Jump to content

cal234ey

03: Full Members
  • Posts

    639
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by cal234ey

  1. Sporran will be fine but for Scotland games its normal practice that the stewards will want to take a quick look inside it.
  2. The East Stand is fine as long as you are high enough up.
  3. Danny Williams Ocean steals the win for Inverness
  4. I would go for new St Mirren Park. By virtue of living in Glasgow I don't I've missed more than one ICT away game there since it opened. Only other rivals to this might be Easter Road or Victoria Park.
  5. It has taken me a while but I've come up with a conservative estimate of 282 games going back to 99/00. Im sure my Dad would have taken me to plenty more games before then but putting an estimate on it would be difficult. I think I actually have a recollection of being at a game at Telford Street which isn't bad considering I'd have been about 4.
  6. First day in the new job will be the 13th of July, nightmare!!
  7. Glasgow city centre Close enough to even walk to the game.
  8. It has been a long, long time since I have posted on here but today's events have encourage me to come back and add my voice to the dissent. An utterly spineless decision by the SFA in an attempt to punish Meekings for the officials mistake potentially preventing him from playing in probably the biggest game of his career so far. All of this to appease on of the two most disgusting, petty, vindictive and arrogant "football club" in the country. I usually make it to Parkhead for an ICT away game once a season this will no longer be continued, I will not give a single penny to that club again. They are the sorest losers ever. I am glad that the club has immediately taken the stance that they have and I support them in fighting this decision all the way. The chances of the petition posted in previous pages being recognised or having any real impact is slim but it can't hurt to sign your name to it, here is the link again in case anybody missed it https://www.change.org/p/scottish-football-association-withdraw-the-notice-of-complaint-issued-against-josh-meekingshttps://www.change.org/p/scottish-football-association-withdraw-the-notice-of-complaint-issued-against-josh-meekings Je suis Josh
  9. So you are saying that you wouldn't want to risk having to play such lowly teams as, for example this season, Morton, Partick Thistle, Falkirk and Livingstone, who are obviously so much lesser teams than ICT ? Because each club would have different ideas on which to cherry pick and so a single proposal that got most of what was needed would have got part way there and made it easier to get the rest if it was really needed later. And of course the difference in class and ability between SPL teams and the current SFL1 is so great that they no top 4 SFL1 team could ever push a bottom 4 SPL team to need a 3 goal comeback and extra time in a national cup semi-fin... oh wait. But it keeps getting said that is what the fans want, but you are also saying you don't want to play the top 4 of the SFL. So where do the extra 4 teams for the top league come from ? Why is it abhorrent to have the possibility of playing the 12th to 16th top teams under 12-12 to 8-8-8, but brilliant to have the guarantee of playing those exact same teams under a 16 team top league ? For what it's worth I agree that a 16/18 team top league with extra playoffs and possibly an extended League Cup that gives back the extra home games would be a goal to get towards. I also know it cannot be done overnight and to get there we need to show that it is the way. IMNSHO, the proposal as was gave that chance to start the move. 1. It is not a risk to play these clubs I am extremely confident we would beat them over 14 games. The point is why should ICT an SPL team have their SPL season finished after just over half a season to play SFL1 teams. 2. Well they should at least try an isolated vote on each idea. Where is the harm in that? If they all get voted no then there is not much that can be done. 3. Missed the point entirely there. There was never a question on the gulf in class between a bottom SPL team and a top SFL1 team. The point is once again as an SPL club you should play a full season against SPL opposition. I don't care even remotely what the difference in ability is. We and the other 11 clubs are SPL teams on merit and therefore should not have to play SFL1 teams in the league season. The teams the get promoted to the SPL deserve to be there and I am pleased to see their clubs playing ours. 4. Missed the point again. If the league was restructured to 16 (not going to happen but lets just go with it for now) then the 4 top SFL1 teams would join the league. They would no longer be SFL1 clubs they would be SPL clubs. At the start of the season you would know that throughout the entire year you would be playing all SPL clubs. It isn't that I want ICT to play the same 11 clubs each year that is not it at all. What I want is ICT as an SPL club to play SPL teams all season long. Be there 12 clubs 16 clubs or 30 clubs in the SPL whether the league contains Celtic, St Mirren, Partick, Alloa etc. I don't care as long as they are designated an SPL club at the start of the season then that is good enough.
  10. You are basing this on the premise that the whole point is to win prize money, and that is all the teams are playing for. Perhaps the idea was to stimulate the game through better competition and hence bring in more crowds, thereby encouraging the clubs by increased revenue and helping to attract individual sponsorship. Or maybe we are resigned to the fact that it is easier to watch it on ESPN or Sky Sports than to actually go safe in the knowledge that the club can get a cut of my £42.50 per month? No I am not basing it solely on prize money. What I am saying is I don't believe that reconstructing to this 12-12-18 would bring about any more competition or revenue than now. Speak for yourself with that last line.
  11. I understand what you're saying about the re-distribution. But look at the overall picture. Under the new proposed financial restructure there would have been a significant decrease in the prize money for the top 2 in the SPL. Ok, there's a chance we may end up 2nd this season (fingers crossed) but for years fans have complained that the top 2 teams get far too much money compared to the rest. 3rd - 8th would get slightly less than what they would get now. Slightly less. 9th-12th would get around the same as they currently get. Teams 13-24 would have got significantly more than what they already get. So the disproportionate amount of money that the top 2 teams currently get would have been shared with the rest, significantly helping the teams lower down and at the very worst, a slight decrease for teams 3rd-8th. What this would have meant for ICT and what appealed to me is if we were to get relegated within the next few years we would have the financial safety net of extra money in the pot taken mainly from the current disproportionate amount in the top 2. So, overall more teams will get stronger with the level playing field and more fairer financial distribution. ICT would benefit knowing that that financial safety net is there if we were to have a disastrous season. I get that and don't get me wrong I am completely for financial redistribution such as that suggested. But we lose a little prize money and 1 home gate so I think the club would end up with a lower income through this distribution. Despite this, financial redistribution should voted in on its own and we can hopefully get some movement on the good parts of the proposals soon.
  12. And under the current system it is impossible for teams to have no chance of Europe after 3/5th of the season ? The reports I have seen don't confirm either way if it was all protected measures or just the league structure. Even if it was just the league structure, then by offering the 9-3 more compromise has been given. The kudos you mention is one thing, they look good in the eyes of others and that in itself could bring in increased gates from away fans. "They helped us get a fairer share of the cash, I'll go to away games there". Fanciful I know but not impossible. And they could also be looking long term, giving up a little now, getting more overall income back into the game so they end up with more, remember 1% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Not with the current set up of 2 clubs being able to block anything for the other 40. But going to 12-12-18 with all the other things it would have brought may well have given us the stepping stone needed to get a set up in place that would have given us that. Of course if 12-12-18 had gone through, got Scottish football on a stable setting, given the excitement and competition we need, improved our UEFA and FIFA rankings, then been changed to a 16 team top division as that was the next step forward, there would still be those who say it would be a failure as it had to change. It may not be perfect, I have never said it was, but it seems to me to be right for right now. Something else may be better for another time. Some clubs may not be close to Europe after 3/5ths of a season but look at Ross County after 22 games they would have ended up in the middle 8 but now they have a chance to qualify for Europe why stop clubs having this opportunity. Not enough compromise there are too many other poor factors. Your point about away fans thinking they may go to away games of a club that helped them is possible but I don't think it alone would cover the losses I mentioned. I don't think a 16 team league will happen as there would be too few home games for clubs for it to be voted through but that is a debate for another time.
  13. How? More money is would be redistributed from the SPL to the SFL so ICT would see a reduction in money through this avenue. 12-12-18 results in 36 games for the top 24 teams so that equals 1 less home game per season than now so again less money for the club. Sponsors are not gone to be queueing up to invest money in this product any more than they would now as it is still the same clubs just a different league system. So I don't see how it can possibly be financially a better package for us. Glad it has not gone through. I was going to paste in the financial re-distribution graph to answer but I see Don has already done that! And that graph shows that the red line (the proposed financial model) is lower than the blue line (current financial model) for the majority of SPL clubs. Therefore they would earn less money than currently through commercial monies distribution. I maybe wasn't clear enough with my point sorry. How is this financially a better package for the SPL clubs namely ourselves rather than Scottish football as a whole?
  14. What like it has been for the last 15 years ? Who said it couldn't be changed for 3 years ? Who ever told you that was wrong. What was in the original proposal was that any structure changes within 3 years needed a larger majority than most other changes. If everyone wanted to change after the first year it could be done. From the reports, even that was removed and changes to structure would be on the same majority as everything else so the single sticking point that St Mirren gave as the reason for saying no was removed and they still said no. But to get the good points above that would help the lower end, there had to be compromise from the higher end, as they would lose out. You were never going to get the money redistribution without there being something in it for those giving up the biggest share of money. So you couldn't just cherry pick what you like as not everyone would cherry pick the same things and so there would have been no chance of getting what you want. And will you take Stuart Gilmour with them ? The St Mirren vote seems to me to have been about them being convinced they would have been in the middle 8 nearly every season, and then losing out on potential home games with the big teams, Celtic, ICT etc. Thing is if that is their normal position then they likely miss out on that game anyway, and if we went with a 16 team league, once home and away, then they definitely miss it. Yes 12-12-18 is not perfect, but there is no perfect solution for everyone. I posted some thoughts on a possible format last It gave a top 16 with playoffs at top and bottom, and although some here liked some of it, there were some points that probably would never be agreed on by enough teams. This was a chance to get the bits that most fans want, fairer distribution of money, playoffs, pyramid system, with a compromise on how we got there and making it easier to tweak later if it wasn't working. It seems to me some teams, and people, couldn't see that we needed to take a little pain in the short term, to make it better long term. From my post No.65: The split just now is only for 5 games which is ~13% of the season. The proposed split is for 14 games which is ~39% of that season. The two splits are completely incomparable. How can you prevent teams from having a shot a European qualification after only 3/5ths of the season? Absolute madness. Also the split in the SPL is pre-defined you don't know who it will be exactly but you know it will contain 6 SPL clubs in each section meaning by virtue of being an SPL club you will play SPL teams for the whole season. This proposed idea meant that you could start the season in the SPL have any chance of a late push removed and to then finish your SPL season playing against SFL1 clubs every second week. The 11-1 system used to protect things in the new structure means change is effectively prevented look at how well this voting structure has prevented change in the SPL all these years. The only concession made was to change the 9-3 regarding the structure of the league only and not the other 11-1 protected items in the package. I don't see anything in it for the teams that are giving up money. Credit to them for attempting to do so but I am yet to see a benefit for them. The new structure has 1 less home game for them than the current SPL. The money is redistributed down the leagues as well. So income is lowered on both fronts there for the top clubs. There is the potential for an increased chance of relegation so again the SPL clubs near the bottom could lose out and again lose money. This new system is not going to significantly increase gates or commercial income to cover these losses. Comparing to a 16 team league is irrelevant as it will never be implemented.
  15. How? More money is would be redistributed from the SPL to the SFL so ICT would see a reduction in money through this avenue. 12-12-18 results in 36 games for the top 24 teams so that equals 1 less home game per season than now so again less money for the club. Sponsors are not gone to be queueing up to invest money in this product any more than they would now as it is still the same clubs just a different league system. So I don't see how it can possibly be financially a better package for us. Glad it has not gone through.
  16. I disagree that the game is dying. In the last two days we have had two incredibly exciting semi-finals, this seasons SPL has been incredibly competitive regarding the race for Europe/Top six. The 12-12-18 would not have led to the race to win the SPL being more competitive, Celtic would still have won it comfortably. With regards to relegation, over the course of 14 games, would Partick, Morton, Falkirk and Livingston (Current SFL1 top four) really have enough in their squad to beat the likes of St Mirren, Hearts and Hibs? I doubt it. I excluded Dundee as they are not really SPL standard and this would probably lead to just the 1up 1down we currently have. The split just now is only for 5 games which is ~13% of the season. The proposed split is for 14 games which is ~39% of that season. The two splits are completely incomparable. I have no issue with the current split in the league. The 8-8-8 split is seriously flawed. I feel the cash distribution needs to be changed but not because Dunfermline are in financial difficulty, that is through their own mis-managament and should not be the sole catalyst for change. I fully believe it should be altered as just now it is completely unfair and aimed at keeping all of the money in the top league and most of that swallowed up by Celtic. Dunfermline can only blame themselves for their problems. Also Aberdeen are responsible for not binning the 11-1 earlier in the season as they thought they would come second and thus collect the 2nd place cash pot. So Stewart Milne only has himself to blame for a 10-2 vote killing of 12-12-18. This will also not lead to Sevco being moved up the leagues to compensate. They will take their place in SFL 2 next year and the reconstruction will not be in place for next season.
  17. I can't believe how many people are disappointed with this outcome. Thankfully this ridiculous idea has been binned and hopefully will lead to Neil Doncaster leaving his post and somebody willing to select the positive aspects of the proposal into a sensible reconstruction idea taking his place.
  18. I used to referee for a few years there is no fixed rule on this. This like many rules is at the referee's discretion and he chooses when to give a yellow card for persistent fouling be it 5, 10 or more fouls there is no specific number. There was no chance Norris was going to send him off for persistent fouling having already sent one Hearts player off. Also we can't really complain too much about this as Foran and even McKay with his strange pull back on Webster when he had already been booked could have walked in another game.
  19. Thought after the 10th foul since been booked Ngoo should walk. Not sure how many fouls someone has to make before it becomes persistent fouling.. Anyone else's heart sink when referee went for pocket after mckay brought down webster only to find out was for the sub. Sorry to be a downer on are team selection policy but think its absolutely disgraceful roberts gets on ahead of nick ross.. As well as the penalty miss roberts also overstretched to header a ball that was falling perfectly for andy shinnie at the back post in final minute of extra time much to shinnies disgust and mine. Anyway still are greatest season and it was only the diddy cup anyway.. This is absolutely spot on. Why do we persist with him when Nick Ross is evidently a better player? I would also argue that Roberts is not better than Sutherland or Pepper so why waste our time playing a guy who is off back to Arsenal in a few months. I admit I did not see the 4-0 win against Dundee United where apparently he was impressive but I have seen little to convince me he is anything special and he certainly does not have the work ethic to fit into this team. Hopefully we continue our good league form with a win on Wednesday and progress to the last 8 of the Scottish cup on Saturday. Disappointing to lose to what as a poorer than usual Hearts side especially with them down to 10 men and us having such a great season. Edit: Not sure how to fix the quoting function but oh well
  20. What they are intended to highlight is in Switzerland the average attendance rose after the 12-12/8-8-8 system was scrapped. As for Austria they were higher before the 12-12/8-8-8 system was implemented, then dropped while that system was in place before rising after it was scrapped. Shouldn't be that hard to interpret surely . . .
  21. Possibly I'm not overly sure and can't really be bothered digging that deep. But I feel it is as close as we can get for a comparison and we certainly need to tread very carefully about voting this through.
  22. Here are some statistics from the leagues stupid enough to implement 12-12 then 8-8-8 half way through: Switzerlands averages for the top 12, which became a top 10: [12-12 splitting 8-8-8] 1997-98... 6,594 1998-99... 5,832 1999-00... 5,651 2000-01... 6,204 2001-02... 7,291 2002-03... 7,779 =============== reduced to top 10 2003-04... 9,025 2004-05... 8,305 2005-06... 7,993 2006-07... 9,673 2007-08... 10,917 2008-09... 8,697 2009-10... 11,059 2010-11... 11,365 2011-12... 12,253 and for the second 12, which became a second 16: [12-12 splitting 8-8-8] 1997-98... 1,472 1998-99... 984 1999-00... 1,669 2000-01... 1,338 2001-02... 952 2002-03... 1,202 ============== expanded to second 16 2003-04... 1,316 2004-05... 1,417 2005-06... 1,718 2006-07... 1,358 2007-08... 1,127 2008-09... 2,018 2009-10... 1,214 2010-11... 1,691 2011-12... 2,004 (No figures on EFS for pre-1997) Austria's figures for the top 10, which became the top 16 then top 12, then the top 10: 1975-76... 4,777 1976-77... 4,616 1977-78... 3,888 1978-79... 3,592 1979-80... 4,725 1980-81... 5,344 1981-82... 5,104 ============= expanded to top 16 1982-83... 4,615 1983-84... 3,422 1984-85... 3,169 ============= moved to 12-12 splitting 8-8-8 1985-86... 2,613 1986-87... 3,245 1987-88... 3,396 1988-89... 2,998 1989-90... 3,261 1990-91... 3,467 1991-92... 3,306 1992-93... 3,708 ============== reduced to top 10 1993-94... 2,910 1994-95... 3,532 1995-96... 4,907 1996-97... 5,354 1997-98... 4,533 1998-99... 5,906 1999-00... 7,702 2000-01... 6,480 2001-02... 6,043 2002-03... 5,285 2003-04... 7,216 2004-05... 6,757 2005-06... 7,664 2006-07... 8,022 2007-08... 9,338 2008-09... 9,013 2009-10... 7,873 2010-11... 7,953 2011-12... 7,075
  23. With the current split you are not guaranteed your derbies either and as it's a 50/50 split with 6 teams in each you are even less likely to get them than you are with the new setup where you would keep two thirds of the top tier intact. Why is that any different from what we have at the moment? You buy your season ticket without guarantee of 4 games against any team. Personally, whilst I would be disappointed to see us in the bottom 4 come the split, I'd actually be looking forward to a second half of the season against some new opposition and a chance to visit some different grounds. I'm also not so sure the drop in crowds argument holds much water....you're team are effectively starting afresh and pushing for promotion back to the top tier for the new season. A scenario that is far more likely to get fans out supporting their team than the many meaningless bottom 6 clashes that we have at present. I've never agreed with the standpoint that there's a huge gulf between top half of Div 1 and bottom half of the SPL, so I think games will be far more competitive than you give credit for. What's more, because the split is due to come at the start of January, teams will have the transfer window in which to make preparations for the remainder of the season as they'll know where and who they will be playing against. A situation that doesn't exist at present and one which will allow the middle tier to become even more competitive and exciting. Point 1: Currently you are guaranteed three derbies a season for each one where the new proposal only ensures there are two so therefore are guaranteed 1 more derby a season as it stands. Point 2: With regards to the drop in crowds could you tell me what our average 1st Division attendance was a few seasons back and any of our recent SPL average attendance. Which is higher? And the year in the 1st division was when we were chasing promotion and the time in the SPL with the exception of this season has included plenty "meaningless bottom 6 clashes" so I feel that argument holds plenty of water. Point 3: It isn't that big a gulf as yet but I do feel it is only getting wider. The last 3 teams promoted from SFL1 - County, Dundee and Dunfermline. Dunfermline got relegated. County and Dundee currently occupy the two bottom spots. Dunfermline who were relegated have experienced extreme financial difficulties yet are still within touching distance at the top of the league. We were relegated and bounced straight back something that was supposed to be impossible to do but seems to be becoming easier why? Because the gap is widening.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy