05: Full Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


DoofersDad last won the day on June 3

DoofersDad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,966 Excellent


About DoofersDad

  • Rank
    Midfield General

Recent Profile Visitors

8,946 profile views
  1. Once it became clear that there was no chance of the the 2019/20 season being completed and that the Coronavirus was going to have a significant effect on clubs' finances, there was one obviously sensible solution which could and should have been agreed promptly. Had agreement been reached, then clubs would now be in a position where they would know which division they were playing in next season and what the makeup of that division was. It would have given clubs the opportunity to plan as well as is possible in what is an unprecedentedly difficult time. Two basic principles should have been accepted. These are 1) that no club should be unnecessarily disadvantaged by the fact that it was not possible to finish the season and 2) uncertainty should be eliminated as much as possible, as soon as possible. Making the Premiership a 14 team division and keeping the other 3 divisions as 10 team divisions by promoting the top 2 in each division and the champions of the Highland and Lowland leagues would have meant no relegation and would have satisfied those 2 basic principles. Any dissent to this could have been overcome by making it a temporary arrangement for 2 or 3 seasons with an agreement on a process to discuss restructuring. The SPFL management are there to represent the interests of all clubs but have clearly had a very different agenda. The capacity for Scottish football to shoot itself in the foot never ceases to amaze.
  2. This is just such a difficult situation for all involved in trying to find a way forward. So much is completely out of the hands of those trying to come together to make decisions which will be acceptable to such a wide variety of needs and interests. In some ways it is great that we have now seen some modest relaxation of the lockdown rules but there is a lot of scientific advice saying that even this is too much too soon. The UK still has one of the highest rates in the world for new infections and the rates are a good bit higher than when other countries started to ease lockdown. There is a risk that rates could start to go back up again with a resultant return to full lockdown. It is clear that one of the last things to return will be mass gatherings and that is a real challenge for football clubs which rely more heavily on gate receipts for their survival. It is possible for the big clubs to play behind closed doors and get money in through televised coverage. Also, amateur clubs and some semi professional clubs could also survive as they get so little income from gate receipts anyway. Also, easing of lockdown may allow for gatherings of 100 or so provided the space available allows for social distancing rules to be respected, so a club which normally gets gates of 300 may be able to carry on as normal but a club with gates of 3000 will not. It is therefore clubs like ours that are likely to find it hardest to get back to some kind of normality. There is no easy way out of this. What is vital is that we get the virus under control and we can all help in this in maintaining social distancing and hygiene rules when we do go out. Then when football does finally return to our stadium, those of us that can still afford will need to make a point of supporting the club as much as we can. Whatever next season holds for ICT, the one thing we can guarantee is that it will need the support of its fans.
  3. When I accessed the site there was a "thank you for your vote" message. I haven't voted but would have voted for Mark Ridgers. There appeared to be an option for the young players the year but my vote wasn't registered. The "vote" button simply disappeared when I moved the cursor over it. Clicking anyway made no difference with my chosen player still highlighted and the "vote" button reappearing when I moved my cursor away.
  4. I have some sympathy for your view Lizi. But I'm afraid the "powers that be" do have an idea of what we want. The real power here is Sky TV, and their viewing figures show that the Scottish viewing public want to watch The Rangers and Celtic and particularly when they play each other. They also know that Scots would rather sit at home or in the pub and watch Liverpool or Man Utd or Barcelona than go out and support their local team. As long as premiership clubs feel they will be better off with the TV money than without it, then our league structure (at the top end at least) will be dictated by how much the TV companies are willing to pay for what.
  5. It was good to hear our Chairman totally refute the suggestion that ICT were involved in a secret motion to null and void the season. There is not a shred of evidence that our Board and CEO have been anything other than totally consistent in their position throughout this fiasco. Perhaps those on here having a pop at our club should get in touch with those Chairmen and media outlets who have made the allegation and ask them to produce some evidence and to explain what our club would possibly have to gain from a null and void scenario. It is true that ICT were on board with Rangers and Hearts on an alternative motion to separate the payments to clubs from any decision on the final league placements and relegation and promotion issues. Scot Gardiner is on record as saying that the SPFL tried to dissuade them from pushing forward with the motion on the basis that if the motion was not passed it would leave us in a null and void situation (even though that would only ever have been the case if nothing else was agreed!). It seems likely to me that other clubs have somehow got the impression that the motion the 3 clubs were suggesting as an alternative to the SPFL's own motion was, in fact, a proposal for a null and void position. I wonder who could possibly have given them that impression?
  6. Interesting article by Tom English. In it, he says "Scottish football missed an opportunity to examine itself three years ago and it has missed another opportunity now. Strip away the bile and all the inter-club warfare and ask a simple question - can we do better than this? If a neutral party put that to a vote and asked club leaders, players and supporters to respond yes or no, what would the result look like? Can we do better? The answer, surely, would be an emphatic yes. This is the problem, though. When you try to lift the bonnet to have a look at how things are done, the thing that some want to know first is who's doing the lifting and why? What's their agenda? Who are they acting on behalf of? What are they really trying to do? That mentality chokes progress. It protects the status quo. Clubs have it in their gift to introduce radical change to the game if they so wish, but they don't want it - or don't want it enough. People like to talk about change, but not many are brave enough to see it through." Seems to sum up the situation pretty well.
  7. Not unexpected but still very disappointing. The Stenhousemuir Chairman's statement explained very well why having an inquiry was so important. If the various allegations are founded in fact then it is clearly important they are brought out into the open and dealt with. If an independent inquiry found that the allegations were largely baseless then those making the allegations would need to start toeing the line. Either way, the outcome clears the air and allows the organisation to move on. So surely an inquiry should have been welcomed both by those who think the SPFL are doing a good job and those who do not. It seems those who have supported an inquiry are largely clubs who have been publicly critical of the SPFL. These are the clubs who are willing to put their side of things to an independent arbiter. Those who have been supportive of the SPFL position seem unwilling to have the allegations put to independent scrutiny. There really is only one conclusion that you can draw from that! It is all very well saying that we now need to draw a line under this and work together, but the best opportunity for that was for all to accept the conclusions of an independent inquiry. Working together in an organisation where the leadership clearly adopts a bullying culture of divide and rule and where nobody can trust anybody else will not be easy. Directors and staff from other clubs will have moaned about the SPFL in private and will have pledged their support, but then been too gutless to act. How on earth are you supposed to work constructively in that kind of environment? No doubt the club will put out another statement, but it does now need to accept the decision of the majority of member clubs and focus on the season ahead.
  8. Not only are our club rightly incensed by the Record article, I imagine that McArthur is non too pleased either. The Record states "But McArthur hit back when he released a statement of his own on Dunfermline’s official website, rejecting Gardiner’s claims and giving details of a counter proposal to null and void the league." and "Details of Gardiner’s plan only emerged as a group of Championship clubs threw their weight behind a statement from Dunfermline chairman Ross McArthur - in which he mentions for the first time a proposal to have the Scottish season wiped from the record books." At no point in his statement did McArthur claim that ICTFC had any such plan! The point McArthur was making was that if the clubs rejected the SPFL motion and then the alternative one proposed by Rangers, Hearts and ICT, then we could be left in the null and void scenario. It was not an inevitability though. It would only have happened if the SPFL failed to get agreement on alternatives. My understanding is that the null and void scenario was one our club was keen to avoid and, far from us proposing it, it was the SPFL which was using it to threaten clubs to vote for their motion!
  9. It is remarkable how little is actually said in McArthur's statement beyond a bit of self-indulgent, indignant bluster. He limits himself to the allegation of threats and says that all he was doing was pointing out that if the SPFL failed and the Rangers' motion was subsequently put and failed, that distribution of Championship prize money might be dived into 10 equal portions. He ignores the fact that Inverness would be the 2nd biggest loser in that scenario and therefore stood to benefit more than most from supporting the SPFL motion. He ignores the fact that the "consequences" he mentions would only become reality if the SPFL chose to make them so, and therefore fails to understated why this was rightly seen as a "threat" rather than merely unavoidable "consequences". McArthur concludes " There are many more things I would like to say, but I will retain my dignity and continue to be more concerned about the long term future of Scottish football at this time. The endless point scoring is becoming tiresome, and I would have preferred to rise above it, but I have a duty to protect the reputation of Dunfermline Athletic FC." What gutless, pompous cr*p! Hiding behind his role as Pars Chairman allows him to squirm out of answering a range of valid concerns raised in the ICT statement. As a member of the SPFL Board he also has a duty to the the other 41 member clubs and to the wider reputation of Scottish football. That is a duty he is abjectly failing in.
  10. Confused messages are in nobody's interest and will cost lives. The Scottish Government says that they had not been consulted over the change of slogan and the UK Government says that the measures they announced were part of a process that involved consultation with the devolved administrations. Someone is telling porkies and whilst I don't really care who it is, it does need to stop. When the Prime Minister or other UK ministers make statements which they know are applicable only to one or some of the nations they need to specify that and to emphasise the different advice that applies elsewhere. These statements are not seen just in England. The impact of the virus is different in different parts of the UK and in Scotland we appear to be a bit behind England's curve. So whilst a consistent UK (or at least, a GB) approach is highly desirable it is entirely reasonable that the devolved administrations should take a different path when justified. But it needs to be seen to be justified. The Scottish mask advice was a serious error of judgement which not only differed from UK advice but from WHO advice too. As Yngwie points out, it has been largely ignored by the public and the worry for me is that it will lead to people continuing to listen to and follow the UK or specifically English advice when a different approach actually is justified in Scotland. We need better clarity from both Governments.
  11. Roy, this is what you said in 2012. “The majority of fans throughout the country are telling us the SPL structure as it stands isn’t working. “The customer is telling us the product isn’t right and interest has started to wane. We need to grow up and do something about that before giving anyone the opportunity to say the game is dying. “We’re doing fine and we’re getting to know the league but I’m more interested in reconstruction. “I have no view as yet on what is the perfect solution, whether it’s to expand the league to 14 or even 16, but we have to take a longer-term view of the SPL.” Don't betray "the majority of fans throughout the country" Roy. Man up and let's have some Highland solidarity here!
  12. If there's one sure way of never getting change, it is to stop debating.
  13. Yes, very predictable but it was a lot more than a distraction. it made the task of planning for the restart of football post Coronavirus even more difficult because clubs simply didn't know in what division they would be playing. It also illustrates the dishonesty of the SPFL for linking their vote to end the season with a promise to look at reconstruction when they knew it was never going to happen. Forget the need for an 11-1 vote of Premiership sides, apparently a majority of Premiership sides have told the SPFL that they are opposed to any change in the 12,10,10,10 structure. The SPFL could have established that with 24 hours weeks ago. They could then have put a clear motion about the end of season to the clubs without any dishonest carrots being dangled. It absolutely stinks.
  14. The club is in an incredibly difficult position at the moment. With discussions going on around restructuring, there is a real possibility that we might be back in the top flight next season. But then there is a real possibility that we won't. The club simply don't know where we will be playing but they do know that the revenue streams from those two options would be very different. In these circumstances it is almost impossible to do any realistic budgeting and to decide who they want to keep and who they don't. It may well be that the best option is to plan for just keeping afloat in the Championship. If we do end up in the Premiership then we would do so on a very low budget and would be hot favourites for the drop. However, a low budget and increased revenue stream would help make us financially stronger and would allow us to be in a much better position to be competitive in the Championship the year after in the likely event of us being relegated next year. Of course, we might not get relegated, in which case we would be in a position to strengthen. The club might expect that if we end up in the Premiership, we will be a more attractive option to out of contract players who may be happy to be on a lower wage if it gives them exposure in the top flight. The club is not really in a position to be making commitments to out of contract players at this time. Once a decision on the possible restructuring is made then the club should be in a better position to make decisions. The continuing Coronavirus situation will, however, continue to impose other very considerable uncertainties for some time to come.