YES - CHRIS McCART (CELTIC)
“This isn’t about Celtic and Rangers. It’s about Scottish football.”
Chris McCart knows the reaction to the latest Colts proposal he and Rangers’ Craig Mulholland are spearheading has been one of anger and rejection from the stands.
But Celtic’s Head of Youth and Academy insists they’ve had an open mind from boardrooms and dugouts.
He realises though, fans will need more convincing that his opening quote isn’t an empty one and that the Old Firm are not just in it for themselves.
He’s fighting prejudice at an idea sparked 20 years ago when the ‘B’ team proposal surfaced as the Old Firm pushed to leave Scotland behind for English football’s pot of gold.
That’s no longer even on the radar and McCart insists they simply want to help the cream of the country’s young talent.
And once they’ve cracked it, other clubs will follow. McCart addressed the main issues with MailSport this week.
What are the benefits of the Colt teams?
Most Read
The idea was one of the strands of Project Brave. Over the past 15 years at Celtic we’ve had 50 academy players make a competitive first-team debut, 19 start in the Champions League – but it’s sustainability that is the issue.
They have to compete against international players who cost millions and earn tens of thousands a week.
What Celtic and Rangers are trying to do is ask whether the kids can have more first-team experience under their belt .
So when they do get the chance they can sustain it and not dip in and dip out.
Everyone in Scottish football agrees our best talent needs blooded early, experience of mens’ football, competitive football in front of crowds.
You say it’s not just about Rangers and Celtic – why is it just Rangers and Celtic in the pilot scheme?
There has to be criteria. We’re going to have a Pro Licence coach in the dugout, an A Licence Coach, a fully qualified physio, doc, sports scientist.
Don’t miss
We’ve guaranteed we’ll take 250 tickets for every game.
Not every club is geared up to provide that at this time. Other clubs do want to be part of it eventually but Celtic and Rangers have the structure to do with it now.
And the truth is, the best young players in the country still gravitate towards us.
All the Colt teams failed in the Irn Bru Cup though.
At the moment, there’s no sustainable learning experience from it. We played three games in it the first season and one this season.
These experiences aren’t about winning – they’re about development and getting this level of competition ingrained into them. We really want our 18 and 19-year-olds to be playing men every week.”
What’s wrong with the loan system for that?
There are many different pathways for young players. Not everyone is a Kieran Tierney or a James Forrest.
Callum McGregor had a year at Notts County to establish himself. Liam Henderson did it in Norway and at Hibs.
It’s the crux of the debate. We’re not interested in saying we’re in the league to win it.
We’re in it to develop our players as a collective. We want 16 players to get experience.
Why League Two? We have a pyramid so why not start where everyone else does in the Lowland League?
I get that argument, I honestly do, and we’re listening to teams in the Lowland and Highland Leagues. If we don’t get the ideal, and we have to look at the next part, then so be it.
What’s wrong with a return to reserve football to get the young players experience? It is being talked about as part of an overall approach.
Project Brave comes under the SFA’s remit, which is from 18s down, so it never really went into reserve league football.
That came from the SPFL managers’ meeting. There are excellent proposals and ideas being worked on just now.
Effectively the development league it is still an age-group league because while you’re allowed five overage players few clubs can afford senior players at that level. We must look at ways for managers to get more use out of it.
You’ve asked for a two-year pilot scheme. What does Year Three look like?
Year Three opens up promotion and relegation but as part of a wider debate about a bigger league.
It might afford a chance for an Aberdeen or a Hearts or Highland or Lowland League teams to come in.
There’s a will for change from chairmen and boards.
They’re looking for an 18-team league, a minimum of 30 games up to 34 games.
It’s encouraging to see progressive clubs building new stadia and investing – but you need stability and a lack of fear for that investment.
NO - STUART BROWN (STRILING ALBION)
Stuart Brown was one of the first chairmen to stick his head above the parapet and take a shot at the Colts proposal.
And the Stirling Albion chief was applauded by a national fanbase who feel it’s just another attempt by Celtic and Rangers to get what they want.
But Brown insists he’s not against change – just not-half measures prepared in an ill-thought-through hurry.
He represents the Binos on the the SPFL’s Competitions Working Group and has been at the heart of the
discussions so far.
Here, Brown tells MailSport about his concerns over the plan.
You’ve said publicly that Stirling Albion won’t vote for a Colts pilot. Why?
It’s a difficult one. As a fan-owned club we’ve no option but to go with the fans’ view.
I’m up for developing young players and I’m not against change. But it must work for clubs individually as well as the greater good.
Which is why I think there are other ways to do this.
Celtic and Rangers say this is for the good of Scottish football, not them. Your fans don’t seem to believe them.
I’m all for the best young players getting opportunities to grow and learn against more experienced players.
But it has to be done in a proper manner that works for everyone – if that’s possible.
Here’s a question: Are all of the players playing going to be eligible to play for Scotland?
Will there be a restriction on the number of foreign players? Otherwise where’s the benefit for the Scottish game, if we’re developing talent for other nations?
The proposal suggests clubs will coin in £15,000 thanks to the Colts. Will their presence not be financially beneficial?
The guaranteed £15,000 on offer is irrelevant. After a few rough calculations we believe it would actually turn into a loss overall.
There would be a loss of revenue from season-ticket holders who have made it clear they wouldn’t be back, from fans who’ve said they would boycott the Colts fixtures, from the potential additional costs of stewarding and policing.
Clyde and Stenhousemuir are our biggest attendances.
But in the 33-game season we’d risk losing at least one of those fixtures – anywhere between 800 and 1000 fans.
Right away that would write off three or four thousand of the £15,000.
There are unanswered questions and, while I’m sure there are easy fixes for a lot of them, they still all have to be addressed before we have anything like a solution.
Are they trying to jump a queue others have been forced to wait in, looking for a League Two start?
I don’t think it’s right we question the integrity of the pyramid and it’s not for me to speak on behalf of clubs in the Highland or Lowland League.
But for the Colts to be shoehorned into League Two is grossly unfair on the clubs who lie below us when they’ve invested in their set-ups.
It would be more appropriate to test the water in an unofficial way rather than within the league structure.
For instance, a midweek league, comprising the SPFL 2 clubs playing the two interested colt teams three times, would give every club three additional fixtures throughout an entire season but would give Rangers and Celtic 27 games.
You’ve had loan players from these teams before. Would that have to stop? And what about the reserve leagues?
Absolutely. It was a point well made at our Competitions Working Group Meeting on Tuesday – we should look at this holistically.
It’s not just about Colts or Rangers and Celtic – it’s about the loan structure, reserves and development leagues.
The loan structure is incredibly important. It enables lower-league sides to bring in maybe a player who can change the season while also helping him develop.
You’ve met Chris McCart and Craig Mulholland – what did you make of the case they made?
I’ve a great relationship with Craig as the development squad played at Forthbank for a season.
I don’t think we’ve fallen out over this – and we won’t.
There’s no one more eloquent and determined in putting forward a case so I have no problem with him or what he’s saying. I hope the feeling is mutual when he listens to me putting my side of the coin.
Do you agree Scottish football has to change its development strategy?
We shouldn’t rush anything just because we all feel we need to do something. It has to be the right thing. I suspect most clubs will want to think about it and consult with their fans.
We did that as soon as the idea was mooted. Without our fans we don’t have a club.
You’ve spoken to your fellow chairmen. What are the chances the proposal gets the 75 per cent approval needed for next season?
I don’t think so. Planning for next season is well under way and to bolt something on at this stage would be completely unrealistic.
Clubs at our level would have to completely revisit our strategies and budgets. I cannot see the turkeys voting for Christmas at this stage.
That’s not me saying no forever because we need to do something for Scottish football.
But financially, there are too many unanswered questions.
They’ve offered to play all their games away from home but what if one of the clubs is already groundsharing?
And if they play a ‘home’ game at our stadium do they pay a rental to cover our costs?
In just 20 minutes we’ve come up with issues. They won’t be a complete spanner in the works but they need thought through.