Celtic and Hearts B Teams in Lowland League?

[Gordon EF]

2 minutes ago, VodkaTap said:

I fully accept that fans of other clubs are perfectly entitled to comment on the proposals.

What i cannot accept that is that all the comments made on this topic totally represent the views of all the supporters of the lowland league clubs !!

Nobody is saying they do. Lowland League fans have been shockingly quiet on the issue.

[Sergeant Wilson]

3 minutes ago, VodkaTap said:

I fully accept that fans of other clubs are perfectly entitled to comment on the proposals.

What i cannot accept that is that all the comments made on this topic totally represent the views of all the supporters of the lowland league clubs !!

Did anyone say they did?

The point being made is, early support appears to be coming from clubs with no support to speak of.

[VodkaTap]

8 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Did anyone say they did?

The point being made is, early support appears to be coming from clubs with no support to speak of.

Anyone ( and journalists ) coming across this topic would surmise that the overwhelming majority of LL supporters are against this proposal.

Secondly - are you really saying that you need a certain number of supporters before a club is allowed a view ??????

[FairWeatherFan]

8 minutes ago, VodkaTap said:

I fully accept that fans of other clubs are perfectly entitled to comment on the proposals.

What i cannot accept that is that all the comments made on this topic totally represent the views of all the supporters of the lowland league clubs !!

At the end of the day it will for those fans, through their LL clubs who will make a decision on this proposal - not the fans of any other club.

Probably because the Lowland League isn't operated under a franchise system. Kelty Hearts might have a say splitting a vote 9-8 despite not even playing in the league next season. If this had been a normal season the 17 members represented at the meeting on Monday would have seen a turnover of it's membership. It's not just a concern for current Lowland League clubs because that could be anyone from the 30 odd above in the SPFL and the 100+ below.

Stranraer SoS were denied the opportunity to compete for promotion having won the chance on the field because of the Lowland League's rules on not having 2 teams compete in leagues governed by the SFA Professional Game Board. Yet another couple of 2nd string sides come along and flash some cash and it's something to be considered.

[Gordon EF]

2 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

It's not just a concern for current Lowland League clubs because that could be anyone from the 30 odd above in the SPFL and the 100+ below.

Exactly. It's not just a matter for current LL clubs. It's a matter for any club that could potentially find themselves in the LL. Which realistically includes at least 15 current SPFL clubs and plenty clubs further down. We're all part of the same system now.

[newcastle broon]

9 hours ago, VodkaTap said:

Anyone ( and journalists ) coming across this topic would surmise that the overwhelming majority of LL supporters are against this proposal.

Secondly - are you really saying that you need a certain number of supporters before a club is allowed a view ??????

I get what you're saying regarding pnb.

Its not the be all and end all for the LL but must admit I'm surprised you are sticking up for this nonsense.

If they want in the pyramid stick them in the bottom tier. That way NO clubs are taking back handers. 

You should be more worried that the LL could potentially open up more relegations with or without Colts teams. 

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by newcastle broon

[Stewie Griffin]

16 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Caley Braves owner seemingly more pro than con. Says the decision will be made by the fans. Takes the piss a bit by saying they might be the only club in Scotland letting fans make the decision. 

To a certain degree he has a point.

Other clubs, including my own, are 'consulting ' with fans which isn't the same a letting them make decisions.  I have worked in jobs where we have 'consulted' with customers but the decisions have long been made. It's easy enough to say 'we consulted but we have the full facts at our finger tips and taking all things into consideration we appreciate the input of our fan base, however..........'. My experience also tells me that when you ask people to get in touch with their views they very rarely do and then complain afterwards when the decision isn't the one they like or want (guilty as charged), which is very different from holding public meetings, polls etc (I appreciate the time constraints on this). I suspect many of us voicing our outrage on the forums won't get in touch with the club to say no and it's interesting to note that many of the social media posters closest to the top are silent or neutral on the matter on the forums. 

It could be argued that the statement explaining the proposal issued by Berwick is geared very much to supporting it particularly because of the financial side.  There is very little about costs or potential disadvantages. The Old Firm are smart enough to realise clubs are struggling post-COVID and the appeal of extra money may be enough to swing them behind the proposal.

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

10 hours ago, VodkaTap said:

Anyone ( and journalists ) coming across this topic would surmise that the overwhelming majority of LL supporters are against this proposal.

Secondly - are you really saying that you need a certain number of supporters before a club is allowed a view ??????

Clubs should consider supporters views. Obviously that's less important to some than others who don't have an established base. They are entitled to a view, I don't know the reason Caledonian Braces are supportive. But I suspect it might be personal ambition and elevation of their club by trying to choose the right pals.

LL aren't the only ones affected. I supported the introduction of the pyramid, but had nagging doubts about who we would be getting in to bed with and their agendas. Some of those doubts seem to be justified.

[LongTimeLurker]

26 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

....LL aren't the only ones affected. I supported the introduction of the pyramid, but had nagging doubts about who we would be getting in to bed with and their agendas. Some of those doubts seem to be justified.

We have reached the stage we are at now with the pyramid more by fortunate accident than design. If Kelty hadn't taken a huge risk by defecting to the EoS to be licensed Tom Johnston would probably still banging on about 100k toilet blocks and the Holy Grail.

Clubs like Spartans, Caledonian Braves and BSC Glagow with near zero fan interest would also still be spinning a yarn about how they rather than the likes of Bo'ness United, Bonnyrigg Rose, Auchinleck Talbot and Clydebank, who have lower division SPFL sized fanbases, are the progressive future of football because they use floodlights and issue season long fixture lists.

Edited May 8, 2021 by LongTimeLurker

[VodkaTap]

1 hour ago, newcastle broon said:

I get what you're saying regarding pnb.

Its not the be all and end all for the LL but must admit I'm surprised you are sticking up for this nonsense.

If they want in the pyramid stick them in the bottom tier. That way NO clubs are taking back handers. 

You should be more worried that the LL could potentially open up more relegations with or without Colts teams. 

 

First of all - where do you get the idea, that, to quote you, I am "sticking up for this nonsense"?

I have not said a word on whether i think this proposal is good or bad.

The fact is that the proposal on the table for this coming season affects ONLY the current LL teams - nobody else.

To believe otherwise then you must be thinking that George Fraser is a liar when he says that.

Edited May 8, 2021 by VodkaTap

[parsforlife]

1 minute ago, andrew21 said:

When league reconstruction that was potentially increasing the size of SPFL was being discussed this time last season, weren't Kelty and Brora basically told when they put forward a case for including them that it was just a matter for SPFL clubs, it wasn't a matter for any club that could potentially find themselves in the SPFL?

No queue jumping in that scenario.

[Sergeant Wilson]

30 minutes ago, VodkaTap said:

First of all - where do you get the idea, that, to quote you, I am "sticking up for this nonsense"?

I have not said a word on whether i think this proposal is good or bad.

The fact is that the proposal on the table for this coming season affects ONLY the current LL teams - nobody else.

To believe otherwise then you must be thinking that George Fraser is a liar when he says that.

It affects every club who joined the pyramid on the basis that is just that. A pyramid structure you start at the bottom and move up based on merit. Not buy your way in half way up.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Sergeant Wilson

[VodkaTap]

2 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

It affects every club who joined the pyramid on the basis that is just that. A pyramid structure you start at the bottom and move up based on merit. Not buy your way in half way up.

Please explain to me how this proposal, which, as stated is for one year only, affects any other club outwith the current LL clubs ?????

[vikingTON]

35 minutes ago, VodkaTap said:

 

The fact is that the proposal on the table for this coming season affects ONLY the current LL teams - nobody else.

To believe otherwise then you must be thinking that George Fraser is a liar when he says that.

He's either a liar or a moron, I'm not sure which he'd prefer.

[Sergeant Wilson]

7 minutes ago, VodkaTap said:

Please explain to me how this proposal, which, as stated is for one year only, affects any other club outwith the current LL clubs ?????

Because it establishes a principle of inclusion of reserves.

[VodkaTap]

5 minutes ago, virginton said:

He's either a liar or a moron, I'm not sure which he'd prefer.

Yeah - I have to say, insults really add a lot to the topic.

[VodkaTap]

1 minute ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Because it establishes a principle of inclusion of reserves.

This principle, which you argue so strenuously against, is an already established one.

Stirling University in the EOS & Stranraer in the SOS.

So please don't try and claim this proposal is something different.

[Gordon EF]

47 minutes ago, VodkaTap said:

To believe otherwise then you must be thinking that George Fraser is a liar when he says that.

The current proposal might only be for one season but nobody with a brain thinks that's the long term goal. The LL themselves called it a "pilot scheme" in their own literature.

[Gordon EF]

25 minutes ago, andrew21 said:

When league reconstruction that was potentially increasing the size of SPFL was being discussed this time last season, weren't Kelty and Brora basically told when they put forward a case for including them that it was just a matter for SPFL clubs, it wasn't a matter for any club that could potentially find themselves in the SPFL?

It's clearly something that will be voted on by SPFL clubs alone but of course it's a matter for clubs below the SPFL because it affects them. So if LL/HL/EoSFL/WoSFL clubs and their supporters have an opinion on SPFL expansion, it's absolutely their right to express that. Non-SPFL supporters express opinions about the SPFL all the time. I'd take just as much issue some with arse coming on saying "this doesn't concern you" as when it happens the other way round.

[Sergeant Wilson]

7 minutes ago, VodkaTap said:

This principle, which you argue so strenuously against, is an already established one.

Stirling University in the EOS & Stranraer in the SOS.

So please don't try and claim this proposal is something different.

Ok, further establishes the principle of reserves inclusion. I understand the clubs who are already "in" why they are there. I disagree that they should be and they should go as well. If you think they were included for the same principles and don't recognise the potential in bigger clubs doing it, you are at sbest, naive.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Sergeant Wilson