Ginaro Posted June 23, 2021 Share Posted June 23, 2021 So the Development League needed SFA approval to make a change to their rules? Have the SFA really sat on this for months and only now made a decision just a few weeks before the season starts? Could they adjust the conferences so some are U20s while others are U21s? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz1959 Posted June 23, 2021 Share Posted June 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Ginaro said: So the Development League needed SFA approval to make a change to their rules? Have the SFA really sat on this for months and only now made a decision just a few weeks before the season starts? Could they adjust the conferences so some are U20s while others are U21s? Yes they have and it was chased up numerous times. As the Development League is governed by the Lowland League any rule changes have to be approved by the SFA in the same way as any rule changes affect the East or West of Scotland leagues 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dev Posted June 23, 2021 Share Posted June 23, 2021 Maybe it's already time for Celtic and Rangers to show just how much influence they have at SFA level and get the change proposed by the LL through in time for 2021/22. After all it's only for one season isn't it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dev Posted June 23, 2021 Share Posted June 23, 2021 14 minutes ago, Kirk St Moritz said: You may just find that the Rangers representative on the SFA Professional Game Board did in fact back this proposal, but was out-voted by the blazers, led by Maxwell, who had made up his mind from the start and recommended that all Board members vote against it. Maxwell is the Villain, aided and abetted by Mulraney and Petrie & their poodles. Maybe the supporters of the proposal should go to the Press and make such a song and dance that the Blazers will grow a pair (so to speak) and remedy the situation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk St Moritz Posted June 23, 2021 Share Posted June 23, 2021 1 minute ago, Dev said: Maybe the supporters of the proposal should go to the Press and make such a song and dance that the Blazers will grow a pair (so to speak) and remedy the situation? I think that many of the teams affected already have by the look of it, but there is also a feeling that the SFA won't give two shits, as they usually just ride roughshod over everything anyway 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmontheloknow Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 Playinf devil's advocate, if these 400 or so 2001s played in a 2002/03 league, then does that not likely reduce involvement of the 2003s? Do they stay at U19 level another year rather than signing with an U20 side? If so, what of the 04 and 05s and so on... Every action has an equal and opposite reaction etc... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirk St Moritz Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 30 minutes ago, cmontheloknow said: Playinf devil's advocate, if these 400 or so 2001s played in a 2002/03 league, then does that not likely reduce involvement of the 2003s? Do they stay at U19 level another year rather than signing with an U20 side? If so, what of the 04 and 05s and so on... Every action has an equal and opposite reaction etc... That should be the decision of the clubs, if they have capable 2002 and 2003 players who are ready and show real potential, the clubs can use their own discretion as to how best and quickly to develop them. The weakest of weak arguments from a completely out of touch SFA. I also notice Benburb are seeking answers to why players born in 2000 can still play in SYFA U-21’s when they are in fact U-22. Seems a real anomaly and a question they deserve a proper answer to. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmontheloknow Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, Kirk St Moritz said: That should be the decision of the clubs, if they have capable 2002 and 2003 players who are ready and show real potential, the clubs can use their own discretion as to how best and quickly to develop them. The weakest of weak arguments from a completely out of touch SFA. I also notice Benburb are seeking answers to why players born in 2000 can still play in SYFA U-21’s when they are in fact U-22. Seems a real anomaly and a question they deserve a proper answer to. 21s has always been like that though and is effectively 21 and under. A leftover from when it was Juvenile? There was an U25 Juvenile (secondary juvenile or something? Sure one ran til quite recent times in central belt) Edited June 24, 2021 by cmontheloknow 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 As a decent chunk of teams were cobbled together last minute with the introduction of the WoSFL and the Fife Juniors moving to the EoSFL, its not like an extension would of distrupted an established pathway. Instead your maybe going to see a scramble to raid u19 teams from SYFA leagues to fill SLFL u20 teams, with those aged out trying slot back into u21, ams or other seniors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig fae the Vale Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 Away from the SFA's nonsense decision, there was some football played tonight as a very good looking Vale of Leven u20’s beat Cardross 4-2. Good game, and a good night until the last 15 minutes where the midges became ridiculous. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glass ceiling Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 16 hours ago, cmontheloknow said: Playinf devil's advocate, if these 400 or so 2001s played in a 2002/03 league, then does that not likely reduce involvement of the 2003s? Do they stay at U19 level another year rather than signing with an U20 side? If so, what of the 04 and 05s and so on... Every action has an equal and opposite reaction etc... I agree 100% Why can the players effected not go to 21s or ammies - it is time for the 04s to get thier shot at the Development Leaugue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaz1959 Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 Please explain how over 400 young adults can move to u21s as there are only 24 clubs in the West of Scotland. There are no u21s anywhere else in Scotland. Not all the players are with 1 club, they are spread over the 67 clubs from last season. What people have not picked up on is that the SYFA are adding an u18's league next season so their u17s are not missing out, so they plan on having 17s, 18s and 19s. Double standards comes to mind, Had anyone actually thought about the players mental health, no football played and limited training for the last 15 months and then this happens. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glass ceiling Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 Completely understand and did not appreciate that there were so few U21 teams Is there sn opportunity for players born in 01 who are currently registered with West of Scotland teams who might not be quite ready for the first team to potentially go out on loan for a season? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 They've managed to get the SFA to agree to the u21 extension. SYFA will also be extending their u21 set up to u22 for a year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dev Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 Some sense after all ! Great news for all concerned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 Unsurprisingly there's already some sniping as the extension only applies to those that had been registered early in the year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyro Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 47 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said: Unsurprisingly there's already some sniping as the extension only applies to those that had been registered early in the year. Was that not the original agreement? I did notice a few new teams bitching about it and wondered if they were even allowed to have overage (2001) players as they all would’ve been signed for this season, not last season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 59 minutes ago, Spyro said: Was that not the original agreement? I did notice a few new teams bitching about it and wondered if they were even allowed to have overage (2001) players as they all would’ve been signed for this season, not last season. It's the way the rule has always been proposed. Since it was about those registered to Development teams, not just 2001s in general that for the most part would have been signed elsewhere if they intended to play football in 2020-21. In which case complaining about another group of 2001s missing out rings a little hollow, and it seems to be more about the supposed competitive disadvantage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyro Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 1 hour ago, FairWeatherFan said: It's the way the rule has always been proposed. Since it was about those registered to Development teams, not just 2001s in general that for the most part would have been signed elsewhere if they intended to play football in 2020-21. In which case complaining about another group of 2001s missing out rings a little hollow, and it seems to be more about the supposed competitive disadvantage. Understandable but I think most established teams are already in groups together and the new, West teams are all together. There will be some discrepancies which really should’ve been discussed by the folk in charge before this stage. As you say, this was the original plan that everyone were told about months ago 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginaro Posted July 1, 2021 Share Posted July 1, 2021 (edited) I think whichever of the three options was chosen - no 01s allowed, 01s only registered before Feb, or a free for all on 01s - some players are going to be screwed. But of those, it seems like the middle one is the least worst option. Allowing any 2001 player to play would disadvantage even more of the younger players, one of the reasons the SFA/SYFA gave for not allowing the Feb registered 01 players. I'm assuming that the new teams will have been aware of the situation with 2001 players before they joined the league, so they can hardly complain now about it now. Edited July 1, 2021 by Ginaro 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.