bazil85

I simply made a point and felt it was a bit harsh people going on about inequality and discrimination. If that makes me like your wife then lucky you

hence my response to that poster saying I bet he's fun at parties. That post was complete nit picking. If you want to go down to that level and call it 'discrimination' then you can go down to that level and say the U21s discriminate because older players can't play for them. It's completely irrelevant

No one doesn't 'get' what you're saying. My point is why mention it and talk about discriminating against older players (even dressing it up as positive discrimination) like this is a barrer to the idea? It's simply not. I said it earlier, there are two points that should always be discussed when changing a rule to a game of football or anything else. 1. Is it legal? 2. Is it ethical? Answer to both is yes so I personally don't think there is a need to talk about any kind of discrimination. Nit picking is maybe the expression I'd use.

Yep very true, you dive deep enough into anything you can find someone that'll get upset at it. Nature of the beat. I think common sense would tell most people it's perfectly justified though. All it would do is encourage more support of younger players at all clubs the country over. As discussed previously in the thread there is presidence for this happening before in other countries and as far as I can tell there hasn't been any backlash that it's discriminatory. I think some people potentially just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Having a rule in place about the length of times players have had to be at a club is also not discrimination. By your logic any Institute that offers a fellow status based on length of service is discriminating against newer members. It's frankly absolute nonsense.

I'd probably respond with... Yes I completely get it. all I'm suggesting doing is increasing a rule that already exists. In Scottish football every professional team needs to have a certain number of homegrown players in their squad. In what way does increasing that number impact employment law or discriminate against certain groups? It doesn't

Well if you were looking to clarify the point on discrimination. I imagine it wouldn't pretty easy... it's completely irrelevant

Again it's nothing to do with any sort of discrimination. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this [emoji23][emoji23] there's already rules in the game about minimum numbers of club trained players. No one questions them on equality. I'm simply saying we'd benefit from putting them up considerably. And also again THIS WOULD NOT IMPACT CLUBS PERMISSIONS ON SIGNING PLAYERS [emoji849]

Which we're not talking about. Not in any way shape or form. As I've previously stated, the rules does not impact a club signing players. The club could go out and sign 50 Chinese players with an average age of 67 if they so wished. The rules would simply be players trained at the club for X amount of time before their 21st birthday. Nothing to do with employment law, nothing to do with discrimination. These rules already exist in our game, England and even the Champions league. Just for less players than my suggestion. I'm not sure what people aren't getting

I agree with you, that would help. too many delicate little flowers in youth football. But that doesn't go far enough. Need to be doing more and investing heavily in children football. They need to be trained and nurtured properly so they don't end up either being prima donnaor or on the bottle. Other nations are doing far more and greater success, we need to mirror some of their practices.

I think my point is... What's your point? Does it in anyway put up a barrier to the suggestion we could implement rules to encourage better youth development? Get my torch out for the next Scotland Under 21 game at St Mirren Park Age discrimination

Sortit aye? Like the way we were a world force when the reserve league was in place? Need to be doing much more to match other nations (and not just the biggest football ones) the world over.

Discussions at ways to improve our game Discussions about Jack Ross fielding a team you don't agree with in a competition no one cares about Nae bother Shullster

By your definition of discrimination that means having under 21 teams, under 18 teams are discriminating against older players. Not allowing a Brazilian to play in the Scottish national team is discrimination on someones nationality. I think you need to investigate the difference between a rule and a legal barrier. Changing a rule does not mean something is discriminatory. Rules exist for Under 21s so they can exist for first team. It's a game we're talking about here. Made the point earlier, teams can sign as many players from wherever they want at whatever age they choose. That doesn't change. It would simply be inputting new rules. Very simple to grasp I thought...

I bet you're fun at parties... Only two questions that need to be answered in regards to a technicality when we're speaking about discrimination 1. Is it illegal? 2. Is it unethical? Answer to both is no. There is no ethical aspects of encouraging youth players and having rules that help their development and it's completely within the rules of the game (zero legal impact) I see the point your maybe trying to make but bringing up discrimination for me is just a barrier.

It's likely more than that but it's still far from full-time hours. We're miles behind other countries.

I was laughing away to myself at the dinner lady comment. I was very prod of myself! Don't be bursting my bubble.

Great point.

It's nothing to do with discrimination. The rule would be players trained at club before the age of 21 (Home grown players does not mean Scottish nationality players). The players could be from anywhere the world over so absolutely nothing to do with discrimination. Naturally most of those players would be Scottish because we're in Scotland but even if they weren't given new time in education rules, the players would likely be Scotland eligible anyway.

No, no I got it. I thought it was pretty clear I got your comment was tongue in cheek given my dinner lady follow up comment?..

I think there's been about 18 injured player topics this season [emoji23]

Good article on Daily Record page as well today saying Project Brave isn't brave enough. Mentions Germany enforcing rules to have a minimum of six home grown players play. Should be the first thing implemented by the SFA. Too scared of the Old Firm to do it though.

I think Project Brave as a whole will be lucky still to be a thing in three years. No project is sustainable without the commitment of stakeholders. five out of 42 ain't close to enough. The other three teams outside the big five that are a part of it are doing it under protest as well. Yet more proof we need change at SFA and SPFL level.

needs to be minimum number of full-time roles including some roles we already have filled. Couldn't get away with duplicating role profiles. Like your thinking though 'This is Janice she's our dinner lady/ Under 18s coach.' What really concerns me about project brave is this was only meant to be one part of it. Why are they so quiet on everything else? Colt teams Reserve league Development loans Summer youth football Coach development Personally I'm massively against the Colt idea and the way development loans currently work (never mind putting them up). Surely there should be much more transparent, regular updates on the progress from the people running our game? And much more fan engagement. SFA/ SPFL are jokes.

Well no I didn't say that. I said the majority of voting members wouldn't be against the chairman giving his opinion. At last count I think I've noted three paying (I assume they're SMISA members, might not be) members that for reasons I can only put down to, not wanting/ caring about the views of their football club, that have been unhappy with GS input. Why on earth would you think getting the input for the club you support is a bad thing? It actually beggars belief. The match ball comment, I assume you either completely fail to understand how it works or it's a bit of satire. Concerning that I can't tell for sure based on some of your previous strange comments. SMISA pay X amount for equipment that means St Mirren save X amount on paying for said equipment. X amount is then available for the club to put elsewhere. (wherever it sees fit) Am I happy to have St Mirren decide where X amount goes? Of course I am, that's the club I support and it frees up funds for them. Again beggars belief you don't see the positive in freeing up funds for our club...