if Ross County could have seen the bigger picture that day, then they would have been on the same side as the representative of Aberdeen, and we now would have a different voting structure for certain key votes.

They chose to base their decision on the new league structure as proposed at that time, which was of course their prerogative, but which would have been much more open to any future change had they agreed to the change in voting structure at that time.

The BBC article seems to me to reflect the details well.

A 10-2 voting system would certainly be unconventional, yet it would give some balance back towards the rest. But colts or B teams shouldn't really be in the pyramid: I don't think I could support your proposed trade-off.

Sir!

You may just have saved my sanity with your appreciation of the evidence, as I was starting to believe some of the hokey hearsay.

I recall that you and I are not in agreement on this or restructuring, but we do seem to concur on the inadequacy of the current colts proposal - i would use this latest bored-child want of theirs as leverage, but you're a bit more earnest I think.

Salut!

Edited by Oldster
Are you Maxwell, or Doncaster?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with your interpretation of those events.
If the representatives of St. Mirren and if Ross County could have seen the bigger picture that day, then they would have been on the same side as the representative of Aberdeen, and we now would have a different voting structure for certain key votes.
They chose to base their decision on the new league structure as proposed at that time, which was of course their prerogative, but which would have been much more open to any future change had they agreed to the change in voting structure at that time.
The BBC article seems to me to reflect the details well.
A 10-2 voting system would certainly be unconventional, yet it would give some balance back towards the rest. But colts or B teams shouldn't really be in the pyramid: I don't think I could support your proposed trade-off.

They made their decision based on the new league structure because it was a vote on the new league structure. The proposal to change the voting structure literally came during the meeting and can't possibly have been properly scrutinised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can imagine the OF sat around the table saying 'Lets go into a closed shop, no relegation super Euro League with £ galore mmm. Now, to keep the Glasgow spfl going, we'll put our colts into the league just to keep our names going. What about bunging some cash to the struggling clubs, they're bound to agree ? ' 42 clubs, majority vote of 22 needed ? Don't think this story will go away now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I' m sure I said before, the Premier is over so the Old Firm should dump their loan players from English reserve teams and play youngsters to give them a decent run. We had Luca Connell from Celtic play with us yesterday and he was outstanding. Would he not benefit more from top league football?

Unfortunately he is Irish, which kinda takes away from the "developing Scottish talent" argument, but illustrates that them playing young guys needn't necessarily benefit Scottish kids in an SPFL colts team unless that was built into the agreement.

Naw, naw and thrice naw.

Edited by Hampden Diehard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I' m sure I said before, the Premier is over so the Old Firm should dump their loan players from English reserve teams and play youngsters to give them a decent run.

There's still the Scottish Cup. It's bizarre to see how many Sevco fans have been saying that their season's over now they're out of the Europa League.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DiegoDiego said:


There's still the Scottish Cup. It's bizarre to see how many Sevco fans have been saying that their season's over now they're out of the Europa League.

You'd think that the chance of winning their first Scottish Cup would keep them interested.

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...