The New Raith Rovers Thread

[Broken Algorithms]

What’s the deal with Tade? Hasn’t kicked a ball in a couple of seasons. Take it he’s done?
 
I see Danny Mullen has been released by St. Mirren. His name was banded about by some in January.

Think he had a cruciate injury and an article in the Sun implied he'd retired. With that said, pretty sure in his interview with RaithTV he said that he'd consider coming back of he makes a return to football.

[CALDERON]

Shame, I thought Maclean made a huge difference to us and was one of the reasons I was confident we would win the league.  Just gave us a different dimension that we didn't have.

Would take Anderson back in a heartbeat, he seemed to enjoy his time here and I'd like to think thats the type of signing that having Mcglynn here can sway. 

I'd crawl over broken glass just to see Tade back selling 50-50 tickets every week, saying "Drewn at half time" in a French accent. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by CALDERON

[DA Baracus]

That's Hearts trying to get your promotion reversed.

Partick too technically.

[Stellaboz]

That's all Gary Locke's doing.

[renton]

4 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

That's Hearts trying to get your promotion reversed.

Partick too technically.

Yep, can only imagine Clark's reaction when he got Budge's letter.

[renton]

Just now, Stellaboz said:

That's all Gary Locke's doing.

We're talking about a guy who has to wear water wings to feed his goldfish incase he drowns himself in the process.

[R.R.FC]

4 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

That's Hearts trying to get your promotion reversed.

Partick too technically.

The whole thing is a mess. If, somehow, they won their case and were reinstated, surely Dundee United, ourselves and Cove would then launch their own legal challenge? Not sure if we could afford it but Dundee United certainly would, they won’t just go away which will just lead to further delays and lack of money and certainty for all clubs. I do think it’s more likely a compensation figure will be agreed and to be honest I think that is fair. Obviously not anywhere near the ludicrous £10 million requested but something more reasonable.

I think Bill Clark is doing a good job as chairman and there is no doubt the club has made huge steps on and off the pitch in recent years. However, and this is probably an unpopular opinion, I think it was pretty poor of us to reject the 14-10-10-10 reconstruction proposal. We said  before the vote to end the season we wanted that finalised first then we would back 2 up and no relegation. However, we appear now to have rejected it saying ‘it’s not the right time’. What changed?

Don’t get me wrong I’ve enjoyed the tears and tantrums from Falkirk as much as the next person but given we had said all along we would back 14-10-10-10 and it is the least unfair option so it is disappointing we went back on our word. In Clark’s defence, it was nowhere near passing so our vote wasn’t decisive and he has been part of the reconstruction committee so there may have been more to it than meets the eye which I hope is the case.

[renton]

2 minutes ago, R.R.FC said:

The whole thing is a mess. If, somehow, they won their case and were reinstated, surely Dundee United, ourselves and Cove would then launch their own legal challenge? Not sure if we could afford it but Dundee United certainly would, they won’t just go away which will just lead to further delays and lack of money and certainty for all clubs. I do think it’s more likely a compensation figure will be agreed and to be honest I think that is fair. Obviously not anywhere near the ludicrous £10 million requested but something more reasonable.

I think Bill Clark is doing a good job as chairman and there is no doubt the club has made huge steps on and off the pitch in recent years. However, and this is probably an unpopular opinion, I think it was pretty poor of us to reject the 14-10-10-10 reconstruction proposal. We said  before the vote to end the season we wanted that finalised first then we would back 2 up and no relegation. However, we appear now to have rejected it saying ‘it’s not the right time’. What changed?

Don’t get me wrong I’ve enjoyed the tears and tantrums from Falkirk as much as the next person but given we had said all along we would back 14-10-10-10 and it is the least unfair option so it is disappointing we went back on our word. In Clark’s defence, it was nowhere near passing so our vote wasn’t decisive and he has been part of the reconstruction committee so there may have been more to it than meets the eye which I hope is the case.

Were we not prepared to back the14-14-14? Thought I recalled seeing that.

[DA Baracus]

2 minutes ago, R.R.FC said:

The whole thing is a mess. If, somehow, they won their case and were reinstated, surely Dundee United, ourselves and Cove would then launch their own legal challenge? Not sure if we could afford it but Dundee United certainly would, they won’t just go away which will just lead to further delays and lack of money and certainty for all clubs. I do think it’s more likely a compensation figure will be agreed and to be honest I think that is fair. Obviously not anywhere near the ludicrous £10 million requested but something more reasonable.

I think Bill Clark is doing a good job as chairman and there is no doubt the club has made huge steps on and off the pitch in recent years. However, and this is probably an unpopular opinion, I think it was pretty poor of us to reject the 14-10-10-10 reconstruction proposal. We said  before the vote to end the season we wanted that finalised first then we would back 2 up and no relegation. However, we appear now to have rejected it saying ‘it’s not the right time’. What changed?

Don’t get me wrong I’ve enjoyed the tears and tantrums from Falkirk as much as the next person but given we had said all along we would back 14-10-10-10 and it is the least unfair option so it is disappointing we went back on our word. In Clark’s defence, it was nowhere near passing so our vote wasn’t decisive and he has been part of the reconstruction committee so there may have been more to it than meets the eye which I hope is the case.

Aye there's no way Dundee United, yourselves or Cove would accept this nonsense, and nor should you.

Does your chairman take votes from your board on SPFL voting matters or does he have the authority to unilaterally make the decision? If it's the former it could explain why your club voted how it did even though he personally thought differently.

[Paco]

I think Bill Clark is doing a good job as chairman and there is no doubt the club has made huge steps on and off the pitch in recent years. However, and this is probably an unpopular opinion, I think it was pretty poor of us to reject the 14-10-10-10 reconstruction proposal. We said  before the vote to end the season we wanted that finalised first then we would back 2 up and no relegation. However, we appear now to have rejected it saying ‘it’s not the right time’. What changed?

 

 

I agree with this entirely. Just as it wouldn’t be fair to deny us promotion (well alright, deny Dundee Utd and Cove promotion) it isn’t really fair for Hearts, Partick and to a much lesser extent Stranraer to go down.

 

Based on the numbers that voted no/didn’t bother their arse to reply to the SPFL, I suspect Hearts and possibly Partick’s own bleating and ridiculous tactics earlier on in the process has relegated them, rather than anything else. I’m not massively comfortable with that if it is the case but as you say, there may be more behind it that we don’t know about.

[R.R.FC]

22 minutes ago, renton said:

Were we not prepared to back the14-14-14? Thought I recalled seeing that.

Possibly, the only thing I could find was this https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fifetoday.co.uk/sport/football/contract-extensions-raith-rovers-players-are-reward-title-win-2867141%3famp where he said the 14-14-14 proposal was ‘Interesting’ but nothing on him committing either way. Although it does say we were in favour of reconstruction in general. 

20 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Aye there's no way Dundee United, yourselves or Cove would accept this nonsense, and nor should you.

Does your chairman take votes from your board on SPFL voting matters or does he have the authority to unilaterally make the decision? If it's the former it could explain why your club voted how it did even though he personally thought differently.

Good point, I would imagine any decision from the club would have went through a board vote so it is possible he was outvoted. I still think given what was said publicly around the end of season vote we should have followed through with our vote on reconstruction but I don’t want to be too harsh without knowing the full details, particularly when overall the board have been doing an excellent job. As Paco says Anne Budge has not helped herself from day 1 of the reconstruction plans. 

[CALDERON]

I was personally disappointed that we didn't vote for 14-10-10-10.  The chairman previously had mentioned that this was an agreeable solution, before the leagues were called.  It looks a bit poor to change our stance after we have benefited from something else, regardless of the reasons behind.

 

[BendtnerBairn]

https://www.stonewallermag.co.uk/post/robbie-thomson-shutouts-shutdowns

Robbie Thomson interview for you guys - talks about following in his dads footsteps and winning the league in lockdown 

[RRPT]

14 minutes ago, CALDERON said:

I was personally disappointed that we didn't vote for 14-10-10-10.  The chairman previously had mentioned that this was an agreeable solution, before the leagues were called.  It looks a bit poor to change our stance after we have benefited from something else, regardless of the reasons behind.

 

Had it been a permanent change that's one thing, the fact that it was temporary didn't sit well with me. 

[Nairney]

15 minutes ago, RRPT said:

Had it been a permanent change that's one thing, the fact that it was temporary didn't sit well with me. 

I thought I read or heard (somewhere, maybe Raith TV?) that this was Bill Clark’s thinking... he was generally in favour of reconstruction but only if it was a permanent workable solution, not something temporary that would see a number of teams relegated after a few seasons in the top flight. The fact that it wasn’t permanent was the reason they didn’t back the proposal and he / the board would rather wait for a more viable long term reconstruction proposal.

[pub car king]

I'm not following all the (hilarious) drama with hearts. Are they now trying to null and void the league?

If so f**k it let's play this b*****d.

[SanStarko]

1 hour ago, R.R.FC said:

The whole thing is a mess. If, somehow, they won their case and were reinstated, surely Dundee United, ourselves and Cove would then launch their own legal challenge? Not sure if we could afford it but Dundee United certainly would, they won’t just go away which will just lead to further delays and lack of money and certainty for all clubs. I do think it’s more likely a compensation figure will be agreed and to be honest I think that is fair. Obviously not anywhere near the ludicrous £10 million requested but something more reasonable.

I think that's possibly what they're relying on.  They know, along with every other club probably, that if they win and stopped relegation and promotion that it would just lead to yet another legal challenge from ourselves/Dundee Utd/Cove which delays the league starts.  So how do you stop that, pay them some money to take the relegation, so you get everything started on time.

 

OR, just expel both them from the league and bring up Kelty and Brora.  Problem solved.

[Ro Sham Bo]

Back in April Clark was definitely quoted as saying we were in favour of a 14-10-10.

It could be that was just a personal opinion rather than the board's, it could be that the fact it took two months to even reach an indicative vote was too long, or it could be that that we were just fed up of Hearts and Ann Budge. 

Whatever the reason, I'm comfortable with the decision. It's only 6 weeks until the Premier League is due to start and a line had to be drawn at some point. 

[pub car king]

14 10 10 10 was about saving hearts and nothing else. It would have had zero benefit to the game long term and the clubs in the other 3 leagues bar those being promoted for 1 season would have gained f**k all.  

[Michael W]

Three Premier League clubs voted against it anyway; the rest of the votes were moot. 

I can't say I really saw the point in a 14 team Premier league unless we were prepared to get rid of the playoff system and either go to a straight two-up-two-down. Otherwise, what is the incentive for clubs in the Championship? Just change for the sake of it. 

I'm also ambivalent to Broara and Kelty, who have brought nothing to the game other than a load of self-indulgent screeching about how unfair everything is whilst ignoring that nine other teams had had their promotion play-off consigned to the gutter. 

Reconstruction might have had a better shot had we not tasked Ann Budge, who had a clear vested interest in it, with leading the charge. Ann Budge then presented an utterly shameless proposal to reconstruct on a temporary basis, that would relegate 6 sides from the Championship in two years' time. This was a clear sop to save Hearts and maintain the Premier League at 12 teams after the disruption had passed, and was a major error - there is no doubt this pissed a lot of people off. 

Budge might well bemoan self-interest, but her own proposals were laced with it; she's a total hypocrite.