Old Firm Colts in L2

[JT1867]

4 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Wasn't it the SPFL Competition Committee that forced the inclusion of Premiership 'colts' into the Challenge Cup? They seem to think there's some benefit in 2nd XIs playing against lower division first teams.

No doubt at the behest of Rangers and Celtic to try and normalise the idea of U21 teams being part of the senior set up.

[craigkillie]

4 hours ago, Bushel o' Bricks said:

I've just e-mailed this to Motherwell. I can't see this abomination of an idea gaining the number of votes required to pass, but don't want to leave anything to chance. Feel free to copy/paste/modify and send to your own club.

 

 

 

Hi there,

I'm writing about the ongoing proposal to expand SPFL League Two, specifically with the introduction of Colt teams, and Motherwell's stance on this.

Quite simply, this is possibly the worst idea I've ever heard presented in Scottish football, and that's saying something.

Celtic and Rangers are the epitome of everything wrong with Scottish football. These two clubs have destroyed any iota of competition in our game with their financial duopoly.

To improve the status quo in Scottish football, we need to reduce the gap between these two clubs and the rest of us. This proposal will do the exact opposite, using the lower leagues to strengthen and develop their youth players.

It is also extremely insulting to fans of clubs in League Two to suggest their clubs should be used as training fodder for Celtic and Rangers.

I'm not aware of Motherwell's stance on this, but I would hope we would see sense and see this idea for what it is - an abomination.

We did the right thing in 2012, when the equally absurd notion of the new Rangers being parachuted into the top flight was floated - leaving it up to the fans. Quite rightly, that notion was treated with the contempt it deserved. This deserves the exact same treatment.

I've been a Motherwell fan for as long as I can remember, going to home and away games regularly for over 20 years, but if we vote in favour of this proposal - irrespective of whether it gains enough support to pass - I will have no intention of stepping foot in Fir Park again. I don't want it to come to this, but at that point I could no longer associate with a club championing the polar opposite of what I believe is right for Scottish football.

This is not in any way supposed to come across as blackmail, but merely an attempt to convey my opinion and that of a lot of football fans. Obviously, I can't speak for every Scottish football fan, but a quick look on some of the most popular forums will show you a groundswell of opinion vehemently opposed to this absurd notion.

I remain optimistic that as a fan-owned club we will do the right thing again and do our bit to get this ridiculous notion in the sea where it belongs.

Thanks for your time.

Motherwell would almost certainly vote in favour of any proposal like this - Alan Burrows has been very vocal in his support of colt teams in the past.

[vikingTON]

7 hours ago, craigkillie said:

Motherwell would almost certainly vote in favour of any proposal like this - Alan Burrows has been very vocal in his support of colt teams in the past.

If sufficient pressure is put on them by the fans, Motherwell (and other clubs) will likely change their minds. Alan Burrows' vocal opinion is not a binding club decision. 

Given that fans' lobbying helped to overturn the fawning assumption that Sevco would be placed in the second tier not too long ago, it can prove just as effective in launching this shite into the sun. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by vikingTON

[Am Muilleach]

14 hours ago, jamamafegan said:

I think far too many people are being complacent here presuming that it’s not going to happen.

Email your club and tell them to vote against it.

This.    Do it today.

Let your club know how you feel.  

[EdinburghBlue]

8 hours ago, JT1867 said:

No doubt at the behest of Rangers and Celtic to try and normalise the idea of U21 teams being part of the senior set up.

I understand this was the quid pro quo for the new League Cup structure. 

[ahemps]

10 hours ago, San Starko Rover said:

It’s actually time the 40 clubs took back control of our leagues from the 2 clubs. Yes they’re the biggest clubs with the most support but a league system is meant to be run for all the clubs not just two. It pretty embarrassing that the SFA and SPFL bend over to accommodate two clubs who are fueled by bigotry and everything revolves around giving Sky their 4 bigotfests a season for the pittance they pay which mostly goes to those two clubs. Step one should definitely be to tell them to get this idea into the sea. It angers me our Chairmen were so short sighted in handing over the power when the SPL was formed, everyone of them happy to take the scraps as long as it locked out the smaller teams greed by a few clubs destroyed our league.

I watched an ESPN documentary recently where ESPN approached a US college basketball league and offered them a TV deal. They wanted to show mostly 2 teams (who had been to the national finals recently, Georgetown and Syracuse) the league categorically said no and they will show every team a minimum and maximum amount of times and promote them all equally......within a few years this league had several more teams competing in the national finals and was considered the strongest league in the US.

If only the SPFL could show this foresight and imagine a world outside Glasgow where football could prosper.

Slavia and Zagreb have lower average attendances than Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen yet they are in the quarter finals of the Europa, if the teams mentioned all had a platform that promoted a fair competition and allowed them to progress then Scottish football could be a lot stronger.

[Thom & Gerry]

12 minutes ago, Am Muilleach said:

This.    Do it today.

Let your club know how you feel.  

Notice Tatters said in paper this morning that several fans had contacted the club to voice their concerns. He said the club would take their opinions into consideration when the time came to making a decision. He was also scathing about the lack of communication about it from the SPFL.

[DA Baracus]

It's sad that there will be plenty of chairmen who are all for this but will only be swayed against when fans threaten to withhold money.

The sort who are for it have no business being involved in Scottish football.

[Guest The Phoenix]

1 hour ago, DA Baracus said:

It's sad that there will be plenty of chairmen who are all for this but will only be swayed against when fans threaten to withhold money.

The sort who are for it have no business being involved in Scottish football.

Strong words.

Any tangible  evidence to support your accusations? 

[DA Baracus]

4 minutes ago, The Phoenix said:

Strong words.

Any tangible  evidence to support your accusations? 

See the last time and see the Sevco nonsense.

[LongTimeLurker]

3 hours ago, ahemps said:

I watched an ESPN documentary recently where ESPN approached a US college basketball league and offered them a TV deal. They wanted to show mostly 2 teams (who had been to the national finals recently, Georgetown and Syracuse) the league categorically said no and they will show every team a minimum and maximum amount of times and promote them all equally......within a few years this league had several more teams competing in the national finals and was considered the strongest league in the US.

If only the SPFL could show this foresight and imagine a world outside Glasgow where football could prosper....

Needed to happen as far back as the 1960s, unfortunately, before the armchair fan culture started to build. Sportscene and Scotsport alternating having the Rangers and Celtic games meant there were only two clubs you could consistently watch that way, so it was understandable that people began to gravitate to one or the other under the influence of televised coverage.

[AyrshireTon]

5 hours ago, LongTimeLurker said:

Needed to happen as far back as the 1960s, unfortunately, before the armchair fan culture started to build. Sportscene and Scotsport alternating having the Rangers and Celtic games meant there were only two clubs you could consistently watch that way, so it was understandable that people began to gravitate to one or the other under the influence of televised coverage.

Don’t know about the 60s, but in the late 70s and early 80s they were not always a sure thing for TV highlights. The Evening Times always published the weekend TV games in its Saturday evening edition. During my research into Morton stuff I’ve seen plenty of relegation battles listed, not to mention that showing the Edinburgh or Dundee derbies meant that one of the OF got the elbow for a week. We were fairly regular on STV for a season or two, no doubt Arthur Montford having a say in some of those (even dragging the cameras along for a cup tie at home to Meadowbank).
There are plenty of old Division 1 games on YouTube which suggests that even the top flight teams weren’t guaranteed a slot every week, let alone the two cheeks.

[RandomGuy.]

The rise of the Champions League played a major part, IMO.

It not only handed Celtic/Rangers a massive financial advantage over other clubs just as the rest of Scotland started struggling for money, but it also meant they were playing against some of the world's best players every season or two, which will always attract more casual fans interest.

I'm not sure what could've been done to stop that really, it was just a perfect storm to push those two clubs away from the rest.

[Oldster]

On 16/03/2021 at 13:34, RandomGuy. said:

Yes. Clubs have been doing this. It's utterly bizarre you think you've stumbled onto some ingenius tactic to give the league system more equality that absolutely nobody has ever thought of before. Arrogance of thinking that the chairmen of the 40+ clubs over the past 20 years have all just sat twiddling their thumbs delighted with the status quo when all they had to was ask Celtic/Rangers nicely is genuinely staggering.

The chairmen all literally admitted they'd been trying different methods for years to reverse the 11/1 voting structure in 2012 and Celtic/Rangers had always refused it.

Clubs got greedy when the SPL was created and handed power to the OF, since then those two have had a stranglehold it's impossible to get free of. They won't agree to anything that removes that power, they know fine well that offering a change to that structure would dramatically increase their chances of Colts being accepted but have never once added it to a proposal, how can you not understand that?

You come back and tell me how the lower leagues get rid of the 11/1 voting structure when 2 clubs are in a partnership to never vote to change it? That's why 2012 was such a big deal, and why Aberdeen should be vilified.

 

On 16/03/2021 at 14:48, true fan said:

Forgive me, I'm not a student of these things - why didn't clubs vote to change voting structures when rangers were in the lower leagues but it was obvious they were heading back to premier league?

Lower league clubs would always want more of a voice but moving from 11/1 to 10/2 or 9/3 wouldn't necessarily change things for them. Why didn't Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen want to avoid old firm cartel blocking changes?

 

On 16/03/2021 at 14:57, Ludo*1 said:

Because Stewart Milne was and is, a fucking supper.

 

On 16/03/2021 at 15:14, RandomGuy. said:

Aberdeen wanted to take Rangers role beside Celtic so sided with them.

Pure greed.

 

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.

 

[DiegoDiego]

I'm not sure what could've been done to stop that really, it was just a perfect storm to push those two clubs away from the rest.

Paying tax.

[Cowden Cowboy]

8 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

See the last time and see the Sevco nonsense.

Well it hasn't been voted through or approved the last time or any other time.  The Rangers thing - probably a pretty sensible decision in the circumstances

[craigkillie]

1 hour 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.

 

 

This is nonsense. In 2012, just after Rangers had disappeared from the SPL, there was a standalone vote to change from 11-1 to 9-3. Aberdeen opted to vote alongside Celtic to block this.

This vote came after that - St Mirren and Ross County voted against the 12-12-18 plan, having been very vocal in their opposition to it. The voting system change was proposed at the last minute as a potential bribe to convince them to vote in favour, but they remained opposed to the league changes and therefore didn't vote it through. Stewart Milne was annoyed about the league structure not going through - he had been one of the main supporters of it.

Rangers would have had no vote regardless of whether they were full league members or not, given that they were not in the SPL at the time. As much as Stewart Gilmour has shown himself up on Twitter in recent years as an absolute imbecile, I very much doubt he was ever acting on behalf of Rangers. The only reason Rangers were opposed to this was that they wanted a 14-14-14 system which would have seen them skip a tier on their return to the top flight.

Edited March 19, 2021 by craigkillie

[San Starko Rover]

 
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.
 

No it was Aberdeen who voted with Celtic against changing the 11-1 voting rights.

I despise Aberdeen for this decision whether it was delusions of grandeur or a backhander it really was unforgivable as it was our only chance to wrestle the Old Firms stranglehold on our leagues.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/moves-to-change-spl-voting-structure-1393897

[FairWeatherFan]

2 hours ago, Oldster said:

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

The bit about "Pyramid system at the bottom to allow automatic access to the bottom tier for new clubs" wasn't about automatic promotion. Just an official formalised system in place instead of the wait for elections.

The original plans when there were 12-12-18 did have the HL and LL champions face a play-off against the bottom 2.

[Oldster]

12 hours ago, craigkillie said:

 

This is nonsense. In 2012, just after Rangers had disappeared from the SPL, there was a standalone vote to change from 11-1 to 9-3. Aberdeen opted to vote alongside Celtic to block this.

Thanks. I wondered where folk were coming from on that one, when the BBC article states that it was part of the restructuring proposal that St. Mirren and Ross County voted down.

Quote

This vote came after that - St Mirren and Ross County voted against the 12-12-18 plan, having been very vocal in their opposition to it. The voting system change was proposed at the last minute as a potential bribe to convince them to vote in favour, but they remained opposed to the league changes and therefore didn't vote it through. Stewart Milne was annoyed about the league structure not going through - he had been one of the main supporters of it.

Rangers would have had no vote regardless of whether they were full league members or not, given that they were not in the SPL at the time. As much as Stewart Gilmour has shown himself up on Twitter in recent years as an absolute imbecile, I very much doubt he was ever acting on behalf of Rangers. The only reason Rangers were opposed to this was that they wanted a 14-14-14 system which would have seen them skip a tier on their return to the top flight.

 

10 hours ago, San Starko Rover said:

 

No it was Aberdeen who voted with Celtic against changing the 11-1 voting rights.

I despise Aberdeen for this decision whether it was delusions of grandeur or a backhander it really was unforgivable as it was our only chance to wrestle the Old Firms stranglehold on our leagues.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/moves-to-change-spl-voting-structure-1393897

 

Was a 10-2 voting structure ever considered? It wouldn't give the Old Firm an absolute veto, and Stewarts Milne and Gilmour are no longer around to support them, and would maybe better reflect the, eh, balance of power.

10 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

The bit about "Pyramid system at the bottom to allow automatic access to the bottom tier for new clubs" wasn't about automatic promotion. Just an official formalised system in place instead of the wait for elections.

The original plans when there were 12-12-18 did have the HL and LL champions face a play-off against the bottom 2.

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.

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by Oldster