vikingTON

If you can't field a team to fulfill a league fixture then you should automatically be consigned to the bottom of that league for the season, before any other sanctions are even considered.

What clubs outside of the Premiership operate youth academies worthy of the name, that would be in any way impacted by a ban on the surface that a professional football team plays on? Are there no artificial surfaces in the surrounding area that they could possibly use as a home base instead? Just like your ridiculous claim that a ban would have the equivalent impact on Scottish football clubs as the 10,000 seater rule, this is demonstrably obvious horseshit to cover for the reality that a particular club in South Lanarkshire would be impacted. And that's about it in terms of your crossover between concern about youth academy football and clubs trying to clamber into the top flight. I'm not currently in favour of banning artificial pitches, but the nature of the ludicrous special pleading has me thinking twice about that.

Clyde's match thread is taking its usual Clyde turn.

The near total crossover from historical Rottweiler/Doberman media frenzies first to Staffordshire bull terriers (currently under image rehabilitation) and now this breed confirms that it's the latter. The correct solution is to ban the owners, which would exclude a comfortable majority of clowns currently in charge of every dog breed.

If SPFL clubs want their young players to improve by playing at a competitive and high quality level every week, then they can simply loan them out to any of the literally hundreds of existing clubs in the pyramid. Reserve league football was never designed for developing young players - it was to provide a game for injured first team players and jobber squad picks. So any attempt to redesign it fails the basic test of purpose.

Just when the race was about to wrap up on lap 7, a diddy like Stroll wraps it in a wall. That should get at least a couple more laps.

Congratulations to Annan, en route to becoming the best team in the Borders.

Answer the very straightforward question please.

Colour me shocked that Inverness CT's representative at the meeting 'simplified' the matter of who actually gets paid.

Have you heard that the word 'gullible' doesn't have a definition in the dictionary too?

Clydebank is literally part of the largest urban conurbation in the country.

So why did both sets of players management and club officials request fully ninety minutes to apply treatment to areas of an already playable park? The point that you're claiming has also been missed out from the tear-drenched, joint club statement, which confirms to any rational observer that it is in fact total bollocks.

They're here: Team Haley and the deluded Texan cheerleader!

Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss. Swing and a miss. It's almost as if the biggest village idiot in Texas just talks a monumental power of shite about this topic - just like all the others. You set them all up again champ!

They agreed to a 90 minute delay solely to 'keep the ref happy'? Utter, utter horseshit. Meanwhile, back in the land of reality, the pitch evidently wasn't playable at 3pm, hence the mewling about the delay being rejected (quite rightly so) and the weather forecast (utterly irrelevant).

No they quite clearly didn't - otherwise they wouldn't have pushed for a 90 minute delay and putting sand down on affected - i.e. unplayable at 3pm - areas of the pitch. Read your own club statement for the sake of comprehension before peddling this nonsense.

I think you'll find that the joint statement from both clubs supports the referee's view that the pitch was unplayable at 3pm on Saturday. The bone of contention rests with the referee not agreeing to delay the game for their proposed 'solution' to take effect. Which it's not actually incumbent on the referee or indeed any other third party involved in holding the event to do so, just because it suits you.

No you're not. As the section of the post above quite clearly confirms, you're actually looking for an arbitrary adjustment of postponement decisions based on the existing number of games to catch up on. That's literally the opposite of 'consistency' in applying standards.

Why should the referee let a game go ahead on a surface that all parties agree is not suitable for playing on? You seem to be swapping out 'sense' for 'narrow convenience' and use it to describe multiple, completely different things on a weekly basis.

He's not a great keeper at this level any more.

A: Because it's not actually the job of the referee (or indeed any other third parties involved in the event) to reschedule their time just because some committee men say so.

McDonald is clearly injured too but agree that we were rightly denied an emergency loan. There are three keepers in the squad and we'll just have to use the best one available.

Nobody cares about what you think though.

Which polling group? Which company? So absolutely nothing that you stated there constitutes 'statistics' at all, but rather 'throwing shite at the wall' - yet again - to try and deflect from the patently obvious failure of your great leader. Swing and a miss.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/02/gaza-aid-airdrops-palestinian-territories-israel-uk-us