'Colt Clubs' & The Democratic Principle

[Newbornbairn]

They need to be told that this will be their Ratners moment. Taking the piss out of customers and ignoring their views. 

[Nowhereman]

1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

Anyone who even proceeds to analysing the proposals is doing the game a disservice, because they have  failed beforehand to consider some fundamentals.  Firstly, and as I won't stop banging on about, there is the violation of the democratic principle of one club/one team.

Secondly, national association representatives, club BoD's, Managers, teams, and even fans are only temporary custodians of the game here, and with that comes responsibility to do the right thing for the benefit of all and look well beyond narrow self-interest.

Thirdly, and staying on that 'do the right thing' theme, what are we to make of a national association willing to sanction the principle of financial inducements being offered to member clubs in order to smooth the passage of a partisan and highly divisive proposal ?  It may not be illegal but it is tantamount to bribery and as such is almost certainly unethical, and the SPFL deserves to be called out on it. 

We can expect no help from the supine football media in this country, so it falls to supporters to take a stand.  I've now contacted my club and I encourage everyone else to do likewise. 

I smell utter shite.

 

As you know any democracy that might have vaguely existed in Scottish football was completely lost when the spl was founded. And it's becoming more and more apparent that that the 'merger' of the spl and sfl was a takeover which would give the larger clubs the opportunity to finally rid themselves of the lower league sides. Indeed if our own club go down this year to be replaced by Raith Rovers it will be the first time that the second tier has been comprised entirely of full time teams, and that might just give them the chance they are looking for.

[theoriginalhedge]

2 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

Anyone who even proceeds to analysing the proposals is doing the game a disservice, because they have  failed beforehand to consider some fundamentals.  Firstly, and as I won't stop banging on about, there is the violation of the democratic principle of one club/one team.

Secondly, national association representatives, club BoD's, Managers, teams, and even fans are only temporary custodians of the game here, and with that comes responsibility to do the right thing for the benefit of all and look well beyond narrow self-interest.

Thirdly, and staying on that 'do the right thing' theme, what are we to make of a national association willing to sanction the principle of financial inducements being offered to member clubs in order to smooth the passage of a partisan and highly divisive proposal ?  It may not be illegal but it is tantamount to bribery and as such is almost certainly unethical, and the SPFL deserves to be called out on it. 

We can expect no help from the supine football media in this country, so it falls to supporters to take a stand.  I've now contacted my club and I encourage everyone else to do likewise. 

I smell utter shite.

 

Great post.  I too  have already contacted our chairman on this and will try to encourage a lot  more to do so. 

[101]

I think its important that we all speak with our clubs however Morton and Falkirk sit on the SPFL board and represent the championship so I hope the supporters of those clubs especially put pressure on their clubs

[The Moonster]

11 minutes ago, Adam101 said:

I think its important that we all speak with our clubs however Morton and Falkirk sit on the SPFL board and represent the championship so I hope the supporters of those clubs especially put pressure on their clubs

For league structure changes every team will have a vote here. Everyone needs to badger their club.

[101]

Just now, The Moonster said:

For league structure changes every team will have a vote here. Everyone needs to badger their club.

That's good the hear was worried it might just go to the SPFL board to make a decision 

[theoriginalhedge]

23 hours ago, NewBornBairn said:

They need to be told that this will be their Ratners moment. Taking the piss out of customers and ignoring their views. 

Sounds like our local council planning committee . 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

We're just discovering another downside to this Colts malarkey. Having recently taken two youngsters on loan from Premier clubs due to horrendous injury problems, lo and behold they are both ineligible for this weekend's Irn Bru semi-final due to having played earlier in the competition for, ahem, their Colt clubs.

Still, on the bright side Stenny have this week hammered home a coffin nail - fair play to the Warriors [emoji106]

[Skyline Drifter]

5 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

We're just discovering another downside to this Colts malarkey. Having recently taken two youngsters on loan from Premier clubs due to horrendous injury problems, lo and behold they are both ineligible for this weekend's Irn Bru semi-final due to having played earlier in the competition for, ahem, their Colt clubs.

Thats a downside of signing people in January though, not really anything specific to Colt teams. Andy Stirling is also ineligible due to playing earlier in the competition and he isnt a Colt.

Its far more relevant to point out that if Colts teams were in the League they most likely wouldnt have been available for loan in the first place.

[Monkey Tennis]

20 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Thats a downside of signing people in January though, not really anything specific to Colt teams. Andy Stirling is also ineligible due to playing earlier in the competition and he isnt a Colt.

It is specific however, to the recent development of Colt sides playing in the Challenge Cup. 

Two years ago, signing a player on loan from a top flight club in January, would not have presented the situation whereby he'd already got himself cup tied in the Challenge Cup.

[peternapper]

4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It is specific however, to the recent development of Colt sides playing in the Challenge Cup. 

Two years ago, signing a player on loan from a top flight club in January, would not have presented the situation whereby he'd already got himself cup tied in the Challenge Cup.

It will be like water off a ducks back but surely after putting colt teams into the challenge cup for no gain most of them getting beat early doors & with most supporters of proper clubs refusing to attend games involving them the powers that be should just withdraw them & allow some HFL/LL clubs to take part. It was an obvious pre-cursor to getting Old Firm colts a league place. Hopefully there has been enough supporter opposition shown to that so it will be binned. If they persist with Colts in the challenge cup the only way to approach those games is to boycott them.

[ATLIS]

On ‎29‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 11:53, Buddist Monk said:

I see Murty is quoted as claiming that generations of OF rising stars will be lost to the game without colt clubs.

 

I'm not even going to bother countering that argument, it actually makes me very angry - unreasonably so, the level of inequity and conceit is incredible.

The thing is, lost to who? They won't be lost to the game, they'll go to clubs they were previously at on loan or that offer a good option. For f**k sake look at Halkett, he didn't make it at Rangers and would've been in their Colt team at the time being a Scottish U19 internationalist. 

How is he lost to the game? He came to us and improved and set his career up? Look at Callum Booth he came to us, and he's playing Premiership football pretty regularly I'm sure.

You could look at Charlie Telfer and say he didn't make the grade, he was average at Championship level getting experience every week however. Does that mean that he would have been a Scottish international now by playing League 2 football with the other Rangers/Celtic/Whoever else castoffs? Does it f**k

Why should the OF have control of every good youth player in Scotland? That's probably a lot more of a detriment to the Scottish team and Scottish football as a whole than denying Colt Teams will ever be.

They're not lost to the game, they escape the grips of the Old Firm.

[Buddist Monk]

Gordon Smith was on Sportsound the other day bestowing the virtues, claiming they were his idea and generally acting in a conceited manner by being perplexed that us "wee" teams would snub our noses as such a possible bounty. That sort of arrogance is not untypical either.

Now, while it's obvious I am not keen on them, I wonder what people's reaction would be to non-OF colts? One of my biggest worries is being swamped by myopic arrogant fuckwits, and the OF seem to produce these self righteous c***s on a conveyor belt. Remove the OF, you remove that element.

I know I shouldn't, but I am slightly more inclined to colts if there was no OF participation.

[peternapper]

Quote

 

Within the league system it should be one club=one team regardless of who they come from.  Any extras should be accommodated outwith the present pyramid. 

[Skyline Drifter]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It is specific however, to the recent development of Colt sides playing in the Challenge Cup. 

Two years ago, signing a player on loan from a top flight club in January, would not have presented the situation whereby he'd already got himself cup tied in the Challenge Cup.

To be picky, it could easily have been if they had already been on loan somewhere else (see Joe Thomson last year).

But yes, point taken. It is a different point as far as I am concerned though. As you know I have no issue at all with the concept of Colt teams playing in the Challenge Cup. I think its a good thing. I am fundamentally against them being in the League set up though. I appreciate most people will think one condones the other. I dont.

[Monkey Tennis]

3 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 As you know I have no issue at all with the concept of Colt teams playing in the Challenge Cup. I think its a good thing. I am fundamentally against them being in the League set up though. I appreciate most people will think one condones the other. I dont.

What's the nature of the distinction you make between the two?

I actually agree that the idea of league involvement is worse than the idea of cup involvement, but I disapprove of both and not just because I do see the latter as a gateway to the former.

[theoriginalhedge]

50 minutes ago, peternapper said:

Within the league system it should be one club=one team regardless of who they come from.  Any extras should be accommodated outwith the present pyramid. 

This is the correct approach simply for the sake of club licencing.   For the OF to suggest playing all games away from home is a bit of a kick in the teeth for all the lower league clubs who are obliged to meet the licencing criteria to play at senior level.  Offering money does not merit meeting the criteria. 

 Buddist Monk wondered about other colt sides  but  they would fall into the same criteria as the OF.  With no  home ground available to them can anyone see the likes of Aberdeen , Hibs , Hearts etc being prepared to fork out every single game  as the OF seem prepared to do ?  

[Buddist Monk]

7 minutes ago, theoriginalhedge said:

 Buddist Monk wondered about other colt sides  but  they would fall into the same criteria as the OF.  With no  home ground available to them can anyone see the likes of Aberdeen , Hibs , Hearts etc being prepared to fork out every single game  as the OF seem prepared to do ?  

I was looking at one specific effect, or possible effect, not commenting on the finances or grounds they use.

Ultimately if it was financially beneficial to all involved to have colt clubs, I'd still have an issue with them. A fundamental belief that one club is one club, not two. Colt clubs, to me, seem to entirely suit those at the very top of the pyramid.

[theoriginalhedge]

33 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

I was looking at one specific effect, or possible effect, not commenting on the finances or grounds they use.

Ultimately if it was financially beneficial to all involved to have colt clubs, I'd still have an issue with them. A fundamental belief that one club is one club, not two. Colt clubs, to me, seem to entirely suit those at the very top of the pyramid.

Which is why the likes of Gordon Smith has a problem when those further down start to object. 

 

[Skyline Drifter]

3 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

What's the nature of the distinction you make between the two?

I actually agree that the idea of league involvement is worse than the idea of cup involvement, but I disapprove of both and not just because I do see the latter as a gateway to the former.

For a start the very obvious distinction is one club, one entry. The ethos of the Challenge Cup originally was to allow the so called "lesser" clubs the opportunity to play out a cup competition and have a genuine chance of winning it / reaching the latter stages rather than continually making up the cannon fodder numbers in the two main cups. Personally I think a lot of where we are now goes back to getting some momentum behind the club off the back of our first Challenge Cup Final in 1997. By it's nature therefore the top 12 aren't allowed to enter it, or haven't been prior to the last two years. I don't see any issue at all with those clubs being allowed to enter a young team in the Challenge Cup. They are all members of the SPFL which runs the competition and should be allowed to enter it in some form for me. As we've seen, there's no remote threat any of them are going to actually win it or get anywhere near doing so in practice. It's some decent experience for the young players in question. If they lose in one game so be it, nothing lost. If they get a few rounds of fixtures against older established senior teams then all the better. I think I'd be inclined to deliberately seed the Colt teams apart to make sure they weren't playing one another but that's a minor point. I understand why many people choose to boycott such games on a long term view basis but I think that's a shame. As much as I enjoyed our trip to TNS, and indeed our home game with Linfield, I have far more doubts about the validity of a cross border entrance to the Challenge Cup than I do with the Colt sides. However I accept at the moment the commercial interest of tv companies in the cross Border aspect is probably the only reason we still have a Challenge Cup.

The League is a different kettle of fish. There are three separate reasons why I would be completely in opposition to that:

1 - Most importantly, I have fundamental opposition to the principle of one club having two entrants in the same competition, which is what it will be if they have two teams in the same League structure even if they can't gain promotion. I realise in principle that's not a huge leap from Stranraer reserves for instance playing in the South of Scotland League which is part of the pyramid but I think there is a distinction to be made between having a 2nd eleven playing in the "non-Leagues" which aren't allowed promotion to the League proper, and having two parachuted straight into the actual League set up without having to start at the bottom, though I wouldn't let them into the actual League set up at all even if they did start at the bottom. I've no real issue with them playing to Lowland League level I suppose but I wouldn't let them go up from there.

2 - Further to that, I also don't want the scenario to exist whereby their presence potentially means skipping places in promotion and relegation rankings at season's end. It just looks "amateur". As does the suggestion that they'll play all their games away from home.

3 - Finally, I'm fundamentally sceptical at the notion that this will somehow massively increase the development of our young players in this country. Firstly we're only talking about the young players at two clubs even if it did help. I think any truly outstanding prospects are likely to either already be part of the club's first team squad at 19 (see Kieran Tierney / Ross McCrorie) or to be loaned out at a higher level than League Two to test them against better players. It's more likely the OF Colt sides in the League will see them hoard the second tier youths to play at the level who aren't going to be the guys who eventually play international football. The sort of guys who will be released when they turn 20 and end up with Queen of the South or Dumbarton or Stenhousemuir, etc. So what are they really gaining? Even if we accept it aids their development and thereby the overall standards of the bottom half of our League set up (which it might) that's not the point of this whole grand scheme. The stated aim is to develop young players to the stage that we'll have a better international side at the end of it. I may be wrong but I just don't see that and I think it takes a pretty fanciful leap to think it would.

As a selfish aside, I also think it will make it far more difficult for clubs like us to get young players in on loan from the top tier. You simply won't get most Celtic and Rangers youngsters available for loan and as a knock on, the availability of young players from other clubs would be at a premium due to the smaller market and the more clubs looking for those players.