sixties saintee Posted April 15, 2015 Report Share Posted April 15, 2015 Good result for them held by the mighty Livingstone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixties saintee Posted April 19, 2015 Report Share Posted April 19, 2015 McCall already wanting rule changes nothing new there then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixties saintee Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Bomber now saying Sfa should pass King as fit and proper because he has money and the the need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indicator Posted April 23, 2015 Report Share Posted April 23, 2015 Came across this interesting item the other day on the SFM website. Concise and well written, one of the best forensic analysis of the way that rules which have to be followed to the letter by 41 clubs can be flexible when the 42nd club is involved, usually by bringing the caveat "at the boards discretion" in to play. Why do the 41 clubs continue to accept the disparity in the application of the rule book when it involves anything to do with the Govan club - that continues to be an unfathomable mystery to me. Allyjambo says: April 21, 2015 at 10:38 am Sorry to interrupt the very interesting debate on the ‘penalty that wasn’t given’, such an unusual event deserves all our attention Just to throw in a squirrel, was thinking on the Newcastle loan players, having read that two of them are making their debut for the under 20s today, and wondering if there’s ever been a loan arrangement, anywhere, where the lending club would only receive a fee commensurate with the players’ wages/ability, if the borrowing club gained promotion (or had any other kind of success). In the normal course of events, the lending club would have no interest in the success, or otherwise, of the borrowing club and would only have one of two interests (or both) – to reduce the cost to their club of the players’ wages, or to provide young prospects with game time to see if they have what it takes to take the step up. In neither case does the promotion of the club harm the lender (in such a way that a fee should be paid), nor does the failure to gain promotion benefit the club, or the loanee players, to such an extent that no fee is necessary. There must have been any number of clubs that these players could have been loaned out to (if fit, but that’s another question) that would have agreed to a more defined fee structure, perhaps games played or just a straight sum. I’m sure Hibs, or QOTS, would have been delighted to have one or two of those players available for the imminent play-offs, on similar terms, but, of course, that was never going to happen, because… …because only TRFC have a major shareholder and financial life support machine running another club with reserve players of a standard superior to the majority of first team players within our Championship! Last week TRFC were handed a derogatory (to the rest of Scottish football) fine due to the dual connection of Mike Ashley to Newcastle and TRFC. Derogatory, but evidence that the SFA class the connection as being against the interests of the game, presumably because it is, in the main, unfair to the other clubs, particularly their closest rivals. So, once again, an investigation into an Ibrox club has led to them being found guilty of breaking the rules; had a minimal penalty handed out; been allowed to carry on as if nothing is wrong; and the situation goes unquestioned by the media. But, most bemusing of all, goes unchallenged by the clubs that will, more than likely, lose out as a result of this breaking of the rules. Strange, isn’t it, that there should be a huge outcry, and official complaints to the SPFL, when said club gains a pretty slight, by comparison, advantage with a change to kick-off times, but nothing is said when they gain an influx of players, superior to those previously available to them, as a direct result of the involvement of a man the SFA say shouldn’t be involved with the club, on terms that only become close to commensurate in the event TRFC gain promotion. Why this acquiescence whenever a club from Ibrox is involved? Is the hold over Scottish football, of a club called ‘Rangers’, so great that the other clubs are happy just to roll over and lose out in order that the status quo can be restored? At the very least, surely, the SPFL/SFA should be getting asked, by these clubs, for a public clarification of why TRFC are allowed to continue playing players only made available to them through a prohibited connection to those players’ parent club! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AthensSaint Posted April 24, 2015 Report Share Posted April 24, 2015 Bomber now saying Sfa should pass King as fit and proper because he has money and the the need it. Bomber saying at the same time that "rangers" are the biggest club in Scotland As if the Neathandrals need a very stupid Neathandral to cause them more trouble in the West Coast rivalry. What an ass that man is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixties saintee Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Hibs 2 up , Falkirk take the lead against the the the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex-montrosesaintee Posted April 25, 2015 Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 2-0 Falkirk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstar101 Posted April 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2015 Hibs have it in their own hands to finish second now. Well F****d up Rangers hehe Cagerf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cagey Posted April 27, 2015 Report Share Posted April 27, 2015 Sevco to allow season ticket holders into play offs free so that other clubs will not share in the bonansa. They really are a shower of shit. Hope Spfl have the balls to tell them they are breaking the rules & will have to forfeit home games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nips Posted April 27, 2015 Report Share Posted April 27, 2015 Doubt the SPFL will be willing/able to do much, seeing as they allowed Hibs to do the same last season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cagey Posted April 27, 2015 Report Share Posted April 27, 2015 Doubt the SPFL will be willing/able to do much, seeing as they allowed Hibs to do the same last season. Ta,didn`t know there was a precedent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstar101 Posted April 28, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 Sevco to allow season ticket holders into play offs free so that other clubs will not share in the bonansa. They really are a shower of shit. Hope Spfl have the balls to tell them they are breaking the rules & will have to forfeit home games. Hopefully that means just the one game...v QOS Cagey 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixties saintee Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 Doubt the SPFL will be willing/able to do much, seeing as they allowed Hibs to do the same last season. And we know how that turned out, lets hope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOODLUM65 Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 Difference between last season and this is, Hibs were allowedto let season ticket holders in for free for the second leg of their playoff final with Hamilton ( one game ) , where The The want to admit season ticket holders in for free in potentially Three games. This is in breach of SPFL rules as 50 per cent of pooled gate receipts from play offs are distributed among all league clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOODLUM65 Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 Can't recall the exact reason Hibs were allowed their one game for free last season. Presume they did the honourable thing and put a donation into the kitty. bundesaint 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
south inch Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 Sevco to allow season ticket holders into play offs free so that other clubs will not share in the bonansa. They really are a shower of shit. Hope Spfl have the balls to tell them they are breaking the rules & will have to forfeit home games. Will this matter much? I thought Sevco ST holders stopped turning out for matches months ago. This way Sevco will be able to add 20,000 empty seats to the gate - hopefully just one v QOS> Cagey 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
541ntees Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 Can't recall the exact reason Hibs were allowed their one game for free last season. Presume they did the honourable thing and put a donation into the kitty. they werent allowed and they just got a smack on the bum HOODLUM65 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOODLUM65 Posted April 28, 2015 Report Share Posted April 28, 2015 they werent allowed and they just got a smack on the bum cheers 541 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nips Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 Sounds like Motherwell plan on doing the same and I'd imagine Hibs will probably want to do it again. I feel a quick rule change coming up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejksjfc Posted April 29, 2015 Report Share Posted April 29, 2015 Much as I don't like to agree with either of the ugly sisters I do think in this case they do have a case. I don't see why Saints Aberdeen Celtic etc should get a cut of the gate money from the play offs. In my view this should only go to the participating teams. However the rules are there and it would appear the the are going to flout them so I think they should be relegated back to the third division. Tranmere Saintee 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uphallsaint Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 This just reinforces my view that the play offs should be semi finals, then the final. Semis played at neutral grounds and the final at Hampden. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deej Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 This just reinforces my view that the play offs should be semi finals, then the final. Semis played at neutral grounds and the final at Hampden. Different for this year obviously, but imagine a final at hampden between St Mirren and Queen of the South?? Or Ross County and Raith? Hampden only has a semi decent atmosphere when theres 50,000 in it, nevermind 10-15000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deej Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/queen-of-south/318956-queen-of-the-south-plan-to-charge-season-ticket-holders-for-play-off/ Queens charging their ST holders. Sounds like the rule is simply 50% of ticket revenue goes to SPFL... The way I read it is that there isn't actually a rule saying you can't let them in free, is there? ** A little googling shows "C26 - A levy of 50% of the monies (gross excluding VAT) received or receivable by the Home Club for all Play-Off Matches played in the Division One/Division Two PlayOff Competition from all admission charges paid and payable to and for the relevant Play-Off Match shall be paid by the Home Club to the Company within seven days of the date on which each Play-Off Match is played." That's all that it says in the SPFL rulebook. Nothing about ST holders, or free admission. Just you have to give them half the takings. So they aren't breaking rules, just being a bit dickish towards the SPFL. I'm fine with that. Edited April 30, 2015 by duncan08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevensan Posted April 30, 2015 Report Share Posted April 30, 2015 "C26 - A levy of 50% of the monies (gross excluding VAT) received or receivable by the Home Club for all Play-Off Matches played in the Division One/Division Two PlayOff Competition from all admission charges paid and payable to I think the "all admission charges paid and PAYABLE" is the relevant bit. It is clear from that, that the meaning of the rule is that all admission charges paid, and all admission charges that should be made (eg, from the revenue attached to season ticket sales) should be remitted to the SPFL. If Rangers are letting fans in on season tickets for free, that is great. However it is not for free as they charged for the season tickets, and therefore, under rule C26, Rangers should remit the revenue received as a result - in this case cost of season ticket/# of games season ticket provided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sixties saintee Posted May 2, 2015 Report Share Posted May 2, 2015 SPFL tell the the season ticket holders ill not get into the play offs for free, about time people stood up to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.