Diamond Scot

Whether colt teams are a good idea or not, surely we can all agree that changes are required. Personally I would make the SPFL for full time teams only who have to meet certain criteria on youth investment. This would probably mean we only have enough teams for 2 leagues. Id then have 2 up and 2 down between these leagues and have a more generous TV split spread over both leagues. The thinking being that relegation would be less of a financial doomsday. The obvious downside would be that it would be a closed shop with no relegation from 2nd tier and that it would exclude part time teams however much like junior teams have a place in football, i think part time teams should have their place. It just shouldnt occupy the same space as full time professional football. The hope being that with less financial concerns over relegation and increased spending on youth, over time some.of our bigger clubs could close the gap to the Old Firm. Out of our biggest clubs outside the Old Firm, the vast majority of them have been relegated in the past 15 years. That cant be good for either short or long term planning and growth.

There is a very good book called The european game. The secrets of European footballing success. Read the section on pathways for an insight into the development of players. If it was just Messi then you may have had a point however its not. Some of Spains best ever players developed in their B teams. Guys like Raul, Casillas, Juanfran, Arteta, Pedro, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta and guardiola. Just some players to.come.through in Germany include Mario Gomez, Leno, Khedira, Hummells, Muller, Lamb and Schweinsteiger. The very fact you cite the Dutch and the Portugese as ones who put stock in it should be enough evidence. You are right though. What do the Dutch know about developing players and giving them a pathway to the first team. Instead of me showing how it does work. How about you list the huge numbers of top european class players that Scotlands current system produces. How many players have been developed through a Scottish clubs youth system, broke into first team, established themselves then went onto play for a top European club. Kieran Tiernay is the only 1 I can think of.

What evidence would you like? Go look at the players who have played for colt teams and went on to be amazing players.

Is it possible to have a debate on football matters on the TAMB anymore without every thread becoming multiple pages of personal insults and utter nonsence about who people are. Mods should delete all posts that are not about the topic immedietely. No wonder so many people dont visit the site anymore.

To answer your questions in turn. 1) because we are talking about Rangers youth players. The development of players. The pathway into the 1st team is too difficult for many players and the crucial years of development are lost. Scotlands youth teams have a large number of Rangers and Celtic players but given the relative increased quality of their 1st team squad and the neccesity to win in order to fight for the league it becomes increasingly difficult for young players to break through at that age. Keeping them in the same enviroment where their development can be tailored and controlled whilst giving them competitive football would increase the chances of he becoming better players and as a natural consequence of that benefit Scotland. 2) Its not about being better than them now. Its about being better than them in 1 or 2 years time with 50 odd games under their belt as opposed to 50 u23 games. 3) If you think other countries operate on a fair and rational basis then you know nothing about football. Just look at Spains distribution of TV rights as an example. 4)If your point is that other Prem sides should have colt teams and have the option of paying the same amount of money to start at the same level then I agree. I suspect most if not all non old firm teams dont have that money though. 5) im saying part time teams etc operate in a different footballing world to he countries top teams and I include my team in that. 6) ive never been to a Rangers game in my life and have zero love for either old firm. In fact i despise much of what they are and do. However that doesnt blind me that all old firm is bad and all non old firm is good.

Several people have mentioned the lack of players Rangers have brought through. Thats why i responded to it. Of course loaned players dont sit at home but surely you can see that there is less point training at Rangers during the week and then on a Saturday playing for Airdrie than there is training at Rangers all week then playing on a Saturday for rangers colts alongside all the players you have trainied with, implementing the tactics you have worked on etc. The Old Firm having Colt teams isnt going to stop other kids playing for Livi etc. Its going to give the kids currently at the Old firm the chance to play when currently they either have to go out on loan or just play u23 football. Its a whole lot harder to become a regular for the Old Firm than it is for Livi etc. Again, explain why it works for every major european league but its a bad idea for Scotland? So all the players that cut their teeth at colt teams only benefit the club. Im sure Argentina would think that Messi has maybe benefited them just a little. He played for Barca C and B from 2003 to 2005. In the main team at Barca at that time was Ronaldinho, Kluivert, Overmars, Etoo and Larsson. Messi at that time wouldnt have got in the team in front of any of the above. A season and a half playing colt football gave him the chance to show what he could do and the rest is history. Now maybe Messi would have been the same player if he hadnt got over 30 games under his belt but maybe he wouldnt have.

Nobody believes Rangers care about bringing about change for the good of the game. I dont actually care about their motives. If the Old Firm produce more and better Scottish players then it improves the Scotland team. I posted on the 19/20 page about fans needing to take a step back and stop blaming all the other clubs. Of course the Old Firm are selfish. So is every team. If I had shares in a club and he director made a decision that was for the greater good but damaged my club / investment then id be raging. Its up to the SFA / SPFL to force through change. Colt teams is a suggestion. Id actually go further as suggested in the other post but I appreciate that fans would be in uproar with my model.

Not sure my posts can be described as a rant but hey ho. What part of your post would you like an answer on? Ive stated that Rangers dont bring through enough youth and ive suggested a reason why I think that is. Billy Gilmour would be the most recent player that came through the Rangers academy however he obviously left for chelsea. Most Scotland youth teams have Rangers and Celtic players. Again your Andy Robertson point shows why colt teams could be a good idea. He wasnt deemed good enough at the time to challenge for Celtics 1st team (because at that time he wasnt). If Celtic had a colt team he could have went there and developed. There will be loads of players who possibly could have developed later given game time however lots get lost to the game when released. Depriving smaller clubs of Old Firm loans is hardly backing up your position of ambitious progressive clubs in these leagues. Why do they need Old Firm loans? Answer me this. Player X is 17 and contracted to Rangers. He isnt challenging for 1st team and could benefit from competitive football. He can either A) Get loaned to a part time club that train a few nights a week, with limited facilites and coaches and then play with part time teammates or Train at a top class training facility with professional coaches every day, playing alongside professional full time teammates and at the weekend play competitive football. Where do you think he has the best chance of improving and why? If Colt teams bring no benefit, can you explain to me why every major league in Europe allows colt teams. With the exception of England where developing youth is recognised as being an issue.

Just had a quick look. Colt teams play in the professional leagues in Spain, France, Holland, Italy, Germany and Portugal. I stopped looking after that as these countries clearly know nothing about football or developing players. Porto B actually won the 2nd Division in 2016. 2nd and 3rd place got promoted. We are terrible in this country for rejecting change in any form. We are so stuck in ways and it holds us back whilst other nations shoot past us.

I suppose it depends on what the criteria of contributing is. Traditional working mans clubs have their place. Of course they do and its important to keep an element of sporting integrety at the heart of all decisions but if we are being honest you talk about progress. You might have progress for the odd club but nothing that affects the national team or the upper reaches of the leagues. From a quick look only Falkirk from the bottom 2 divisions have even played in the top league in the past 20 years so its not like we have a load of forward thinking ambitious clubs who are just lacking opportunity. In a way your middle paragraph supports my position. I agree Rangers havent contributed enough players for Scotland but a large part of that has to do with their competing interests. On one hand im sure they want to develop their own players but the bigger (although short sighted) picture is that they need to win every week to compete with Celtic. Glen Middleton for example was given plenty of game time last year but wasnt consistent enough for Rangers needs. Another way of looking at it is this. Who are more likely to produce a full Scotland international. Old Firm colt teams or any of League 2 teams? Somebody slagged off the comparison i made about Real Madrid and Barca. The comparison is not the standard of player or club. Its the potential pathway that colt teams provide. If its good enough for Messi to play for Barca C and Barca B in the 4th and 2nd tier of Spanish football then whys it not good enough for the youngsters of our 2 biggest clubs. By your rational Messi by playing for Barca C and B wasnt good enough for Barca when in reality all players need competitive game time to learn and develop.

Im not suggesting Rangers are proposing this to benefit the game. They are doing so to assist them 1st and foremost. That doesnt mean it doesnt benefit the game though. Id imagine the reason why other Prem clubs wouldnt get sides in the league is that they cant afford or would be unwillimg to pay the cost. Hence the cheaper highland / lowland league option. With all due respect, teams like Brora part tim. Its a different type of football club. No more or less deserving however European class footballers arent going to come out of such clubs. To compete with the top Int sides we need investment in youth. People are saying Rangers never bring through youth. Whilst thats clearly not true as they do struggle with getting players into their 1st team. Part of that is the pressure to win every week. Its pretty well accepted that pressure to win every week will limit your players opportunities. Colt teams would allow youngsters to get that experience. Motherwell coach spoke today about the benefit of colt teams in challenge cup. Said it taught players things they dont learn in u23 and gives them a taste of meaningful football. That turnbull would have came through probably 8 months sooner if colt teams existed. As a nation we need to decide what we want to be. Is it the tradional football where long established (largely part time) clubs churn away every year making their fans happy but not offering much to the Scotland team or do we want to consider a different model. Im an Airdrie fan btw. I love seeing my team win, even its against the likes of Dumbarton but I recognise that in the grand scheme of things we dont have the money or infrastructure to contribute in any meaningful way to the elite development of players.

Scotland fans cant have it both ways. Loads complain that the Old Firm never bring through any youth. Then when a proposal gets put forward that guarentees both clubs reguarly playing around 16 under 21s they complain. This would give youngters the opportunity to get competitive 1st team football at a level up the championshipnbut still retaining all the benefits of access to proper coaches and training facilities that they wouldnt get if they just went out on loan. From a Scotland view point what is the downside? Somebody mentioned that the Old Firm would scoop up all the best players. They do this already but cant / dont actually play them. This would force them to play them. Smaller clubs get increased money, exposure etc. Why is it good enough for Spain but not for Scotland. Go and look at the playerd who have played for the Real Madrid and Barca colt teams and tell me its not a good idea.

I suppose the next question would be, does Scotland have 24 teams who could fit that criteria. Teams like Airdrie, Dumbarton, Dunfermline and Raith for example might be inclined to commit to full time football with youth teams and academys if there was financial stability and no risk of short term relegation. Imo this would be the best compromise between an American system and our current open sporting system. Falkirk are an example of where our current system has limitations / problems. They investigated alot into an academy and youth system but found that it wasnt profitable and scrapped it. They then slid down the league and find themselves in 3rd tier and may have to go part time. If resources had been spread between just 2 leagues, with no threat of relegation and all the other teams also having to use money on youth then they would have been able to continue to promote youth and possibly build towards promotion. If you look at our "big clubs" outside the Old Firm, only Aberdeen have been reasonably secure in recent years and it can be said that they have been able to build year on year as a result. (Consistent top 4, plans to build new stadium and training complex). Others like Hearts, Hibs, Dundee Utd and Dundee have all been relegated and then all focus goes onto getting straight back up. Short term thinking becomes the norm rather than building for a more successful long term. There is zero reason why with financial stability the above clubs couldnt be challenging the Old Firm in 10 years.

Scottish football wont move forward until people accept the reality of the situation and stop blaming each other. 1) Every single team votes in self interest. To do otherwise would by its very nature mean not doing your job for that club. 2) The Old Firm are not to blame. They are huge clubs with their own agendas the same as every other club. 3) Fans who choose to not attend games, watch foreign football on TV or travel large distances to support the Old Firm are not to blame. How somebody watches football or chooses to spend time or money is their own individual choice. In this country we are very quick to put the blame at the door of the Old Firm yet almost every club votes in a way that means they get the most money out of the Old Firm whether it be from a TV deal based around 4 Old Firm games or a league setup based around getting 4 Old Firm home game attendence money. We need to accept this and work with it until we get to a stage where we can realistically change it. This wont happen until clubs can have financial security either by having a steady number of increased fans, a longer term TV deal and not to have the threat of financial disaster just around the corner via relegation. Imo we need to create a model where a club needs to fulfil certain criteria to play in top league. We tried this before but set the criteria all wrong by focusing on stadium size. Something along the lines of Full time, must have certain number of youth teams / academy. Certain % of TV money must be used on youth development etc. Structure the leagues based on the current reality. An SPFL and SPFL 2 with 24 teams based on above criteria and have a part time setup below. Would mean no promotion into or relegation from SPFL2 which on the face of it is rubbish but would also provide security for clubs to have a longer term project with stability. Over time we might then be able to grow clubs which would lead to a better product and increased competition.

Im not saying it would change the current standing (which it would). Im saying that it would be the fairest option. That way all the teams have played all the other teams an equal number of times. Its not fair to say team A has played the same number of games as team B if Team A has played all the tip teams and team B all the bottom teams. For example if the English league had 1 game to go and Aston Villa were on 39 points and Watford on 38. Villa were away to Man City but Watford were at home to Norwich in the final game before the decison that no further games could be played. It wouldnt be fair to just say you have both played the same number of games so Watford get relegated.

Surely in the event that the league cant be finished then the only fair way is to revert back to round when all teams have played each other an equal number if times. Ie after 11, 22 or 33 matches. It wouldnt be fair to relegate a team who have played all of the top 6, 3 times who are only a few points behind a team whomhave mainly played bottom 6 teams for example. Take England as an example. Some of the teams in the bottom few places have played all he top teams twice but others havent. Logic would dictate that the teams who havent would pick up less points over the rest of the season than the teams who dont have to play the top teams again.

I stand to be corrected but I watched a podcast where he agreed that he was eligable to play for England but said he was Scottish and wanted to play for Scotland. On the basis that is accurate how can there be zero chance?

Can see a situation arising where we dont call Gilmour up this time around (probably likely), dont qualify (we arent favourites) and Gilmour continues to stay in and about the Chelsea 1st team (more than probable). Now if he gets another 7 or 8 games for Chelsea before the end of the season and continues to cause a real stir like he has iver the past week, I can see England trying to call him up for the Euro's. They dont have a player like him and everybody can see that he has the potential to be a top top player. We would then be in a situation where we have told him that we dont rate / trust him enough yet, are unlikely to make majory tournaments on a regular basis but he would then have the option of playing in every major tournament for he rest of his career. Why create a choice for the boy when we could put it to bed within the next couple of weeks. As much as the boy is a proud scot, you can bet that his agent is already bending his ear. Im not normally one for knee jerk reactiona but if Gilmour isnt called up this time around then it shows me that Clarke is no different to the last 10 managers we have had and ultimately wont take us where we need to go.

Obviously there are loads more for the manager to consider but the team / level somebody is playing at is an extremely good starting point. Form for example is all relative. Shankland has been scoring a couple of goals per week for about 18 months. McBurnie hasnt been banging them in this season after scoring lots last year. If you just look at form then Shankland has been playing better and more deserving of a starting place but if you take into account levels then its a totally different situation. Shankland is playing against part time players or players earning very little whereas McBurnie is playing against internaional standard defenders week in week out. Logic would dictate that if you are looking at who is most likely to perform at a certain level then its the player who plays at that level every week does it not? Alot of whats said on here is based on "what if X moves next year and does well". The fact is the vast majority of players we speak about in the SPL arent moving to the EPL or even championship. If these clubs / scouts thought they were good enough players then they would have bought them by now. Using Shankland again (i actually lile him as a player btw), if the people paid to evaluate players, ie the scouts thought he was an international class forward would they not have got their club to buy him by now for about 2 million rather than have their club spend 20/30 milllion on somebody "not as good"? Im all for bringing young players with potential into the squad like McGinn before he moved to see how they get on against rest of the squad. If you listen to ex footballers talk they will tell you about training. They can tell within minutes if a players got it or not.

Ive never understood how some football fans cant grasp the concept of the best teams having the best players. There are the odd exceptions to the rule like when Larsson stayed at Celtic however it should be taken as a given that a player getting games at Man Utd will be better than a player in the same position playing at Norwich who will be better than a player at Hearts who will be better than Raith Rovers. Yet we continue to think for some reason that guys like Dykes should get called up over McBurnie, McLean, McGrefgor or Jack to start over McTomminey. Its madness. If Dykes looks good or is scoring goals its because of the level of opposition. No team in England rates him cause if they did they would have purchased him. They have the money. McBurnie has been poor for Scotland but would tear up the SPL. Can you imagine how good McTomminey would look playing St Mirren!!! I heard on the radio the other night that Gilmour was the same as other young Scottish talent. Ferguson at Aberdeen, Hickey at Hearts etc. This is just totally wrong. Its a million times harder to break through at Chelsea than Hearts. The core of our team should be players performing at the highest level. Hanley knows what its like to try and defend against the likes of Kane and Aguero. He might look like an idiot at times but thata because these players are top class. McKenna on the other hand wouldnt have a clue what top class players movement, touch or all round games like but we somehow think he will do better when we fling him in at Int level.

I challenge anybody to watch that video and say that Darren Fletcher wouldnt inspire players and fans alike. He earned the trust of the greatest manager of all time and he understands the game of football. He would have ran through brick walls for Utd and Scotland and I have no doubt players would do the same for him. Guys like Clarke and McInnes would certainly be a step up from McLeish but who would inspire players more? Them or Fletcher. Get him in with some decent coaches to run the drills and maybe somebody to provide some experience like a Joe Jordan or another assistant who has been there and done it.

The support always criticise the SFA for being stuck in their ways and not being forward thinking yet the suggestion that an inexperienced ex-player should be given a chance as manager has some running for the hills. International management is about a few things. 1) Respect of the current players and the clubs they play for. 2) The ability to pick the best players for a squad 3) Getting a starting 11 organised and setup different ways depending on the opposition 4) Very basic amounts of actual coaching for a few days per year. You do not need years of managerial experience for any of these things. 1) Fletcher us by far and away our most successful player this century and can lean upon his mentor for advice and influence should he need it. Ferguson doesnt need to be involved in an official capacity. We all know he wont be but as he has shown at club level, he is one hell of a number to have on your phone. 2 and 3) About 20 players in any given Scotland squad pick themselves. Same for the starting 11. Fletcher was one of the most disciplined players for Man Utd, carrying out specific instructions in the biggest of games. He knows the game of football at a higher level than any manager we could ever dream of getting. 4) Bring in a more experienced person as assistant and a couple of good coaches to run the sessions as Fletcher oversees. If its good enough for the likes of Germany the why not us. We will never attract an established manager with the wages we offer. So the alternative is managers nobody else wants or medium level ones like Levein or Burley. The likes of McInnes and Clarke arent any better thought of than the above 2 at the time of their appointments.

Lots has been said about how fans can bring about change. Would a petition to the government regarding the fit for purpose of the SFA and their use of public funds be an option? If so how could one be setup and distributed?

Fletcher has been our best and most decorated player in the past 20 years. Our only player to earn a place in a world class side in that time. If we had even a couple more player of Fletchers ability during that period then we would have made several finals. Any player capable of holding down a long term place for a top 4 side in any of the big leagues is a big asset for a country our size.

Obviously up against real top class forwards but tonight was the worst ive seen Tierney play. Could have done better on 3rd, 5th and 6th goal. Caught out of position, switched off at times which was punished by the movement and done very easily with pace. Has to be put in context but shows why he wont develop to his full potential in my opinion if he stays for much linger in Scotland. Simply put theres not 1 winger in Scotland was will test him defensively.