ritchies75 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Just checked and we have 14 Under 20 league games to play between now and the end of the season including one tonight against Motherwell. Is there any point in continuing to play these games? I know we will probably be punished by SPFL if we do pull out but i think the time has come to tell them we can no longer continue to play in both Premiership and Under 20 Leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 There is nothing to gain by playing u20 matches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbee647 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 It makes no sense to have half these boys playing twice as many games as they need to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 And makes less sense to have lads that should be playing u16/15 football playing u20s football! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_hmfc Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Why do we even still play them at all anyway? I'm guessing this isn't our choice, so a bit of common sense and logic from the SFA would be nice. What's the worst that could happen if we refuse to play them? More fines, embargo or will they just pull punishments out of a hat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
letsalllaughathobos Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 If we are not allowed to sign a few, then yes most definitely, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Templeton Peck Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 These guys are getting run into the ground in the first team, no need for any further risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bainy Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Definitely worth doing. If the SFA wont help ease the burden on them having ot play in the main league we should 100% withdraw from it with immediate effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadKiller Dog Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 We pull out we will get fined and sanctioned . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tartofmidlothian Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Common sense says yes, but I wouldn't want to give them the satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zachearts Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Time to look after the young boys....no brainer just withdraw from the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego10 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 It's counter productive to pull out if we need guys to step into the first team. But I'd limit the participation of those b involved in the first team to the absolute minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Loblaw Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 If we pull out it will hamper the growth of guys who aren't quite at first team level. Guys like Hamilton, Beith, Buchanan etc need to still play regularly to develop. However, as said above I'd limit guys who're getting ample game time for the first team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambogjh Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Totally agree about pulling all players from the under 20's but first we need to know what fines & punishments those pricks can give us. Because if they can they will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Totally agree about pulling all players from the under 20's but first we need to know what fines & punishments those pricks can give us. Because if they can they will. They will make up new rules after the event anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambogjh Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 If we pull out it will hamper the growth of guys who aren't quite at first team level. Guys like Hamilton, Beith, Buchanan etc need to still play regularly to develop. However, as said above I'd limit guys who're getting ample game time for the first team. Only for this season due to our current shortage of players available to cover both teams fixtures. I agree the under 20's matches are crucial to the players development Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Regrettably I voted yes as this whole thing has descended into a farce and we need to protect the 1st team. They are who the vast majority of the support turn up to see harsh on the kids but it maybe short term pain for long term gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 By the end of the season most of the lads from the u20s will have gained 1st team match time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diego10 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Only for this season due to our current shortage of players available to cover both teams fixtures. I agree the under 20's matches are crucial to the players development They need to play in case the first team needs them. If we pull out and they don't play at all it'll be problem if we need them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirt Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I don't really know enough to cast a vote, so I didn't. Like, how many players who are currently in our squad on match days are having to play midweek for the under 20's? It wouldn't be great for the lads who aren't playing first team football, maybe there aren't any. But If I was playing for Hearts under 20's, not getting a game for the first team, even if it may be forced at some point this season, I wouldn't be happy with having my only competitive games taken away from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylelauren01 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Completely disagree, Nicholson, the Kings, Carrick, Hamilton and Gary Oliver all get pretty much no game time at all with the first team. Then add Angus Beith , Liam Smith, Liam Gordon, Robbie Buchanan and the other full timers - when do they play football as all too old for 17's? When we are forced to play any of the above we bring them in where they are completely short of any meaningful match practise if all they are benched/in the squad/play 15 mins as a sub for the 1st team. Scrapping the 20's is 100% not the solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Completely disagree, Nicholson, the Kings, Carrick, Hamilton and Gary Oliver all get pretty much no game time at all with the first team. Then add Angus Beith , Liam Smith, Liam Gordon, Robbie Buchanan and the other full timers - when do they play football as all too old for 17's? When we are forced to play any of the above we bring them in where they are completely short of any meaningful match practise if all they are benched/in the squad/play 15 mins as a sub for the 1st team. Scrapping the 20's is 100% not the solution. The ones that are too old for 16s can rotate through the squad the younger ones carry on in their age groups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 After today's latest rule change just loan them out on the proviso can recall them any time http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25731627 that is until we try and use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairdin Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Why should we further hamper the development of our young players (particularly those on the first team fringes) who make up the vast majority of our squad, by withdrawing from the very league that was set up with the sole intention of developing young players? If a situation arises where we are unable to fulfil an SPFL fixture of and an U20 fixture due to be played around the same time due to lack of players, why not withdraw from the SPFL fixture? It is an equally valid stance to adopt IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Templeton Peck Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I would like to hear more from Mark Wotte and Billy Stark. Both have gone very quiet lately on the subject of young players welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3fingersreid Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Do we protect OUR players whilst the men in power don't give a shit about them or think about the U20's league Not really a choice IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil D. Corners Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Personally would like hearts to forfill all fixtures. That said safety of players, staff, and fans is of greater importance. I do recall when Gretna went under a numbers of players offer to play for free. The Gretna admisitratior made a comment that they could not pay their insurance and would not risk them getting injured. Now I don't know much about player insurance. I assume its line medical insurance. I'm interested to know what happens if Hearts field a player who is known to be injured or have a knock. Would this invalidate his insurance and he would receive no medical care. And is there a chance Hearts would leave themselves open of a legal case should a players carrier be ended due to them playing while injured? Any idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bilel Mohsni Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 We should just carry on until it's no longer possible... Once the inevitable implosion happens, we know exactly where to direct those looking for answers as to how such a shitemare was allowed to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairdin Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Personally would like hearts to forfill all fixtures. That said safety of players, staff, and fans is of greater importance. I do recall when Gretna went under a numbers of players offer to play for free. The Gretna admisitratior made a comment that they could not pay their insurance and would not risk them getting injured. Now I don't know much about player insurance. I assume its line medical insurance. I'm interested to know what happens if Hearts field a player who is known to be injured or have a knock. Would this invalidate his insurance and he would receive no medical care. And is there a chance Hearts would leave themselves open of a legal case should a players carrier be ended due to them playing while injured? Any idea? We certainly should not be looking to forfeit anything. If we have the players to reasonably fulfil all fixtures (first team and U20) we play. If we don't then we have a decision to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylelauren01 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 I'm guesstimating here but going on the above suggestion we would have had Adam King playing 135 competitive minutes of football SINCE AUGUST, Sam Nicholson about the same, Billy King likewise, Gary Oliver about 90 minutes, etc & then with no match practise/fitness you expect them to be ready when the 1st team call comes. Meanwhile Beith, Liam Gordon, and Robbie Buchanan train and that's it. Great plan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the geezer Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Kylelauren is about the only one talking sense on this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Agree with Kl. Worst thing we could do for the youngsters development. They are only getting (the ones named) U20 football. And with the short-naming of subs not even getting a chance on the bench. So to try and make a point that the GFA et al would completely ignore and probably fine the club into the bargain would be 100% the wrong thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchies75 Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 Sportsound to reveal breaking news on Hearts in next couple of minutes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Sportsound to reveal breaking news on Hearts in next couple of minutes Rumour has it Brown is leaving the club after the game on Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Beni of Gorgie Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 First thought was yes, but its good experience, out of the limelight for the younger kids, could actually be a long term benefit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Obviously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moogsy Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Kylelauren is about the only one talking sense on this thread Correct. Stunned to see so many voting yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cut The Crap Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Of course not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts007 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartley Jambo. Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Tonight's team v motherwell, can't see any reason to pull out the U20 league based on that. ridgers L. Smith, K. Wilson, Gordon, Ford A. King B. King Nicholson Buchanan Simpson Oliver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungry hippo Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Correct. Stunned to see so many voting yes. Me too. It would not help our own players to pull out so it's a no brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts007 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 ask the boys who play for them and am sure their answer would be something like "No and what are we supposed to do if it did happen,just train?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down with Everything Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 ask the boys who play for them and am sure their answer would be something like "No and what are we supposed to do if it did happen,just train?" Has to be a no, all of these kids will be delighted to pitch themselves at a level they would not normally expect to experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Players at a young age need matches for experience.............who wants to train at that age and not play....madness. Honestly have to question those who voted yes...what are you thinking of ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonnicky63 Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Completely disagree, Nicholson, the Kings, Carrick, Hamilton and Gary Oliver all get pretty much no game time at all with the first team. Then add Angus Beith , Liam Smith, Liam Gordon, Robbie Buchanan and the other full timers - when do they play football as all too old for 17's? When we are forced to play any of the above we bring them in where they are completely short of any meaningful match practise if all they are benched/in the squad/play 15 mins as a sub for the 1st team. Scrapping the 20's is 100% not the solution. Well said and spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moogsy Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Can any of the yes voters explain why this would be a good idea in their eyes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eckauskas Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Good lord. If the reasoning behind this thread was purely about protecting the young lads, I could maybe take it on board. But it's not, it's clearly a terrible idea designed to teach the SFA who's boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchies75 Posted January 14, 2014 Author Share Posted January 14, 2014 Good lord. If the reasoning behind this thread was purely about protecting the young lads, I could maybe take it on board. But it's not, it's clearly a terrible idea designed to teach the SFA who's boss. Can only speak for myself but my reason was to protect the players, not about the SFA. People voting no are making good points but i remember some our players playing two league games an u20 league match and Scottish youth cup game in the space of 6 days earlier in season. So that is why i asked the question. I think some of the injuries players are picking up are as a result of too many games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylelauren01 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 Plus on a lighter note what would FootballFirst do with his time if the under 20's were binned!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 I cannot believe all the yes votes. Massive no from me. Let's he selfish here, we use it to develop our kids. We are relying on kids week in and week out. We need it now more than ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.