Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The other top flight clubs should get together and reinstate a reserve league. The best way for youth academy graduates to improve is by playing alongside and against older first team professionals who may be coming back from injury.
 

When Scotland was producing good talent and qualifying on a regular basis in major tournaments we had reserve team football that up and coming players could learn their trade.

Edited by Slash
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Slash said:

The other top flight clubs should get together and reinstate a reserve league. The best way for youth academy graduates to improve is by playing alongside and against older first team professionals who may be coming back from injury.
 

When Scotland was producing good talent and qualifying on a regular basis in major tournaments we had reserve team football that up and coming players could learn their trade.

Would also like to see something similar to the three foreigner rule (but obviously more modernised) returned in Scottish football. 

Often this season, Rangers have fielded no under 38 years old Scottish players in their starting 11, it just shouldn't be allowed. For me we should expand on the home grown rule we used to have but for starting 11s at all clubs not just for clubs to stick youngsters unused on benches. 

- 4 players in every SPFL starting 11 must be homegrown (developed at parent club for 3 years before they turned 18 which would make Scotland eligible.) 

- From those players, at least 2 must be under the age of 21 at season start. 

I think that balance of 4 players vs 7 others wouldn't have a massive impact on quality and any impact should be temporary as clubs are encouraged to re-focus on youth development. It would also need to have additional safeguards on maximum youth squad sizes, to stop teams like Celtic and Rangers buying up 40+ youth players at each younger age level to safeguard for the rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Would also like to see something similar to the three foreigner rule (but obviously more modernised) returned in Scottish football. 

Often this season, Rangers have fielded no under 38 years old Scottish players in their starting 11, it just shouldn't be allowed. For me we should expand on the home grown rule we used to have but for starting 11s at all clubs not just for clubs to stick youngsters unused on benches. 

- 4 players in every SPFL starting 11 must be homegrown (developed at parent club for 3 years before they turned 18 which would make Scotland eligible.) 

- From those players, at least 2 must be under the age of 21 at season start. 

I think that balance of 4 players vs 7 others wouldn't have a massive impact on quality and any impact should be temporary as clubs are encouraged to re-focus on youth development. It would also need to have additional safeguards on maximum youth squad sizes, to stop teams like Celtic and Rangers buying up 40+ youth players at each younger age level to safeguard for the rule. 

That would have been us f**ked for a team on Sunday then . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

That would have been us f**ked for a team on Sunday then . 

Why? we could have had that quite easily , you could argue this would have made us abit weaker but the same would apply to other teams as well.

 We had the players available to do that. Ethan, Cammy, Kyle and Jay Henderson, all still decent players

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Swiss_Saint said:

Why? we could have had that quite easily , you could argue this would have made us abit weaker but the same would apply to other teams as well.

 We had the players available to do that. Ethan, Cammy, Kyle and Jay Henderson, all still decent players

Ok , let me rephrase . That would have been our starting lineup f**ked for Sunday then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

Because it wouldn’t have fitted your criteria .

But if those had been the criteria our starting lineup would have been able to accommodate it, you conveniently gloss over what would St.Johnstones starting lineup have been like? as it would have had to accommodate it too. Happy to be corrected but dont think any of their players would have qualified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Swiss_Saint said:

But if those had been the criteria our starting lineup would have been able to accommodate it, you conveniently gloss over what would St.Johnstones starting lineup have been like? as it would have had to accommodate it too. Happy to be corrected but dont think any of their players would have qualified. 

You are missing the point totally . My comment was aimed at our actual starting line up , not some hypothetical line up you may have imagined. 
That’s why I clarified with my second post to make clear I was referring to our actual starting 11 from Sunday’s game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

Because it wouldn’t have fitted your criteria .

If the criteria was in place, it would have been considered in all clubs season plans. The squad wouldn’t be the same if there were homegrown rules. Kinda the point tbh... 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, bazil85 said:

If the criteria was in place, it would have been considered in all clubs season plans. The squad wouldn’t be the same if there were homegrown rules. Kinda the point tbh... 

As I made clear in my second post and subsequent posts, I was referring specifically to the starting line up..... not some hypothetical alternative lineup .
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

As I made clear in my second post and subsequent posts, I was referring specifically to the starting line up..... not some hypothetical alternative lineup .
 

that's fine but your point is completely moot then, what was the point in it regarding a hypothetical situation? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bazil85 said:

that's fine but your point is completely moot then, what was the point in it regarding a hypothetical situation? 

The starting line up was factual , not hypothetical or have I missed something ?

I was simply stating that if your criteria was in place , we would not have had that line up .  
 

I agree that something needs to change with who clubs are able to play but both this season and last, we would have been pretty badly hit by the rules you suggest.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

The starting line up was factual , not hypothetical or have I missed something ?

I was simply stating that if your criteria was in place , we would not have had that line up .  
 

I agree that something needs to change with who clubs are able to play but both this season and last, we would have been pretty badly hit by the rules you suggest.

 

Nope, you said we would be f*cked for a team on Sunday. However if there was the homegrown player rules I mentioned in Scottish football, we wouldn’t likely have had the same squad of players. 
You applied a hypothetical scenario where we would have the same squad of players. It made little sense, hence why people questioned what you meant. 
I wouldn’t (and didn’t) say we should change to the rule instantly. Give clubs a 5 year grace period to prepare & then build the numbers gradually over a further 2-4 year period would be my preference. In theory it could work with colts, maybe the rule could be, it applies to any team that has a colt in the structure. Although personally I’d like to see it top to bottom. 

Edited by bazil85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Nope, you said we would be f*cked for a team on Sunday. However if there was the homegrown player rules I mentioned in Scottish football, we wouldn’t likely have had the same squad of players. 
You applied a hypothetical scenario where we would have the same squad of players. It made little sense, hence why people questioned what you meant. 
I wouldn’t (and didn’t) say we should change to the rule instantly. Give clubs a 5 year grace period to prepare & then build the numbers gradually over a further 2-4 year period would be my preference. In theory it could work with colts, maybe the rule could be, it applies to any team that has a colt in the structure. Although personally I’d like to see it top to bottom. 

What’s ? You just chose to ignore my correction to my original statement ?  
 

aye , fair enough.  Now I can see why people get pissed off with you and your inane rambling 🙄

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

What’s ? You just chose to ignore my correction to my original statement ?  
 

aye , fair enough.  Now I can see why people get pissed off with you and your inane rambling 🙄

 

FFS, it's becoming standard now regardless of content.

Your correction didn't really change that you didn't understand the point. The irony is, another post suggests you probably agree with me that something needs to change along these lines. 

I tried to explain it to you better and all I get is this predictable response. Had it been under a different username, I imagine you wouldn't have had much in the way of an issue. :whistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

FFS, it's becoming standard now regardless of content.

Your correction didn't really change that you didn't understand the point. The irony is, another post suggests you probably agree with me that something needs to change along these lines. 

I tried to explain it to you better and all I get is this predictable response. Had it been under a different username, I imagine you wouldn't have had much in the way of an issue. :whistle

I fully understood your point , but I made a comment about our starting 11 using your criteria .

and btw, There is no irony , I DO agree we could do with change. There’s no irony there, just agreement that change is needed. 

 

Edited by Callum Gilhooley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

I fully understood your point , but I made a comment about our starting 11 using your criteria .

and btw, There is no irony , I DO agree we could do with change. There’s no irony there, just agreement that change is needed. 

 

Fair enough, my response was our squad obviously wouldn't be the same had the rules been in place for this season (or any recent season). Job done. 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2021 at 2:35 PM, bazil85 said:

Would also like to see something similar to the three foreigner rule (but obviously more modernised) returned in Scottish football. 

Often this season, Rangers have fielded no under 38 years old Scottish players in their starting 11, it just shouldn't be allowed. For me we should expand on the home grown rule we used to have but for starting 11s at all clubs not just for clubs to stick youngsters unused on benches. 

- 4 players in every SPFL starting 11 must be homegrown (developed at parent club for 3 years before they turned 18 which would make Scotland eligible.) 

- From those players, at least 2 must be under the age of 21 at season start. 

I think that balance of 4 players vs 7 others wouldn't have a massive impact on quality and any impact should be temporary as clubs are encouraged to re-focus on youth development. It would also need to have additional safeguards on maximum youth squad sizes, to stop teams like Celtic and Rangers buying up 40+ youth players at each younger age level to safeguard for the rule. 

I agree with this in principle but I'm afraid that all you'll achieve there is to push up the price of Scottish players leaving smaller clubs having to rely on younger and younger players and our top clubs will be routinely papped out of Europe in July leaving less money dribbling down to the other clubs. We've tried this sort of thing before.

I'd like to see clubs do this voluntarily but mandating it will not really solve anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

FFS, it's becoming standard now regardless of content.

 

And you are the common factor right at the heart of all of it. Why are you not getting this?

Allow me to give an example here as I have understood this.

You've dismissed @Callum Gilhooley's perfectly legitimate point because in your eyes it's a hypothetical situation. But the entire discussion is about your idea which is also hypothetical. Calum was using a factual line-up to describe the problem as not being just about the likes of Rangers and you used another hypothetical scenario to dismiss that perfectly legitimate argument too. Then when he tweaked his argument to fix it and make it stronger you dismissed that as being an irrelevant change.

Now, I'm the first person to admit I can be a bit of a dick sometimes but if I EVER start behaving like you, I'm going to chuck the forum and get a f**king life.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites



And you are the common factor right at the heart of all of it. Why are you not getting this?
Allow me to give an example here as I have understood this.
You've dismissed [mention=3438]Callum Gilhooley[/mention]'s perfectly legitimate point because in your eyes it's a hypothetical situation. But the entire discussion is about your idea which is also hypothetical. Calum was using a factual line-up to describe the problem as not being just about the likes of Rangers and you used another hypothetical scenario to dismiss that perfectly legitimate argument too. Then when he tweaked his argument to fix it and make it stronger you dismissed that as being an irrelevant change.
Now, I'm the first person to admit I can be a bit of a dick sometimes but if I EVER start behaving like you, I'm going to chuck the forum and get a f**king life.


Sometimes???
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I agree with this in principle but I'm afraid that all you'll achieve there is to push up the price of Scottish players leaving smaller clubs having to rely on younger and younger players and our top clubs will be routinely papped out of Europe in July leaving less money dribbling down to the other clubs. We've tried this sort of thing before.

I'd like to see clubs do this voluntarily but mandating it will not really solve anything.

I think there needs to be some kind of balance. The voluntarily bit just isn't working. I read somewhere that last season Rangers gave 0 minutes to U21 Scottish youth graduates (happy for a fact check on that) 

I get the European point but it would only impact 2 clubs, the rest that happens anyway (bar this season with the qualification changes) and it will only impact those clubs if they fail to develop youth, that goes hand in hand with the colts failing anyway as to why I would potentially like to see them joint together.

Something needs to change, the status quo isn't working for Scotland as we have seen for over two decades, coincidentally, not long after the 3 foreigner rule went. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

I think there needs to be some kind of balance. The voluntarily bit just isn't working. I read somewhere that last season Rangers gave 0 minutes to U21 Scottish youth graduates (happy for a fact check on that) 

I get the European point but it would only impact 2 clubs, the rest that happens anyway (bar this season with the qualification changes) and it will only impact those clubs if they fail to develop youth, that goes hand in hand with the colts failing anyway as to why I would potentially like to see them joint together.

Something needs to change, the status quo isn't working for Scotland as we have seen for over two decades, coincidentally, not long after the 3 foreigner rule went. 

No, as Callum has already pointed out, it would affect the squads of clubs like ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

And you are the common factor right at the heart of all of it. Why are you not getting this?

Allow me to give an example here as I have understood this.

You've dismissed @Callum Gilhooley's perfectly legitimate point because in your eyes it's a hypothetical situation. But the entire discussion is about your idea which is also hypothetical. Calum was using a factual line-up to describe the problem as not being just about the likes of Rangers and you used another hypothetical scenario to dismiss his perfectly legitimate argument. Then when he tweaked his argument to fix it and make it stronger you dismissed that as being an irrelevant change.

Now, I'm the first person to admit I can be a bit of a dick sometimes but if I EVER start behaving like you, I'm going to chuck the forum and get a f**king life.

I am the common factor because people are just jumping on the bandwagon. This thread is overwhelming evidence for that. I made a comment that was perfectly reasonable, one that you even engaged with in a sensible and balanced fashion yet here we are. I maintain fully if I had made the same point under a different username, we wouldn't be in this situation right now. Some people just can't move on and take my posts at face value. 

As for the specific example, I did not understand why Callum was making the point, even after supposed clarification. A comparison would be say "International squads must be made up of home nation based players"  then someone saying, "our last squad wouldn't have made the standard" for me it is moot because we are starting with a hypothetical anyway. Why point out the obvious? 

I could go on but the scenario is clear 

Nowadays I post = people get their back-up because of previous threads. Why are you not getting this?

Edited by bazil85
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...