The New Raith Rovers Thread

[Stevo Fife]

40 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

Poor Stevo, you must know it'd be done through no great love of you lot, the simple logistics of it are to me that a 14 team league paying twice (which I not only like but reckon that's all there will be time for) would in a shortened campaign mean 13 home games and so could will work out better than a 10 team where there might only be 9 home games.  Financially East Fife will of course bring a better support. Not to mention that in avoiding relegation it'd help having another 4 also rans in the league all of whom finished below Falkirk (and us champions ) 

You always have to spoil everything. I was starting to feel the love there for a second...

 

I'm totally for bigger leagues and playing each other twice. This 4 times a year is a piece of nonsense.

[McGuigan1978]

If this is just to be a one off and is a needs must type of thing then it’s fair enough I suppose, but there’s no way we should be touching the lower leagues in terms of reconstruction.

Small leagues with loads to play for at either end is absolutely ideal, and we’ve already tried 14 team leagues in the past and moved away from them.

I get the theory that four times a season is too much to play everyone else, but I’m not sure what’s so great about losing a game against Dunfermline for example, so we can play Montrose and Airdrie three times.

That and the fact you have the imbalance of playing some teams once at home and twice away if you’ve a 39 game season.

Fixing a problem which doesn’t exist and replacing it with something inferior makes no sense at all.

[Scottydog]

Just now, Stevo Fife said:

I'm totally for bigger leagues and playing each other twice. This 4 times a year is a piece of nonsense.

Absolutely.

But the main problem is simple finances and the drop off in revenue between leagues (in the event of relegation).  Potentially a 10 team Championship playing 4 times with Dundee Utd/Hearts and Dundee, Dunfermline, Falkirk Partick and Raith is much more lucrative to Championship clubs (though perhaps less so much to East Fife as away support is limited to 1000) than a 14 without 2 or 3 of those big clubs. I do think a 14 team league with a 8/6 split after 26 games followed by another 14/12 games could well be the long term answer as it would bridge the both the financial gap and fill the fixture list. Admittedly it still means playing some teams 4 times but it would just have to be as part of the compromise.

[Stevo Fife]

2 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

Absolutely.

But the main problem is simple finances and the drop off in revenue between leagues (in the event of relegation).  Potentially a 10 team Championship playing 4 times with Dundee Utd/Hearts and Dundee, Dunfermline, Falkirk Partick and Raith is much more lucrative to Championship clubs (though perhaps less so much to East Fife as away support is limited to 1000) than a 14 without 2 or 3 of those big clubs. I do think a 14 team league with a 8/6 split after 26 games followed by another 14/12 games could well be the long term answer as it would bridge the both the financial gap and fill the fixture list. Admittedly it still means playing some teams 4 times but it would just have to be as part of the compromise.

Yup, I get all that and totally agree.

From a personal point of view I'd rather see bigger leagues, playing each other twice a season and a total revamp of the cups which to be honest have become a bit of a joke. I mean who the f**k can take a cup seriously named after a bottle of ginger or a shitey biscuit?

By losing a few games a season there should be less football played over the winter months. I was going to say the good old quality over quantity but that might be a step too far.

We've fucked about with the football set up in this country for years and it's got us nowhere.

 

[Paco]

If this is just to be a one off and is a needs must type of thing then it’s fair enough I suppose, but there’s no way we should be touching the lower leagues in terms of reconstruction.

Small leagues with loads to play for at either end is absolutely ideal, and we’ve already tried 14 team leagues in the past and moved away from them.

I get the theory that four times a season is too much to play everyone else, but I’m not sure what’s so great about losing a game against Dunfermline for example, so we can play Montrose and Airdrie three times.

That and the fact you have the imbalance of playing some teams once at home and twice away if you’ve a 39 game season.

Fixing a problem which doesn’t exist and replacing it with something inferior makes no sense at all.

A one season 14-14-14 before going back to the status quo would be complete lunacy for Tier 2. The champions would be the only side promoted, three teams would come down from the Premiership to turn it back to 12 up there, and you’d presume the Tier 3 champions would be promoted. That’d leave Tier 2 with seven (!) relegation spots from the initial 14.

There’s a very valid argument that we should be saving Partick Thistle from relegation, but I’m not sure relegating 8th in a 14 team league the next season to do so is the answer.

[TxRover]

54 minutes ago, McGuigan1978 said:

If this is just to be a one off and is a needs must type of thing then it’s fair enough I suppose, but there’s no way we should be touching the lower leagues in terms of reconstruction.

Small leagues with loads to play for at either end is absolutely ideal, and we’ve already tried 14 team leagues in the past and moved away from them.

I get the theory that four times a season is too much to play everyone else, but I’m not sure what’s so great about losing a game against Dunfermline for example, so we can play Montrose and Airdrie three times.

That and the fact you have the imbalance of playing some teams once at home and twice away if you’ve a 39 game season.

Fixing a problem which doesn’t exist and replacing it with something inferior makes no sense at all.

The plus side to an unbalanced schedule (3 games, for instance), is that it encourages revisiting the gate receipt split in some manner. Moving to even a 10-20% net gate receipt to the visitor might payoff in a number of ways, although in League One it could be a small net minus for a team with better support like Raith. 

[Scottydog]

23 minutes ago, Stevo Fife said:

Yup, I get all that and totally agree.

From a personal point of view I'd rather see bigger leagues, playing each other twice a season and a total revamp of the cups which to be honest have become a bit of a joke. I mean who the f**k can take a cup seriously named after a bottle of ginger or a shitey biscuit?

By losing a few games a season there should be less football played over the winter months. I was going to say the good old quality over quantity but that might be a step too far.

We've fucked about with the football set up in this country for years and it's got us nowhere.

 

Point 1, I'd be all for summer football, better conditions, better pitches perhaps better quality play than what gets attempted on rutted tattie fields like some parks become between November and March. Bigger crowds due to better weather and possible better tv deals due to less competition. Won't be the answer to everything but.....

2, Said all along the game in Scotland needs major surgery not just another f*****g manicure. 

[Roath Raver]

The final full match replay to play during a league game time this season will be our Challenge Cup game against Falkirk. The first showing will be at 3pm Saturday or you can watch it anytime after that showing has ended (4.40pm roughly). It will be free to view.

[RaithRover123]

On 27/04/2020 at 00:04, Scottydog said:

Given our luck in the previous 3 seasons:

2016-17 No penalty awards for 12 months, Keeper injuries, The Dobie goal that wasn't and above all GARY F*****G LOCKE then Yogi.

2017-18  Baz Smith, more injuries, the width of the post against Alloa

2018-19 Even more injuries Vaughan, Bene, Hendry, Thomson then losing Nizzy for FA.

Even this season. we had a rake of injuries (LV, RH, SA,)

IMO we were due a wee break.

Will never get over that Dobbie goal, if that wasn’t counted we’d never have dropped into the play offs imo.

[Rovers2017]

On 27/04/2020 at 00:04, Scottydog said:

Given our luck in the previous 3 seasons:

2016-17 No penalty awards for 12 months, Keeper injuries, The Dobie goal that wasn't and above all GARY F*****G LOCKE then Yogi.

Out of all of the things that season, the Dobbie goal was what made me the angriest. 

[Specky Ginger]

1 hour ago, Rovers2017 said:

Out of all of the things that season, the Dobbie goal was what made me the angriest. 

Nah, it was a sore one, but these things happen. 

The thing that made me most angry was the appointment of Locke, and that anger increased when it was revealed that McGlynn applied for the job, but didn't even get an interview. 

A competent manager (McGlynn or Jack Ross) would have had us in the promotion playoffs again that season, and a mediocre manager would have kept us up comfortably. 

[Jilted John]

Nah, it was a sore one, but these things happen. 
The thing that made me most angry was the appointment of Locke, and that anger increased when it was revealed that McGlynn applied for the job, but didn't even get an interview. 
A competent manager (McGlynn or Jack Ross) would have had us in the promotion playoffs again that season, and a mediocre manager would have kept us up comfortably. 

I still think we would have stayed up if we kept Locke (as poor as he was!). For me, it was the appointment of Hughes that took us down.

[CALDERON]

4 hours ago, Jilted John said:

I still think we would have stayed up if we kept Locke (as poor as he was!). For me, it was the appointment of Hughes that took us down.

Gary Locke oversaw a run of 14 games without a win, and had just sent the best player in the club on loan to the team that effectively relegated us.  

There is not a hope in hell he would have kept us up.

Edited April 28, 2020 by CALDERON

[renton]

36 minutes ago, Jilted John said:

I still think we would have stayed up if we kept Locke (as poor as he was!). For me, it was the appointment of Hughes that took us down.

I don't think Locke would've kept us up, and I have no love for Hughes but he never had a chance of keeping us up as we made the change after the January window. 

That squad needed an overhaul to have any hope of arresting the decline.

Edited April 28, 2020 by renton

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

26 minutes ago, renton said:

I don't think Locke would've kept us up, and I have no love for Hughes but he never had a chance of keeping us up as we made the change after the January window. 

That squad needed an overhaul to have any hope of arresting the decline.

Our chances ebbed late on thanks to the wee p***k Jordan Thomson's handball at Easter Road, then 3 days later at Paisley when Hughes sat on his fucking arse all game watching us getting fucked 5-0.

[Frankly, Mr Shankly]

Bobby Barr and Vaughany have said that Yogi destroyed any confidence that was left in that dressing room.
I believed in the squad we had until about March, then I saw the shit show. Players we drafted in from f**k knows (Osei, Thorsen) who didn’t even make a first team appearance. Joel Coustrain (who is a starter in the Irish league), and Robbie Crawford signing on £500 a week only to have his contract terminated a month later. Overall Locke’s transfer policies is what relegated us, not Hughes.

[CALDERON]

They both need to take blame.  Locke was an absolute disaster, and it panned out as awfully as most here predicted when he was appointed.

Hughes inherited a lot of shite - but he went about it the complete wrong way.  Inheriting a team low on confidence, and basically calling them shite in public, probably isn't the best way to work with.

Hughes is full of shite patter about sprinkling gold dust and all that shite, by the time he realised how much work was required to get us out of that mess, you could tell he couldn't be arsed.

The saddest part about that is that John Mcglynn's CV lay on the desk at some point and made it's way straight to the bin.  

[Scottydog]

13 minutes ago, CALDERON said:

They both need to take blame.  Locke was an absolute disaster, and it panned out as awfully as most here predicted when he was appointed.

Hughes inherited a lot of shite - but he went about it the complete wrong way.  Inheriting a team low on confidence, and basically calling them shite in public, probably isn't the best way to work with.

Hughes is full of shite patter about sprinkling gold dust and all that shite, by the time he realised how much work was required to get us out of that mess, you could tell he couldn't be arsed.

The saddest part about that is that John Mcglynn's CV lay on the desk at some point and made it's way straight to the bin.  

Sad indeed, but IMO the saddest part is that even in not interviewing JMcG Mr Jack Ross was interviewed but was deemed "not the right man for the job" as he didn't do as well as GL in his interview.  Incredible!

[Lang Toun Lad]

Didn't Calderon say in his q&a that he had applied for the job in the last few years? Chances of him, McGlynn and Ross all being rejected for Gary F Locke?

[Surely No]

24 minutes ago, Scottydog said:

Sad indeed, but IMO the saddest part is that even in not interviewing JMcG Mr Jack Ross was interviewed but was deemed "not the right man for the job" as he didn't do as well as GL in his interview.  Incredible!

IIRC it was the compensation that Alloa wanted for Jack Ross that proved to be the stumbling block. Not ITK but would have assumed it to be substantial as Mike Mulraney is a very astute business man. My memory may be wrong.