Season 21/22

[slasher]

Fuckin ridiculous that St. Mirren are being forced to play tonight. What is the criteria for this?

As it stands it looks like only Ross County & the huns are against moving the winter break forward, I wonder what their reasoning could be? 🤔

[Fairbairn]

32 minutes ago, slasher said:

Fuckin ridiculous that St. Mirren are being forced to play tonight. What is the criteria for this?

As it stands it looks like only Ross County & the huns are against moving the winter break forward, I wonder what their reasoning could be? 🤔

I might be wrong on this but did Hibs not get to postpone a game recently due to Covid?  If so I can't see why St Mirren wouldn't be afforded the same.

[vanderark14]

Ah Scottish football, don't ye just love it 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Diamond Scot]

St Mirren not being allowed a postponment is mental if they havent broken any rules.

Im not sure I agree with bringing the winter break forward. As things stand the clubs can fulfil the fixtures but as I understand it want to bring the break forward so that fans can attend. This causes a couple of issues for me.

1) It changes the landscape in terms of player availability both in terms of injuries but also players missing because of african nations.

2) It is highly likely based on previous restrictions that the fan ban wont just last 3 weeks. If you take the decision not to proceed without fans now then it would be strange to then proceed without fans come the end of January as thag makes zero sense and also would be unfair on some clubs. You then have a scenario where no games are being played despite clubs being able to play possibly into Feb or longer and then fixture congestion towards end of season.

 

[vanderark14]

2 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

St Mirren not being allowed a postponment is mental if they havent broken any rules.

Im not sure I agree with bringing the winter break forward. As things stand the clubs can fulfil the fixtures but as I understand it want to bring the break forward so that fans can attend. This causes a couple of issues for me.

1) It changes the landscape in terms of player availability both in terms of injuries but also players missing because of african nations.

2) It is highly likely based on previous restrictions that the fan ban wont just last 3 weeks. If you take the decision not to proceed without fans now then it would be strange to then proceed without fans come the end of January as thag makes zero sense and also would be unfair on some clubs. You then have a scenario where no games are being played despite clubs being able to play possibly into Feb or longer and then fixture congestion towards end of season.

 

The teams can fulfil fixtures but they will ALL lose significant income. If there is chance to bring forward the break to prevent this, they should. If we get to mid/end of january and nothing has changed from the government, then they should look at playing behind closed doors again.

 

[Stu101]

3 hours ago, slasher said:

As it stands it looks like only Ross County & the huns are against moving the winter break forward, I wonder what their reasoning could be? 🤔

You do wonder why Celtic want it moved forward? Nothing to do with new players being brought in, injured players being back etc. Celtic should not be rewarded for not managing their squad properly.

[vanderark14]

Just now, Stu101 said:

You do wonder why Celtic want it moved forward? Nothing to do with new players being brought in, injured players being back etc. Celtic should not be rewarded for not managing their squad properly.

They're not being rewarded 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Stu101]

1 minute ago, vanderark14 said:

They're not being rewarded 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Their poor squad management/training has potentialy left 4 first teams players out. Moved, then these players are back. Plus the addition of the three Japanese players then fills the gaps in their squad. That's not a bad reward for a game against your title rivals being moved, it it?

 

[vanderark14]

16 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Their poor squad management/training has potentialy left 4 first teams players out. Moved, then these players are back. Plus the addition of the three Japanese players then fills the gaps in their squad. That's not a bad reward for a game against your title rivals being moved, it it?

 

Honestly, the mind of an Old Firm fan baffles the fuck out of me.

Only in old firm land would a break for fucking global pandemic be seen as rewarding the opposition.🤣🤣🤣🤣

You crack on pal

 

[Stu101]

17 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

Honestly, the mind of an Old Firm fan baffles the fuck out of me.

Only in old firm land would a break for fucking global pandemic be seen as rewarding the opposition.🤣🤣🤣🤣

You crack on pal

 

The mitigation to deal with the pandenmic was the limit on the number of fans in. They didn't ban all fans, given, as they said yesterday, there was no scientific need.

[Diamond Scot]

3 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

The teams can fulfil fixtures but they will ALL lose significant income. If there is chance to bring forward the break to prevent this, they should. If we get to mid/end of january and nothing has changed from the government, then they should look at playing behind closed doors again.

 

I understsnd proposal would be to start games again week beginning 17th January. There is almost zero chance of restrictions being lifted by then. So really what the clubs are saying is do they want to play the scheduled plans beyond closed doors or the ones after the break.

The spfl were at pains to talk about sporting integrity last time around however are now throwing that out the window to prioritise revenue.

[vanderark14]

11 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

I understsnd proposal would be to start games again week beginning 17th January. There is almost zero chance of restrictions being lifted by then. So really what the clubs are saying is do they want to play the scheduled plans beyond closed doors or the ones after the break.

The spfl were at pains to talk about sporting integrity last time around however are now throwing that out the window to prioritise revenue.

You cant say that for certain.

Sporting integrity has nothing to do with this, clubs revenue must be looked after here. They've already lost god knows how much during the last pandemic, if there is even the slightest chance of postponing the season and not losing money.......they have to take it. Sporting integrity 🤣

[slasher]

4 hours ago, Fairbairn said:

I might be wrong on this but did Hibs not get to postpone a game recently due to Covid?  If so I can't see why St Mirren wouldn't be afforded the same.

Yes you are correct. 

 

1 hour ago, Stu101 said:

You do wonder why Celtic want it moved forward? Nothing to do with new players being brought in, injured players being back etc. Celtic should not be rewarded for not managing their squad properly.

That's some twisted hun logic right there. 

20 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

I understsnd proposal would be to start games again week beginning 17th January. There is almost zero chance of restrictions being lifted by then. So really what the clubs are saying is do they want to play the scheduled plans beyond closed doors or the ones after the break.

The spfl were at pains to talk about sporting integrity last time around however are now throwing that out the window to prioritise revenue.

You can't know that,  none of us do. As far as I know they don't have enough data from South Africa yet to make an informed decision but in a few weeks the picture is likely to be clearer. 

You seem to have a pretty jaundiced view of sporting integrity as far as I can see. 

Anyway, I'm not really arsed, what will be will be. I've got bigger things to worry me at the moment unfortunately. 

[Diamond Scot]

1 hour ago, vanderark14 said:

You cant say that for certain.

Sporting integrity has nothing to do with this, clubs revenue must be looked after here. They've already lost god knows how much during the last pandemic, if there is even the slightest chance of postponing the season and not losing money.......they have to take it. Sporting integrity 🤣

Of course I cant say that for certain however part of forward planning is looking at the likely scenarios. 

I mention sporting integrity because it just doesnt seem fair or correct to me that a club can barely put out a team having followed all the rules but are told to fulfil the fixture but at the same time other clubs are fully able to fulfil the fixtures but postpone them in order to have fans in the stadium.  Does that seem fair?

I agree, everything should be done to limit the loss to clubs but imo this shouldnt be at the expense of intergrity to the rules. All clubs knew some games might be played behind closed doors this season. 

The big elephant in the room is where clubs are at in terms of injuries etc. Some clubs are better off than others. This is the natural way of things. Allowing clubs to decide when the shutdown comes obviously comes into it and its no surprise to see clubs voting along these lines.

[Orraloon]

How many votes do Dundee get this time?

[kumnio]

5 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

How many votes do Dundee get this time?

As many as we bloody well want 👍

[Squirrelhumper]

4 hours ago, Stu101 said:

Their poor squad management/training has potentialy left 4 first teams players out. Moved, then these players are back. Plus the addition of the three Japanese players then fills the gaps in their squad. That's not a bad reward for a game against your title rivals being moved, it it?

 

That mince you have posted is beyond old firm fan parody. Pathetic. 

Give me a reason why ANY club should want to play in front of 500 fans? We know why Rangers do but give us a reason why the other 41 clubs in Scotland would want to?

[Stu101]

13 minutes ago, kumnio said:

As many as we bloody well want 👍

Ha. Hopefully the fax machine is well stoked with coal !

[Squirrelhumper]

2 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

I understsnd proposal would be to start games again week beginning 17th January. There is almost zero chance of restrictions being lifted by then. So really what the clubs are saying is do they want to play the scheduled plans beyond closed doors or the ones after the break.

The spfl were at pains to talk about sporting integrity last time around however are now throwing that out the window to prioritise revenue.

Surely it's worth a bash in the hope that more fans can attend mid January than just saying "fuck the fans" and playing in front of nobody? 

Alan Burrows at Motherwell was superb on this issue last night. Shame other clubs would prefer to just play in front of no fans as it suits them. 

[Orraloon]

23 minutes ago, kumnio said:

As many as we bloody well want 👍

🤣

I wonder if the pony express has got past Perth yet.

[Diamond Scot]

9 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

Surely it's worth a bash in the hope that more fans can attend mid January than just saying "fuck the fans" and playing in front of nobody? 

Alan Burrows at Motherwell was superb on this issue last night. Shame other clubs would prefer to just play in front of no fans as it suits them. 

I defo think all avenues should be explored but we need to be realistic also. Everytime restrictions have been brought in over the past 2 years then they have been extended. 3 weeks isnt enough time to see any results of the restrictions, especially as the majority of the country will be mixing over Xmas. It would just seem mad to me to postpone scheduled games because of no fans only to rearrange them or other games to go ahead with no fans.

I appreciate that fans and money are hugely important but surely a club being able to field a reasonable team should be also? If anything thats more important to sporting intergrity no?

Like alot of things in Scottish football, this will play out through the eyes of the old firm. I believe Rangers would also lose money from loss of a home game so they are probably viewing it more from the Old Firm game. There is no denying that Celtic have a weakend squad atm because of injury and will also recruit in January. From a purely sporting viewpoint it would be an unfair advantage to Celtic in relation to that particular game.

 

[Stu101]

1 minute ago, Squirrelhumper said:

That mince you have posted is beyond old firm fan parody. Pathetic. 

Give me a reason why ANY club should want to play in front of 500 fans? We know why Rangers do but give us a reason why the other 41 clubs in Scotland would want to?

572 is the average paying gate in Scotland, according to the last Scottlsh Football review, with a drop off between Jan-Feb.

Be interesting to point out what is 'mince' about my post. The draft paper ciruclated earlier today has the league starting again on the week of the 17th, and the games in the same order (depending on Matchday 20 being played (first vote tonight). Rangers first game would be Aberdeen on Wednesday and Celtic on the Sunday(23rd). Nigeria play on the 19th in their last group game of AFoN- so we would lose 3 first players that would be available under the current timetable.  Don't see anything factually inaccurate about that.

 

 

[vanderark14]

1 hour ago, Diamond Scot said:

Of course I cant say that for certain however part of forward planning is looking at the likely scenarios. 

I mention sporting integrity because it just doesnt seem fair or correct to me that a club can barely put out a team having followed all the rules but are told to fulfil the fixture but at the same time other clubs are fully able to fulfil the fixtures but postpone them in order to have fans in the stadium.  Does that seem fair?

I agree, everything should be done to limit the loss to clubs but imo this shouldnt be at the expense of intergrity to the rules. All clubs knew some games might be played behind closed doors this season. 

The big elephant in the room is where clubs are at in terms of injuries etc. Some clubs are better off than others. This is the natural way of things. Allowing clubs to decide when the shutdown comes obviously comes into it and its no surprise to see clubs voting along these lines.

The only club bothered about who has who available is Rangers

Both Edinburgh and Dundee derbies are happening at new year, all four clubs want the break, they are not bickering over who's injured and who's not.

[Stu101]

8 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

The only club bothered about who has who available is Rangers

because in terms of the proposal, we would be the only team to lose more than one player to the Africa Cup of Nations. The game would be played before the January international break.

If you are not losing players, then, of course, you wouldnt be fussed.

 

[vanderark14]

2 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

because in terms of the proposal, we would be the only team to lose more than one player to the Africa Cup of Nations. The game would be played before the January international break.

If you are not losing players, then, of course, you wouldnt be fussed.

 

Maybe they should've managed their squad better.................