-
Posts
18,915 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
217
Content Type
Profiles
Articles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Events
Everything posted by CaleyD
-
We were banned from watching it as kids :015:
-
[attach=1] [attach=2] [attach=3] [attach=4] [attach=5] [attach=6] [attach=7] [attach=8] Liverpool05.jpg_thumb Liverpool.jpg_thumb
-
I've heard 2 stories about what led to the dual carriageway nature of Laurel Ave...... First off, it was down to the fact that when the area was built they always intended that to be the "bypass" heading South West. The addition of what is now the Friars Bridge had been considered many many years before it was actually built and would probably have gone ahead had it not been for problems in acquiring the land which now houses part of the Cemetery....leading to the plans being scrapped fairly early on, and possibly before construction even begun. The second story is that, in-keeping with the "tree" theme it was constructed like that for no reason other than to accommodate what should have been a more extensive row of trees right down it's centre which should have been made up from a selection representing the various streets which had been named after trees. And just to be pedantic....the "roundabout" on Laurel Ave isn't actually a roundabout, it's just a traffic island :016:
-
I could be wrong but I don't think we've technically signed McGuire yet. The last I remember reading about him it suggested that his loan spell was extended to the end of the season and he'd signed a pre-contract.
-
Your right Alex, it is very much "interpretation", but interpretation is often set by precedent and the SPL have set the precedent that having a compliant stadium can be accomplished with the provision of a suitable ground share agreement. In regards to how long that can be for, there's nothing to suggest it is limited to a single season...or any set period for that matter.
-
I'm not seeing the breach of rule Alex, can you expand?
-
It matters not what Mileson said....for years everyone used to spout on about the 10,000 seater rule being Scottish Parliament Legislation....not because it was fact, but because they had taken the SPL word for it and never thought to check for themselves. Telling people what they want to hear is what businessmen are good at, not saying it is right and you can be sure that Mileson would have told the SPL whatever they wanted to hear at that time, just as any other club would have....it makes life easy. Doesn't change the fact that the SPL, IMO, would not be able to back the "failed promises" argument as there was no contractual obligation on which to base that promise in the first place. Take a look at rule A2.5.4.....how successful do you think they would be in enforcing that after allowing us to return from Aberdeen part way through the season?....the whole rulebook is a joke. If the SPL don't want people p*ssing all over the rulebook year after year, then it's about time they got a lot of things nailed down. Until that happens then every team is going to pick holes in it if suits their own needs...right or wrong, that's just the way it is. P.S. It's all your fault we're having this discussion....I was happy with my one comment earlier on in the thread, but you had to take umbrage and challenge my normally well thought out arguments - That'll feckin teach ya :015:
-
Lifted directly from the SPL rulebook.... The rule book actually makes for more interesting reading than the information I quoted from the website earlier as it makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to ground sharing or having to have your own stadium constructed/brought up to standard within any pre-defined timescale. Again I ask....what is this rule that Gretna would be breaking by pursuing another season of ground sharing? Granted that they would need permission from the SPL on the basis of rule A2.5.3.2, but the SPL have already set the precedent by allowing them to ground share this season and nothing has changed to justify them denying it again for next season. I don't necessarily disagree that Gretna appear to be taking the p!ss and not bothering to get the ball rolling, but when push comes to shove that doesn't come in to it......not if you want to stick to the point of "the rules are the rules"......and certainly not if you want the league to be run with any kind of fair and consistent hand. If Gretna made any sort of undertaking in regards to their plans for building a compliant stadium then it would be deemed to be a "gentlemans agreement" at best, the SPL certainly have no rules with which they could cite it and point out any failure on the part of Gretna FC to meet any contractual obligations in regards to their membership of the SPL.
-
People thought ICT were taking the proverbial when we said we'd put up the 2 new stands and be back in Inverness half way through the season!!!! Anyways, Gretna have till 31st March to have plans in place should they need them and if Hamilton do win the 1st then that'll be a whole other can of worms.
-
It's not true that they have "done nothing". They have plans in place for an upgrade to Raydale and they have also submitted outline plans to the SPL for the new eco-stadium and asked for an extension to development time in order for them to pursue that option.....they have done all these things in a timely fashion. As I said above...Any team in Gretna's position is not going to start building work when faced with a very real chance of relegation. ICT left it till the last minutes and Falkirk sailed close to the wind and ended up using temporary seating....what Gretna are doing is no different. It's Gretna this season, but it will be someone else in another couple of seasons and someone else after that. Whichever way you spin it the problems are brought about by needless stadia criteria and the only way to put an end to it is to scrap the minimum covered seats figure and allow clubs to develop grounds to what they see as their requirements. In fact, if I'm right then do Hamilton not only have 5300 seats? What's happening if they get promoted....why haven't we heard them campaigning and why is nobody on their case?
-
The wording is as follows........ Seating All SPL clubs must have, by no later than March 31 preceding any season and for the whole of that season, a stadium with no less than 6,000 covered seats for spectators. Ground Share If a club intends to "ground share" or occupy a ground other than one owned by the club concerned, then such an arrangement requires the approval of the Board of the SPL. Nowhere within any of the current documentation/handbook etc can I find any reference to a ground share being restricted to a single season. Even if a time limit did exist for ground sharing, the SPL would have a very hard time defending a case for a second season of ground sharing. If Gretna were to get agreement from Motherwell again, then on what basis could they defend a decision that says it was ok last season, but not this season? After all, the situation would be exactly the same and a "because we said so" argument would be laughed out of court. Granted, problems could and probably would arise if the team coming up the following season needed to ground share, and on that basis priority would have to be given to the promoted team. I still can't get my head around why some people think it is ok for them to ground share this season but it wouldn't be next season, it's not like it has any negative effect on anyone...certainly no more so than it might have done this season. Scarlet....your post could have been written by a Partick Thistle Fan back in 2004 as those are the exact same arguments as they used to try and prevent us getting access to the SPL.
-
:015: - That has to be post of the year so far...how I would love to see the Courier quote that one in the Fan Mail section
-
For those in need of a footie fix..... Clach are at home to Nairn County today and the pitch got the all clear this morning. Kick-Off 3pm
-
As I said above, the rules do not say you cannot ground share for more than one season and if Gretna were to manage to claw themselves back above the relegation spot then they would have fair argument for pursuing a second season of ground sharing. Would Gretna really be breaking any rules or not adhering to any criteria if they sought such a solution???...not by my understanding. We've already established that none of us mind when the rules are bent/interpreted to suit ourselves, or when they are superseded on the basis of "common sense"....I guess that only leaves the argument of how much a team should do to argue their case and when they should start that argument!!! As for your game being rescheduled as a result of the ground share....if the nonsensical Stadium Criteria had not been in place to start with then Gretna would have no need of a ground share - so again the cause goes all the way back to the SPL for having such stupid rules in the first place and is not the fault of Gretna FC. I guess what I really object to is the placing of blame entirely at the feet of Gretna when it is the system that is fundamentally flawed, and the inability of some people to realise that even though we (ICT) brought about some changes to improve it, it's still far from perfect. Some ICT fans seem to have quickly forgotten that we originally fought for the abolition of the minimum seating criteria and eventually settled on a compromise....what has changed since we got in to the SPL that means we no longer think the minimum seating criteria is wrong? The only thing that has changed is that we are now part of the establishment, and in the minds of some, anything that helps keep us here seems perfectly acceptable.....not me.
-
I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of teams who have, in the past, been put under great financial stress by the Stadium criteria laid down by the SPL and who suffer from those costs even to this day. However, we cannot keep on living in the past and keep forcing the same problems on other teams on the basis of "we had to do it so they should too". Some people will be annoyed because they are of the opinion that Gretna have done nothing to help themselves, and that may be justified. However, the situation is not of their making and was it not for the existence of the stupid criteria in the first place then we would not be having this conversation to begin with. If your feeling aggrieved and bitter then that should be targeted at the SPL, they are the ones who put your club in the position it is in, not Gretna or any other single team....all they are doing is what is best by them within the rules laid out by the SPL. It's the system that is wrong.
-
He was, but he was also due to return to the Pars as his loan expired in January. For what I can gather he's technically still here on loan until the end of the season and we only have a pre-contract with him at this time and he doesn't sign permanently until the summer....although I could be wrong.
-
Did anyone seriously expect Gretna to have made a start on expanding their ground unless they had a real chance of avoiding relegation? Indeed had we not been in the position we were and had the opportunity to return to Inverness early then I very much doubt we would have started expansion by this stage in our first season in the SPL. Where did Gretna make this "promise" that everyone keeps going on about? The rules only state that all teams should provide details of the SPL compliant ground which they intend to use for the forthcoming season prior to the 31st March, nowhere does it say that you can only ground share for a single season or that you must have your own stadium by a set date. In fact it was that very rule which ICT used to their advantage when they agreed the ground share with Aberdeen, even though it was not the intention of the rule to allow for ground sharing at all.
-
That's my understanding of the situation also.
-
Gretna could, and probably should have been doing more to strengthen their case, and had they not been sitting so far off the bottom of the table then I suspect they would have done just that....however, the SPL have stepped in with what would seem to be a pre-emptive strike by saying there's no room for negotiation.....little wonder then that they would simply accept their fate and make no attempt. I don't agree with any criteria being set outwith results on the park (other than inability to run a solvent club). The argument that "we had to do it so they should too" is an argument we fought tooth and nail against when Partick were trying to prevent our promotion and for us to turn around now and use it against another team just sticks in the craw as far as I am concerned. Unless you are in agreement with having stadium criteria as a deciding factor in relegation and promotion then there's no other plausible argument for anyone other than the bottom team going down, and no team should have to go through what we went through in fighting for a position in a league they have earned through performance on the park.
-
That's quite a catchy wee song.
-
I don't think Gretna should be booted out of the SPL for any reason other than coming last in the league. I also find it extremely ironic that any ICT fans should be getting all high and mighty about it after what we had to go through. How quickly the self preservation kicks in!!!!!
-
If you mean the ones from SportNetwork then we were unable to transfer them (or any other threads from there) to the new forum. All is not lost though as I have them saved on my PC, I just need to find the time to get them sorted into a format suitable for posting up somewhere else. I can't give you a promise of a timescale, but I will add them to my current list of things to do since I know you are looking for them.
-
No :blah01:
-
We have a smaller squad which brings obvious risks, but it will also give some of the fringe players a chance to step up to the plate, prove their worth and earn new contracts if that is their desire. We've only lost one 1st team regular during the window, and based on past windows that's a plus for us....and being as we have an abundance of midfielders then it's not as if we've left ourselves short in that department. We also secured a deal for McGuire in a much needed position and Imrie has the potential to perform in the SPL. We should never have allowed ourselves to get into the position where we have so many contracts due to expire at the same time, but players who are hungry to get a place in the team and secure a contract will go out on to the pitch and give their all. What's important right now is that the club keep on top of things over the next couple of months to ensure that they do secure the services of those they want to keep and not leave them hanging in uncertainty so long that they start taking up pre-contracts with other clubs just so as they can secure their future. I'll predict that Wyness, Duncan, Patti & Hart will all sign new deals with us in the next couple of months. Rossco is for the off as he no longer wants to be here for various reasons and McDonald will be allowed to leave for free in the summer to move back down south.....no reflection on the guys ability, I just don't think he is settled or suited to the game in Scotland. In short, nothing has happened during the transfer window which makes us any the weaker for the remainder of the season and our chances of making a top 6 are just the same now as they were on the last day of December.
-
You can be sure I won't be attaching my name to designing any logo with a Nazi Eagle on it.