B teams joining leagues

[bod]

Have hibs announced how they’re voting on Tuesday ?.
Aberdeen have said their against it

[wookie70]

Have hibs announced how they’re voting on Tuesday ?.
Aberdeen have said their against it

Unless we have plans to join in the future surely we will vote against. It seems an advantage to those that will have a B teams with the ability to be promoted etc.

[bod]

from what I can gather B teams can't be relegTed or promoted so anyone else could finish 5th & be promoted or relegated.its the teams below the league they want to join I feel sorry for.

[wookie70]

from what I can gather B teams can't be relegTed or promoted so anyone else could finish 5th & be promoted or relegated.its the teams below the league they want to join I feel sorry for.

You are right enough, I must have read that wrong. It does mean that a team could finish 4th and be the team in a play off. That doesn't make much sense to me.

[Scorrie]

You are right enough, I must have read that wrong. It does mean that a team could finish 4th and be the team in a play off. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Not much the Scottish fitbaw authorities do makes sense to me tbh

[Eyrie]

I hope we vote against it.

[Diclonius]

A lot of lower tier teams saying they'll vote against it now. What's the vote required to pass?

[neil7908]

The chat is that it's not going to pass. Interesting to see how clubs vote given the only clear benefit is to the OF and Hearts.

[Billy Whizz]

When is the vote taking place

[cabbageandribs1875]

looking likely the vote will go against the big boys joining Rangers, Celtic and Hearts in Conference League 'bloody nose' blow ahead of SFA AGM vote on controversial plan (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/football/rangers-celtic-and-hearts-in-conference-league-bloody-nose-blow-ahead-of-sfa-agm-vote-on-controversial-plan/ar-AA1c9yqS?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=fd05ca043922477b94e79db2bf1a94e3&ei=11)

[Daniel 1875]

It looks like the SFA have admitted defeat on this occasion. Interesting no public indication which way Hibs would have voted.

[Rick Rude]

Sure it'll be back on the table before too long with some incentives or threats to force it through. Let's be honest, it's incredibly rare Rangers and Celtic don't get what they want in this country.

[chippy]

Sure it'll be back on the table before too long with some incentives or threats to force it through. Let's be honest, it's incredibly rare Rangers and Celtic don't get what they want in this country.

I think something more imaginative and inclusive would have to be on the table. A full re structure of the leagues: say 3 x 16 leagues- with splits, offering more opportunities for 4 non spfl in. Or a Premier of 16, Championship of 16 both with splits. Then a league 1 of 20 with 4 - 6 B teams allowed in it( but no higher ). B teams to start in the Lowland and Highland leagues

[hibby rae]

I think something more imaginative and inclusive would have to be on the table. A full re structure of the leagues: say 3 x 16 leagues- with splits, offering more opportunities for 4 non spfl in. Or a Premier of 16, Championship of 16 both with splits. Then a league 1 of 20 with 4 - 6 B teams allowed in it( but no higher ). B teams to start in the Lowland and Highland leagues

Prem teams won't vote to expand the league as that will mean less money for them. Can't see other league clubs voting to allow B teams in either.

Tbh if B teams want it they can start at the bottom of the pyramid like any other club would have to.

[chippy]

Prem teams won't vote to expand the league as that will mean less money for them. Can't see other league clubs voting to allow B teams in either.

Tbh if B teams want it they can start at the bottom of the pyramid like any other club would have to.

Would Premier clubs money be reduced by that much though? Would many premier and Championship clubs like the overall package with more fluidity between the leagues? Reduced chances of relegation etc. Perhaps less need to sign English or foreign based players. Chances to get a bit closer to the old firm. The old firm get their B teams in to League 1.

[Brooster]

I think something more imaginative and inclusive would have to be on the table. A full re structure of the leagues: say 3 x 16 leagues- with splits, offering more opportunities for 4 non spfl in. Or a Premier of 16, Championship of 16 both with splits. Then a league 1 of 20 with 4 - 6 B teams allowed in it( but no higher ). B teams to start in the Lowland and Highland leagues

Why change the SPL? It was incredibly exciting this season at the top middle and bottom, right to the very end. Same goes for the Championship.

[hibby rae]

Would Premier clubs money be reduced by that much though? Would many premier and Championship clubs like the overall package with more fluidity between the leagues? Reduced chances of relegation etc. Perhaps less need to sign English or foreign based players. Chances to get a bit closer to the old firm. The old firm get their B teams in to League 1.

For some clubs yes, especially if they were in danger of losing gate money from bigger visiting clubs, plus a lesser split of the tv money. Plus lower league teams won'y vote for a reconstruction plan involving B teams. They don't want them, quite rightly.

Not sure why we'd see a change in signing targets anymore than we have due to Brexit.

[Paul1642]

Why change the SPL? It was incredibly exciting this season at the top middle and bottom, right to the very end. Same goes for the Championship.

I agree that the current format is probably the best in terms of excitement all down the pyramid so we should keep it the same or similar, however in the last ten years or so Hibs, Hearts, Dundee United, Dundee, Hamilton, Kilmarnock, St Mirren, Ross County, Motherwell, St Johnstone, St Mirren, Inverness, Dunfermline and Partick have all either been relegated form the SPFL or faced a play off to survive. Some of these clubs have struggled to return.

Infact only the old firm (rangers out for non performance reasons) and Aberdeen have been safe from relegation or a play off.

As we go into any season at least 6 clubs will be thinking that relegation is a realistic possibility and even for the top non old firm clubs, including ourself, one bad season is all it takes.

Meanwhile the championship is a super competitive league to get promoted from.

Changing the top flight to 16 teams would add a lot of security to all clubs which would probably appeal to those fearing relegation as they might feel it’s better to loose a home old firm game each season than loose all old firm, Hibs and Aberdeen games for potentially a few years by being relegated. Those in the leagues below might also fancy it knowing that half the championship would be moved into the top flight giving those remaining a much better shot at getting there themselves.

[chippy]

Why change the SPL? It was incredibly exciting this season at the top middle and bottom, right to the very end. Same goes for the Championship.
How was it exciting at the top? basically the same 2 for 50 years apart from an occasional blip. Belgian 18 club Pro League with splits had 3/4 teams in the mix for winner on the last day

[chippy]

I agree that the current format is probably the best in terms of excitement all down the pyramid so we should keep it the same or similar, however in the last ten years or so Hibs, Hearts, Dundee United, Dundee, Hamilton, Kilmarnock, St Mirren, Ross County, Motherwell, St Johnstone, St Mirren, Inverness, Dunfermline and Partick have all either been relegated form the SPFL or faced a play off to survive. Some of these clubs have struggled to return.

Infact only the old firm (rangers out for non performance reasons) and Aberdeen have been safe from relegation or a play off.

As we go into any season at least 6 clubs will be thinking that relegation is a realistic possibility and even for the top non old firm clubs, including ourself, one bad season is all it takes.

Meanwhile the championship is a super competitive league to get promoted from.


Changing the top flight to 16 teams would add a lot of security to all clubs which would probably appeal to those fearing relegation as they might feel it’s better to loose a home old firm game each season than loose all old firm, Hibs and Aberdeen games for potentially a few years by being relegated. Those in the leagues below might also fancy it knowing that half the championship would be moved into the top flight giving those remaining a much better shot at getting there themselves.

You’re talking too much sense and putting forward a sound argument. It’ll never catch on. Some folk here appear to think the SPL is really exciting because 50% of clubs are desperately trying to avoid relegation from day 1, while another 4 are trying to avoid dropping into the bottom 6 and becoming a relegation yo yo club. Success is top 6 and sometimes getting a game or 2 in Europe before some Dutch or Scandic club thump them

[Paul1642]

How was it exciting at the top? basically the same 2 for 50 years apart from an occasional blip. Belgian 18 club Pro League with splits had 3/4 teams in the mix for winner on the last day

I think he means 3rd to 6th. No league format is gong to change the old firm’s superiority.

[number9dream]

We’ve already got three B teams in the fifth tier. I don’t see how a new smaller fifth tier does anything to improve youth development.
All it does is knock some teams from Lowland and Highland Leagues back down the pyramid, along with all the others below them.

I would add that the tiny number of young players getting a chance in the Premiership is a worry… Is it time to reintroduce a quota?

[King conrad]

Why change the SPL? It was incredibly exciting this season at the top middle and bottom, right to the very end. Same goes for the Championship.

Exciting? For who? To try and be 3rd best or fight relegation. Celtic fans don't get excited winning leagues it's that easy for them.
Same old boring league every year.

[chippy]

I think he means 3rd to 6th. No league format is gong to change the old firm’s superiority.
You’re probably correct but the Belgians reduce the gap after a 30 or 34 game normal season before the split. So leads of 12 points I think are halved- in the old 16 team format it was 75%. Gives a chance for teams to be caught. Personally I wouldn’t cut leads but I’d award 5 or 6 points for a win after the 30/34 games season depending if 16/18 team league

[SickBoy32]

I think he means 3rd to 6th. No league format is gong to change the old firm’s superiority.

A league of 20, playing a traditional home and away fixture list would give us / Hearts / Aberdeen an increased chance of a title challenge - the reduction in games vs the OF could in theory be a real leveller (providing we can be fairly consistent against the lesser sides)

For those who would argue this will result in more meaningless games - perfect chance for mid table sides to blood youngsters, something which has been on the decline in recent years in the SPL

Give me that over the contrived 'excitement' of the split any day, a last day derby to snatch 4th didn't really get the juices going personally

Should add - not a fan of the Belgian concept, seems overly complex and not sure how fair it is to be reducing teams points by half just to try and ensure competition?

[chippy]

A league of 20, playing a traditional home and away fixture list would give us / Hearts / Aberdeen an increased chance of a title challenge - the reduction in games vs the OF could in theory be a real leveller (providing we can be fairly consistent against the lesser sides)

For those who would argue this will result in more meaningless games - perfect chance for mid table sides to blood youngsters, something which has been on the decline in recent years in the SPL

Give me that over the contrived 'excitement' of the split any day, a last day derby to snatch 4th didn't really get the juices going personally

Should add - not a fan of the Belgian concept, seems overly complex and not sure how fair it is to be reducing teams points by half just to try and ensure competition?

Any expanded league size from 14 to 20 will help the likes of Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen ,etc get a bit closer. Ideally I’d agree on an 18 or 20 team normal season but feel we will have to compromise with the old firm to get something better than now. That’s why a 16/ 18 league is more feasible with splits- which many folks like and the old firm get their 4 matches, 2/4 Edinburgh, Dundee, derbies, etc
I reckon to have any chance of this the old firm will demand B teams in the set up. That’s why I said it should be a package

[SickBoy32]

Any expanded league size from 14 to 20 will help the likes of Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen ,etc get a bit closer. Ideally I’d agree on an 18 or 20 team normal season but feel we will have to compromise with the old firm to get something better than now. That’s why a 16/ 18 league is more feasible with splits- which many folks like and the old firm get their 4 matches, 2/4 Edinburgh, Dundee, derbies, etc
I reckon to have any chance of this the old firm will demand B teams in the set up. That’s why I said it should be a package

And therein lies the real issue - the OF centric nature of the game in Scotland, and that any format must pander to their desires

Until this 10-2 vote structure is scrapped, nothing will improve with regards to increased competition in the top flight IMO

[chippy]

[QUOTE=SickBoy32;7366890]And therein lies the real issue - the OF centric nature of the game in Scotland, and that any format must pander to their desires

Until this 10-2 vote structure is scrapped, nothing will improve with regards to increased competition in the top flight IMO[
Yes the non old firm clubs have power but until they can agree on a unified approach then the status quo will remain. There’s got to be some room for manoeuvre but the old firm are not going to hand all powers over to the other clubs. They’ll want something in return. Hence compromise

[hibby rae]

We’ve already got three B teams in the fifth tier. I don’t see how a new smaller fifth tier does anything to improve youth development.
All it does is knock some teams from Lowland and Highland Leagues back down the pyramid, along with all the others below them.

I would add that the tiny number of young players getting a chance in the Premiership is a worry… Is it time to reintroduce a quota?

One of the big reasons for youth players not appearing is the increase in English clubs signing them up early in the wake of Brexit. So a lot of the time the cream of the youth has went down south by the time you'd be expecting them to start getting first team appearances.

[hibby rae]

[QUOTE=SickBoy32;7366890]And therein lies the real issue - the OF centric nature of the game in Scotland, and that any format must pander to their desires

Until this 10-2 vote structure is scrapped, nothing will improve with regards to increased competition in the top flight IMO[
Yes the non old firm clubs have power but until they can agree on a unified approach then the status quo will remain. There’s got to be some room for manoeuvre but the old firm are not going to hand all powers over to the other clubs. They’ll want something in return. Hence compromise

I very much doubt the Old Firm would hand over their controlling stake in the game just for the inclusion of their B teams.

What they'd want in return isn't worth it for a league system that largely works.

The Old Firm dominated the league when there were only 2 in Scotland as well. In fact, they always have bar a couple decades in the post-war period. It'd take a year zero approach to have any hope of changing that, or a flood of billionaires into clubs.

[ScottB]

Getting more game time for young Scottish players makes sense in of itself, but I’m not sure the level proposed does. If a 20 year old isn’t knocking on the door of the first team in the Premier League / able to do it on loan at that level or the Championship, are they ever likely to be good enough? Does playing against amateurs 4 divisions down tell us much?

Either have a proper youth / reserve league or open up the loan rules to bolster the clubs already in the structure. There’s enough clubs across our leagues as it is without adding in various B teams. Better we loan players out, whether generally or establishing relationships with one / a few teams. I’d much rather see young Hibs talent playing for Spartans or Edinburgh than Hibs B.

[chippy]

[QUOTE=chippy;7366896]

I very much doubt the Old Firm would hand over their controlling stake in the game just for the inclusion of their B teams.

What they'd want in return isn't worth it for a league system that largely works.

The Old Firm dominated the league when there were only 2 in Scotland as well. In fact, they always have bar a couple decades in the post-war period. It'd take a year zero approach to have any hope of changing that, or a flood of billionaires into clubs.

I am talking compromise, not taking over their controlling stake. The league doesn’t largely work imo. It’s a joke and clubs like Hibs, Hearts, Dons, United, etc have self harmed by supporting small leagues. By analogy if the league is expanded to 16 then the voting veto would surely change from 2-10, to say 5-11- a bit healthier imo.
Sure they have dominated Scottish football for over a century- particularly Rangers prior to WW2 when they basically dictated the rules. But the golden age was post war to 1967 and the Lisbon Lions. Yes there was the new firm in the early 80s but most of those players were nurtured in the pre small league set up. In the 40s, 50s ,:60s and even 70s Hibs , Hearts, Dons, Dundee clubs were the power brokers not just the old firm. Since the advent of small leagues their power has been reduced through this act of self harm. Dundee clubs neutered, Thistle neutered, etc, etc

[hibby rae]

[QUOTE=hibby rae;7366910]

I am talking compromise, not taking over their controlling stake. The league doesn’t largely work imo. It’s a joke and clubs like Hibs, Hearts, Dons, United, etc have self harmed by supporting small leagues. By analogy if the league is expanded to 16 then the voting veto would surely change from 2-10, to say 5-11- a bit healthier imo.
Sure they have dominated Scottish football for over a century- particularly Rangers prior to WW2 when they basically dictated the rules. But the golden age was post war to 1967 and the Lisbon Lions. Yes there was the new firm in the early 80s but most of those players were nurtured in the pre small league set up. In the 40s, 50s ,:60s and even 70s Hibs , Hearts, Dons, Dundee clubs were the power brokers not just the old firm. Since the advent of small leagues their power has been reduced through this act of self harm. Dundee clubs neutered, Thistle neutered, etc, etc

Well they wouldn't compromise because it's not in their nature, and they certainly wouldn't give away their veto power.

I disagree Hibs etc have self-harmed, and clearly so do they and Aberdeen after both have publicly stated their reasons why they weren't interested recent proposals.

And I don't think the case is proven that a bigger league would break the Old Firm stranglehold, if anything they would be less likely to drop points plus not a massive difference between top of Championship and bottom of Prem and we struggled to dominate the latter in results this year so no reason our results improve overall.

[Brooster]

Imagine how many meaningless games you would have in a 20 team league. Hibs had zero meaningless this season, neither did a lot of teams. If you get stuck around 8th to 12th in a 20 team league it could be a bit dull.

[SickBoy32]

Imagine how many meaningless games you would have in a 20 team league. Hibs had zero meaningless this season, neither did a lot of teams. If you get stuck around 8th to 12th in a 20 team league it could be a bit dull.

I think it depends on how you define meaningless, year after year we play 38 games in a tournament that we can't win, these games could easily be construed as meaningless (relegation aside obviously)

Bit in bold - can it get any more dull than playing in a league that we'll never win?

It's remarkable to me that the crowds are as high as they are - given the backdrop of playing for 3rd at best

Personally think the gamble of moving to a 20 team league resulting in 'meaningless' games is worth it - rather than being consigned to being an eternal also-ran in the league

[Brooster]

I think it depends on how you define meaningless, year after year we play 38 games in a tournament that we can't win, these games could easily be construed as meaningless (relegation aside obviously)

Bit in bold - can it get any more dull than playing in a league that we'll never win?

It's remarkable to me that the crowds are as high as they are - given the backdrop of playing for 3rd at best

Personally think the gamble of moving to a 20 team league resulting in 'meaningless' games is worth it - rather than being consigned to being an eternal also-ran in the league

I didn't realise Hibs would suddenly become one of the favourites to win the league if we moved to 20 teams. I'm maybe missing something here?

[04Sauzee]

https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-scottish-lowland-football-league/6jLBPpT4G4BgTju0QQfL7X

[Pretty Boy]

Good. Just Celtic and Hearts to follow.

[wallpaperman]

Great news, just get the other two punted, the Lowland League has got so much potential with decent teams slowly making their way up the pyramid.

[04Sauzee]

Looks like Hearts will continue in the lowland league

https://www.footballscotland.co.uk/spfl/scottish-premiership/hearts-make-lowland-league-decision-27126660

[Billy Whizz]

Looks like Hearts will continue in the lowland league

https://www.footballscotland.co.uk/spfl/scottish-premiership/hearts-make-lowland-league-decision-27126660

Think they are about to appoint Liam Fox to manage the B team

[hibby rae]

Think they are about to appoint Liam Fox to manage the B team

Not keen on building on that 14th place finish last year