KirkieRR Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) Looking at first and second in the LL, I see that it has officially become as boring as (in an identical way to) the Spiffle Premier. With no one to blame but the LL clubs themselves. Edited January 22 by KirkieRR Illiteracy 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanburn Dave Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 The Old Firm B teams have massive resources compared to the LL teams. They also have larger squads of full time footballers. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who follows Fitbaw that they are at the top end of the table. At the end of this season they MUST go. No excuses. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gannonball Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 (edited) On 15/01/2023 at 16:43, EdinburghBlue said: Figures in today’s Sunday Mail show the urgency of getting Celtic and Rangers* B teams into the SPFL as clearly they are unable to attract Scottish talent under the current structure That figure for Celtic doesn't make sense as we have signed Scots on professional contracts from youth development? I'm guessing they are only including from other clubs that we have signed them from which is very misleading Edited January 22 by gannonball 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 That is the usual definition of "signed" in all fairness. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossilYM Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 Is that Celtic B top of the league? Seemed well out of it a while back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 5 minutes ago, PossilYM said: Is that Celtic B top of the league? Seemed well out of it a while back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Darvel just underlined with a large black marker pen why the Lowland League don't want to increase promotion/relegation, same with the SPFL. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shannon Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, Burnieman said: Darvel just underlined with a large black marker pen why the Lowland League don't want to increase promotion/relegation, same with the SPFL. Hopefully Bonnyrigg go down and Darvel go up and should be two good guys to vote against B teams and for at least 2 promotion spots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razamanaz Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Linlithgow and Darvel should go up, East and west league winners 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, razamanaz said: Linlithgow and Darvel should go up, East and west league winners It shouldn't even be up for debate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachboy Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 14 hours ago, Burnieman said: Darvel just underlined with a large black marker pen why the Lowland League don't want to increase promotion/relegation, same with the SPFL. That's an unfair statement Burnieman, from the outset Tranent voted NOT to accept the B teams into the Lowland League as did another seven teams. Our opinion wont change for next season and beyond either, we would much rather have the likes of Linlithgow and Darvel in the Lowland League going forward. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanburn Dave Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 6 hours ago, razamanaz said: Linlithgow and Darvel should go up, East and west league winners You cannot ignore the South..........having said that a 3 way play off for the 2 spots isn't difficult. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, beachboy said: That's an unfair statement Burnieman, from the outset Tranent voted NOT to accept the B teams into the Lowland League as did another seven teams. Our opinion wont change for next season and beyond either, we would much rather have the likes of Linlithgow and Darvel in the Lowland League going forward. It's not unfair, it's fact, and I'm not talking about B teams. The Lowland League have consistently voted against increased promotion/relegation and those clubs who back it will continue to try and keep it that way. There was even talk of only allowing these votes every two seasons. I'm well aware there's clubs who hold the opposite view, but at the moment there's not enough of them. Hopefully in future there will be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 11 minutes ago, Deanburn Dave said: You cannot ignore the South..........having said that a 3 way play off for the 2 spots isn't difficult. You probably can this season as it's unlikely there will be a licenced Champion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
approximately dave Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, Deanburn Dave said: You cannot ignore the South..........having said that a 3 way play off for the 2 spots isn't difficult. Why not just promote the champions of all three automatically and have a play off for a fourth team, all runners up and the team that finished 4th bottom of the LL to play off. More should be done by the LL to encourage clubs who have the ambition and the set up to match not just survive in the 5th tier but turn the LL into a very competitive league underneath the SPFL, rather than all this focus on B teams who never earned their place in that league. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilianlex Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, Burnieman said: It's not unfair, it's fact, and I'm not talking about B teams. The Lowland League have consistently voted against increased promotion/relegation and those clubs who back it will continue to try and keep it that way. There was even talk of only allowing these votes every two seasons. I'm well aware there's clubs who hold the opposite view, but at the moment there's not enough of them. Hopefully in future there will be. The Clubs who held the opposite view was 8, exactly the same as the Clubs who voted for B Teams but the vote was carried by the Chairman of the LL so tarnishing all LL Clubs is a bit unfair. A LL with no B Teams and better teams from the WOSL and EOSL would be a better league than SPFL 2 and would get better crowds and so Clubs could maximise hospitality and sponsors etc. 16 team league is too small tho, need to be min 18. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 11 minutes ago, Brazilianlex said: The Clubs who held the opposite view was 8, exactly the same as the Clubs who voted for B Teams but the vote was carried by the Chairman of the LL so tarnishing all LL Clubs is a bit unfair. A LL with no B Teams and better teams from the WOSL and EOSL would be a better league than SPFL 2 and would get better crowds and so Clubs could maximise hospitality and sponsors etc. 16 team league is too small tho, need to be min 18. He's talking about promotion relegation issue. Can't remember exactly but that went something like 9-7. If it went beyond that to discuss a format the chair was talking up the 1 down & 1 relegation playoff spot. With 2 down and 3 down being the other two options. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spyro Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, Brazilianlex said: 16 team league is too small tho, need to be min 18. 16 with a 8-8 split would work… 30 games then 7 more post-split, if you could gloss over the home and away advantage issue it would cause. Unless there’s 4 relegation and a few promotion playoff spots, anything more than 16 is too much 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnieman Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, Brazilianlex said: The Clubs who held the opposite view was 8, exactly the same as the Clubs who voted for B Teams but the vote was carried by the Chairman of the LL so tarnishing all LL Clubs is a bit unfair. A LL with no B Teams and better teams from the WOSL and EOSL would be a better league than SPFL 2 and would get better crowds and so Clubs could maximise hospitality and sponsors etc. 16 team league is too small tho, need to be min 18. I'm not talking about B teams, which is an entirely separate issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyramid Watcher Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 3 hours ago, Brazilianlex said: 16 team league is too small tho, need to be min 18. That’s why everything needs looked at, the 10 team league 2 is absurd. 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.