Jump to content

Celtic and Rangers B Teams in League Two?


falski

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Lowland team said:

Your correct they never.  as all the clubs were sfa member clubs.and i dont really think there was any place for them to go as they were all tier 5. and they asked the sfa they wish to stay at 18 but the lowland league was capped at 16.to be fair i think it was done quickly to put the pyramid in place again not looking for a argument on this but thats my opinion on it.

What actually happened was that the SFA wanted to set up two north and south regional leagues and invite applications. The Highland League negotiated to be the north feeder in its own right. The SFA have never capped numbers, it's a league decision, regardless of what your "opinion" is. There were only 12 teams in the inaugural Lowland League season.

22 minutes ago, Lowland team said:

The colts dont play association cups.my club voted against them twice 

But they still play league fixtures. As above, why not elect another two clubs over B teams?

Edited by Cyclizine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lowland team said:

The colts dont play association cups.my club voted against them twice 

 

What club's that? Why the secrecy about which club voted for what anyway, you'd think they'd like the fans paying money at the gate to understand their thinking? It's almost like they're ashamed.

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cyclizine said:

What actually happened was that the SFA wanted to set up two north and south regional leagues and invite applications. The Highland League negotiated to be the north feeder in its own right. The SFA have never capped numbers, it's a league decision, regardless of what your "opinion" is. There were only 12 teams in the inaugural Lowland League season.

But they still play league fixtures. As above, why not elect another two clubs over B teams?

Thats my thinking.Get the Glasgow (pointless only good for the old firm) Colts out and promote two real teams up in their place.gives a quick boost to the pyramid and stops the colt rubbish.

 

Lets face it if Rangers and Celtic colts are allowed then surely legally you couldn't stop any colt teams joining.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/04/2022 at 20:28, Gimme said:

I don't believe it'll become permanent but there will be issues before it ends.

Bonnyrigg won the league with relative comfort this season, but take them out of the equation and the B teams would fill the top 2 positions and that's where the issues will start.

If Bonnyrigg are lucky enough to be promoted and are replaced by Cowdenbeath the latter, based on Berwick, Shire and Brechin in the HL are unlikely to challenge for the title next year, similarly whoever comes up from Tier 6 might find the going tougher than expected (ask Bo'ness how they thought they'd do coming up). This will likely see the B teams toward the top of the league again next season and if one of them wins it, irrespective of any agreement that's in place, you can see a legal challenge happening by either Club 42, the HL winners, or indeed both.

That challenge might not be successful but it costs money to defend, leaves others in limbo, and pisses off the clubs that the Lowland League wants to agree to automatic relegation from League 2.

Sooner or later ambitious clubs will release the error of their ways but by then damage has been done, it also doesn't help that there are clubs in the league that know the only way they are going is down and want to maximise their income before that happens.

Spot on 

This is the crux of the issue, the Lowland League Committee know it, as do Doncaster and Maxwell who have all engineered an arrangement where the two guest Clubs admitted understand it’s not in any of the involved parties interest to win the league as it could cause a legal challenge by Club 42. It demeans the LL as a competition and also the pyramid.

Anyone know a bookie who would give a price on any guest Club NOT winning the Lowland League next season ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, boheesian said:

Don’t know who gave you the figure but I just noticed it in the recent updates and from where I was standing the crowd was nearer to 700. However, you can only put up what figure is given to you. Thanks for your hard work.

This figure was given by a paying supporter as some clubs are not willing or able to send info. Please feel free to send rough head counts as I want numbers to be accurate to +/-9

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Brazilianlex said:

Spot on 

This is the crux of the issue, the Lowland League Committee know it, as do Doncaster and Maxwell who have all engineered an arrangement where the two guest Clubs admitted understand it’s not in any of the involved parties interest to win the league as it could cause a legal challenge by Club 42. It demeans the LL as a competition and also the pyramid.

Anyone know a bookie who would give a price on any guest Club NOT winning the Lowland League next season ?

 

 

I’m not sure there would be a legal challenge given that the SPFL’s lawyer helped draft the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Pyramid Watcher said:

I’m not sure there would be a legal challenge given that the SPFL’s lawyer helped draft the rules.

There would be. Any spfl club who finishes as Club 42 has nothing to lose. They may not win but would be mad not to have a go given the financial penalty of losing their spfl status.

spfl is a 42 members association where the members have never been consulted or asked to vote on the issue. The SFA do not seem within the rules to have the jurisdiction to dictate to spfl Clubs on a matter where they could lose their spfl status to a non champion Club. 

The legal argument to justify a non champion Club being in the play offs has never been circulated to Clubs.

All a bit superfluous however as a guest Club by arrangement with spfl and SFA will never win the Lowland League and therein lies the problem.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Brazilianlex said:

There would be. Any spfl club who finishes as Club 42 has nothing to lose. They may not win but would be mad not to have a go given the financial penalty of losing their spfl status.

spfl is a 42 members association where the members have never been consulted or asked to vote on the issue. The SFA do not seem within the rules to have the jurisdiction to dictate to spfl Clubs on a matter where they could lose their spfl status to a non champion Club. 

The legal argument to justify a non champion Club being in the play offs has never been circulated to Clubs.

All a bit superfluous however as a guest Club by arrangement with spfl and SFA will never win the Lowland League and therein lies the problem.

 

 

The pyramid rules are a 4 way agreement, with one of those 4 being the SPFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nowhereman said:


I think you might be misunderstanding how lawyers work

All I am saying is that it would make it pretty difficult for a SPFL club to challenge it given the circumstances. I can’t see the SPFL lawyer challenging his own rules. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen but unlikely imo.

Edited by Pyramid Watcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pyramid rules are a 4 way agreement, with one of those 4 being the SPFL.

As far as im aware, the Pyramid Playoff rules weren't changed when the Lowland League introduced the B teams. The only change was that the Lowland League altered their definition of the "champion club" to be the non-guest club with the highest points tally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, craigkillie said:


As far as im aware, the Pyramid Playoff rules weren't changed when the Lowland League introduced the B teams. The only change was that the Lowland League altered their definition of the "champion club" to be the non-guest club with the highest points tally.

The SPFL Pyramid Playoff rules were changed. Things like excluding 2nd XIs as potential candidate clubs, the HL/LL boundary being scrapped in favour of SPFL2 clubs getting a choice. A minimum amount of games had to be played to avoid another Brora situation. Probably some other things.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Pyramid Watcher said:

The pyramid rules are a 4 way agreement, with one of those 4 being the SPFL.

Not disagreeing with that. The point is that the SPFL is a members organisation and the SPFL Board have never taken the issue re the pyramid to its members thus there is a challenge to be made that the SPFL have acted beyond their powers by accepting the change that non champions can participate in the pyramid play off.

Similarly it’s questionable that the SFA can impose the pyramid and just change the rules as they wish without reverting to the Clubs involved.

The saddest part is that this is well known by all involved and the Lowland League is a farce because the guest Clubs will ensure they don’t win the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Brazilianlex said:

Not disagreeing with that. The point is that the SPFL is a members organisation and the SPFL Board have never taken the issue re the pyramid to its members thus there is a challenge to be made that the SPFL have acted beyond their powers by accepting the change that non champions can participate in the pyramid play off.

Similarly it’s questionable that the SFA can impose the pyramid and just change the rules as they wish without reverting to the Clubs involved.

The saddest part is that this is well known by all involved and the Lowland League is a farce because the guest Clubs will ensure they don’t win the league.

I can see a challenge and it likely being needed next season unless Darvel spend another fortune at non-league level.

Don't see the challenge going anywhere though. Probably would have helped if all the clubs that have an issue with it got together when it was changed at Board level. We're now 6+ months removed, and it will be another year before anything happens. It's easy to argue the silence from the members has been acceptance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

I can see a challenge and it likely being needed next season unless Darvel spend another fortune at non-league level.

Don't see the challenge going anywhere though. Probably would have helped if all the clubs that have an issue with it got together when it was changed at Board level. We're now 6+ months removed, and it will be another year before anything happens. It's easy to argue the silence from the members has been acceptance.

Questions are being asked and answers are woolly at best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, peternapper said:

Another nail in the joke Lowland League coffin. Take away the play-off place for that league from next season.

2 chances of that happening, and one of those is no chance.

Edited by Pyramid Watcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...