'Colt Clubs' & The Democratic Principle

[Shadwell Dog]

6 minutes ago, Scosha said:

People don't and wouldn't turn up in their thousands to watch Forfar (for example) vs Rangers U20s though. This was evident during the early rounds of the Challenge Cup last season. I really hope the plans fall through. 

I agree watching the rangers first team is a lot different from watching their kids. The biggest crowd they or celtic u20's mustered was 493 against Stirling Uni whilst Celtic u20's could only manage 216 against Annan. Anyone who thinks crowds are going to go up by sticking them in the league is kidding themselves.

[The Moonster]

3 hours ago, P475 said:

 

personally I wouldn't like to see this happening, but you can't argue that this would only mean more money for the big city teams. When the rangers worked their way back through the leagues, they filled every stadium they played in along the way. 

I know that it was a huge boost to the Pars coffers, and I'm told that East Fife's fortunes were changed drastically with the blue pound. 

 

[HoBNob]

It wouldn't really bother me at all tbh.

 

If we're using the challenge cup as an indicator of how they'd fare in terms of crowds then it's only fare to judge their performances from it, they'd be lucky to get promoted from league 2.

 

 

Edited to add:- An U20s side will be no worse than The Rangers getting allowed into the 3rd division, football carried on after that and football will carry on if there's an u20s side in the set up.

[ginge123]

This is being done under the guise of player development so it would be interesting to look at the, say, top 10 international and club sides and see how many players in those squads have actually come through the B, Jong or II teams already in place abroad.

If there are players coming through in, relatively, high numbers then it's almost difficult to argue against it on a player development front.

Playing devil's advocate here BUT...

What's more beneficial to a young player, going out on loan to play for Forfar in League One next season but having to use their facilities or staying at an Aberdeen B team, playing the same opposition and getting the use of potentially better facilities?

A few years ago, the Livingston u-19s were absolutely horsing everyone they played, admittedly we were in the First Division at the time so we probably wouldn't have been eligible for a B team but it might have been more beneficial for them to have been playing at a higher level.

All that said, I don't think the number of players coming through colt teams and going on to play at the top level would be high enough to justify the animosity it would draw.

If it was to come to fruition, it would have to be limited to a handful of teams who are reviewed on a regular basis with maybe a 3-5 year license period. If players aren't being produced for the first team or international football, at some level, then the club is put back to reserve/u-19 football and replaced by a club that is more suitable for the colt setup.

Using that system, I can guarantee Rangers wouldn't get close to a Colt team.

[Benito Robles]

19 hours ago, Grant228 said:

It wouldn't really bother me at all tbh.

 

If we're using the challenge cup as an indicator of how they'd fare in terms of crowds then it's only fare to judge their performances from it, they'd be lucky to get promoted from league 2.

 

 

Edited to add:- An U20s side will be no worse than The Rangers getting allowed into the 3rd division, football carried on after that and football will carry on if there's an u20s side in the set up.

Your last line is relevant and is in fact a good point, but not the main point. At all. Senior professional football's league structure should not be used as a plaything for so-called development. It's an insult to clubs in the system and if truth be told the lads who are supposed to benefit. All seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[ginge123]

Your last line is relevant and is in fact a good point, but not the main point. At all. Senior professional football's league structure should not be used as a plaything for so-called development. It's an insult to clubs in the system and if truth be told the lads who are supposed to benefit. All seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

You'd be hard pressed to justify how this would be an insult to the players. At 18, would you rather be playing in front of a handful of club officials and people with nothing better to do on a Tuesday evening with little interest out with the club itself, or would you rather be playing in front of a couple of hundred people on a Saturday?

There's an argument that these types of scenarios could, in the long run, help players deal with the pressures of first team football.

Is a player likely to develop better after 50 reserve/age group games or 50 league games?

[The Moonster]

26 minutes ago, ginge123 said:

 

You'd be hard pressed to justify how this would be an insult to the players. At 18, would you rather be playing in front of a handful of club officials and people with nothing better to do on a Tuesday evening with little interest out with the club itself, or would you rather be playing in front of a couple of hundred people on a Saturday?

There's an argument that these types of scenarios could, in the long run, help players deal with the pressures of first team football.

Is a player likely to develop better after 50 reserve/age group games or 50 league games?

 

League games, obviously. But we have this wonderful thing called the loan market which allows clubs to give their players to part time clubs to gain first team experience whilst at the same time still training with their full-time team every day.  There is no limit to the number of players a club can loan out.  A situation which on the face of it works well for both clubs and the player and is a million times preferable for fans than showing up to watch your team play Rangers B.

[ginge123]

League games, obviously. But we have this wonderful thing called the loan market which allows clubs to give their players to part time clubs to gain first team experience whilst at the same time still training with their full-time team every day.  There is no limit to the number of players a club can loan out.  A situation which on the face of it works well for both clubs and the player and is a million times preferable for fans than showing up to watch your team play Rangers B.

That's fair enough if they're using their parent club's facilities.

Like I said in my first post, I don't know if Colt teams are the right way to go but we shouldn't just write it off on the basis that it might be shite to watch your team play Colt teams a few times a season.

If there's chance that it will produce better players we should at least investigate it. The SPFL/SFA should be going to speak to coaches in the countries where second teams are already present and finding out if it's playing a part in any success they're having.

[The Moonster]

3 minutes ago, ginge123 said:

 

That's fair enough if they're using their parent club's facilities.

Like I said in my first post, I don't know if Colt teams are the right way to go but we shouldn't just write it off on the basis that it might be shite to watch your team play Colt teams a few times a season.

If there's chance that it will produce better players we should at least investigate it. The SPFL/SFA should be going to speak to coaches in the countries where second teams are already present and finding out if it's playing a part in any success they're having.

 

I can't speak for everyone here, but I don't see our league system as having the sole purpose of producing International level players. It's a competition. One that my club have taken part in since it's inception. Putting teams into the system who can't win the competition makes it a mockery. I would absolutely consider not going to games if this were to happen and I wouldn't blame anyone else for doing the same, especially when it seems to be being implemented on the back of compelling evidence such as "Spain do it". We can produce players without devaluing our league system.

[Jan Vojáček]

9 minutes ago, ginge123 said:

 

That's fair enough if they're using their parent club's facilities.

Like I said in my first post, I don't know if Colt teams are the right way to go but we shouldn't just write it off on the basis that it might be shite to watch your team play Colt teams a few times a season.

If there's chance that it will produce better players we should at least investigate it. The SPFL/SFA should be going to speak to coaches in the countries where second teams are already present and finding out if it's playing a part in any success they're having.

 

I don't want to sound like a dinosaur here, but I couldn't care less how good the future Old Firm players, and Scotland 'stars' are. League football is far, far more important to me than international football ever will be.

[Bring Back Paddy Flannery]

I don't want to sound like a dinosaur here, but I couldn't care less how good the future Old Firm players, and Scotland 'stars' are. League football is far, far more important to me than international football ever will be.

This.

I care far, far more about my club than the international side or future 'stars'.

I honestly couldn't give a flying f**k if the introduction of colts to the league leads to the production of the Scottish Eusebio. I still don't want it.

[Snakebite]

I just don't see the argument that an OF under 20 player will develop better playing for a colt team in L2 than playing both development league games and for a L1/L2/CH team as part of a development loan in the lower leagues.

[ginge123]

I can't speak for everyone here, but I don't see our league system as having the sole purpose of producing International level players. It's a competition. One that my club have taken part in since it's inception. Putting teams into the system who can't win the competition makes it a mockery. I would absolutely consider not going to games if this were to happen and I wouldn't blame anyone else for doing the same, especially when it seems to be being implemented on the back of compelling evidence such as "Spain do it". We can produce players without devaluing our league system.

Not going to watch your club because of Colts teams doesn't make you some kind of AMF martyr, it makes you a fucking moron. It only hurts your club if you don't turn up.

Evidence suggests that the players we're producing aren't very good. Whether you like it or not, neither you nor I want to spend our Saturday watching 22 absolute haddies punt the ball from box to box for an hour and a half. Looking at new ways of producing talented players doesn't make you some kind of club traitor.

I've ended up defending something which I'm not sure would actually work. The point is, it's one of a number of things that we should be looking at.

I don't want to sound like a dinosaur here, but I couldn't care less how good the future Old Firm players, and Scotland 'stars' are. League football is far, far more important to me than international football ever will be.

For some how Scotland are performing and the quality of player in the included in national squads is important and to disregard that is selfish and irresponsible.

[Jan Vojáček]

3 minutes ago, ginge123 said:

For some how Scotland are performing and the quality of player in the included in national squads is important and to disregard that is selfish and irresponsible.

 

Likewise for many their club team and the integrity of the league they are in is important, and to disregard that in the hope (and that's all it is, hope) of appeasing another group would be seriously irresponsible and selfish. 

[The Moonster]

2 minutes ago, ginge123 said:

 

Not going to watch your club because of Colts teams doesn't make you some kind of AMF martyr, it makes you a fucking moron. It only hurts your club if you don't turn up.

Evidence suggests that the players we're producing aren't very good. Whether you like it or not, neither you nor I want to spend our Saturday watching 22 absolute haddies punt the ball from box to box for an hour and a half. Looking at new ways of producing talented players doesn't make you some kind of club traitor.

I've ended up defending something which I'm not sure would actually work. The point is, it's one of a number of things that we should be looking at.



For some how Scotland are performing and the quality of player in the included in national squads is important and to disregard that is selfish and irresponsible.

 

I'm not "against modern football", nor do I want to look like some super fan, I'm simply saying I have no interest in watching my team be the fodder that is solely there to serve a select few clubs in developing their players. If that makes me a fucking moron then I'm fine with that. If my club are wilfully accepting of colt teams in the league set then they are hurting themselves.

Evidence would suggest that our national team has struggled to qualify for tournaments, but our squad is filled with players that are playing a decent level (central defence aside). We don't have a problem producing players that can play in the EPL, Gauld is still learning his trade at Sporting, Burke at Liepzig. As far as I can see the evidence only points to us being chronic in qualifying, our actual standard of player is decent for a country our size.

For me we're attacking the problem the wrong way. Our culture is fucking stinking and has been commented on by not only players but managers coming here too. Perhaps concentrating on what we coach players from a young age would be far better than shoehorning in an idea which upsets fans and looks to have little or no redeeming features.

[Nowhereman]

Just say Celtic, Rangers, Hibs, Hearts and Aberdeen produced Colt teams and over the years they all reached League One. They then occupy the top five places. What happens to promotion? Would the team in ninth place have to play in both the relegation and promotion play offs ?

[CityDave]

Should we really be worried about colt teams as wouldn't they have to be voted in by member clubs? Colt teams also should be treated as new clubs therefore start at the bottom and earn their way up, seems unfair on other clubs who work hard for years to try and gain promotion when this type of entity gains special privilege. Can't see any clubs but the parent ones voting this up. 

 

 

 

[Poet of the Macabre]

1 hour ago, ginge123 said:

Like I said in my first post, I don't know if Colt teams are the right way to go but we shouldn't just write it off on the basis that it might be shite to watch your team play Colt teams a few times a season.

If there's chance that it will produce better players we should at least investigate it. The SPFL/SFA should be going to speak to coaches in the countries where second teams are already present and finding out if it's playing a part in any success they're having.

 

Using your own common sense for a second, do you honestly think that Germany and Spain have had success at the international level because of reserve sides playing in the lower leagues?

43 minutes ago, ginge123 said:

For some how Scotland are performing and the quality of player in the included in national squads is important and to disregard that is selfish and irresponsible.

 

Celtic and Rangers B teams playing Highland League football will make zero difference to Scotland's chances of reaching a major tournament. Literally zero.

[Bluegrass Bairn]

18 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

I'm not "against modern football", nor do I want to look like some super fan, I'm simply saying I have no interest in watching my team be the fodder that is solely there to serve a select few clubs in developing their players. If that makes me a fucking moron then I'm fine with that. If my club are wilfully accepting of colt teams in the league set then they are hurting themselves.

Evidence would suggest that our national team has struggled to qualify for tournaments, but our squad is filled with players that are playing a decent level (central defence aside). We don't have a problem producing players that can play in the EPL, Gauld is still learning his trade at Sporting, Burke at Liepzig. As far as I can see the evidence only points to us being chronic in qualifying, our actual standard of player is decent for a country our size.

For me we're attacking the problem the wrong way. Our culture is fucking stinking and has been commented on by not only players but managers coming here too. Perhaps concentrating on what we coach players from a young age would be far better than shoehorning in an idea which upsets fans and looks to have little or no redeeming features.

would agree that the focus is rather skewed from the SPFL/SFA - if they seriously wanted to improve the overall standard of our top league and the players we could produce, a radical revision of the existing system where the bigot brothers plunder every other team's rising prospect and stick them in their reserve sides - simultaneuosly weakening the opposition and stifling the particular player's development - would raise the standard of competition.  The current order is beyond parody - destroy the quality of your rivals by ripping out the bones of their team, then complain about the lack of decent competition. "Scottish football needs a strong R**g**s", so the press keep wailing - that's bollocks; Scottish football needs a strong Aberdeen, Hibs, Hearts, Dundee, etc etc. Investment IMO needs better distribution for a larger group, not focused on supporting the two that least need help, they sadly already have enough resource to call on without further handicapping the rest. Colt teams?? No thanks.  Its bad enough having to suffer the re-incarnated Derry's wall guardians at any time, without subjecting us to "Govan Lite" as well.  

[DA Baracus]

Are some folk still insisting that young players playing against, and getting thrashed from, jobbers from Annan, Montrose, Clyde, Edinburgh City etc will somehow improve the national side?

Top young players break through in to their first teams at a young age rather than festering in a B side and still being referred to as a 'young' player in football terms when they're 21.