SirJimmyofNic Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 11 minutes ago, EdinburghPar1975 said: This is not something that is off Raith's doing. FWIW i'd happily chuck a few quid in a crowdfunder to help cover fee's of the three named teams. It's one thing being pushed close to the line by the pandemic, totally another when it's caused by the actions of another team. Which is another breach of the rules 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Paco said: I said in mid-June I wasn’t entirely comfortable with us taking this route. The only publicly-stated reason we didn’t vote for the 14-10-10-10 plan was that it ‘wasn’t the time’ for reconstruction. We’d previously indicated we’d vote in favour of 14-14-14, and before the leagues were called Bill Clark said we were in favour of promoting two sides from each league, with no relegation. It seems like we got fed up of Budge and Hearts with their desire for temporary change and bluster, so dropped our support and are now feeling the consequences. Of course, our vote wouldn’t have made a single difference but maybe we could’ve just said yes in a futile gesture manner? I’d have a lot more sympathy otherwise. The board made a miscalculation. They also could’ve tried not sending anyone to court and saved themselves for the arbitration. Or even let it all play out and if we’re disadvantaged in any way, then we begin with the legal action and lawyers. Definitely hindsight talking, of course, I’m quite sure these weren’t easy decisions. But this isn’t playing out very well at all. We won’t go bust we could in theory end up demoted and have blown any wiggle room to fight back. What a mess. On your second paragraph, that does feel right: We don't know what was going on with lobbying and the various personalities involved and it does on the face of it look like we voted No in order to try and put the issue to bed (for all the good that did). Though I suppose the other aspect, when assessing the internal Starks Park Kremlinology and certainly that other clubs fans don't get when calling Clark two faced is that he is the chairman, not the majority shareholder in the club. It may well be that Clark's previous public enthusiasm for reconstruction was undimmed but that he was ultimately over ruled by John Sim, who tends to be a little more impatient, and a bit more shoot from the hip, as anyone who has listened to the man speak publically can attest... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottydog Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Its not only a game said: 1, Don’t understand how accepting another 2 teams in the league would “ potentially be the death knell” of your club.? 2, I understand the argument that every team needs to look after themselves first. (mind you there will be no real change until that changes)- therefore on that basis no one can argue with what Hearts and Partick are doing?- they are looking after” their interests “ 3, But anyone who was pragmatic or had announce of common sense knew that those clubs who got relegated were going to go to court - arbitration to look after their interests. Result we have clubs who have no idea what their budget is next season?- bet your manager is scratching his head wondering what budget he has- what players he can sign until he has a budget- even what league he will be playing in next year? Now for avoidance of doubt I believe the leagues will remain as is- but arbitration comes with a risk and cost- result your team cannot with conviction go out and sign the players you want until you have certainty around your budget- could of been avoided- bet your manager would of preferred a reduced budget ( as a result of 2 more teams)- than the current situation where he is in limbo!. Chaos I've numbered you point for ease of answering. 1, You cherry picked part of the point which wasn't directly part of my argument. You failed to pick up on the fact that somewhere down the line there would almost certainly be a return to a smaller Premier league (The very thing the top 11 voted against even happening to start with) and the fact that with the well financed Kelty and Brora automatically added there would likely be one or more of the establishment consigned in the future to the lower leagues as they dropped out. This might well be something that many on here would like to see but I'd doubt you'd see many L2 chairmen vote positively for (and they didn't). As for the death knell of my club, (which I actually didn't specify) well in a return to the staus quo the drop in numbers in the premier would likely lead to more relegations from the Championship (and so on and so forth) in the middle of which could well lead to Raith dropping back to L1. As one who attends AGM's I know how perilous our financial position is as a result of 3 seasons in L1, perhaps after another season in L1 Falkirk fans will have a better idea of how bad financially L1 is for clubs of the like of Raith, Falkirk and Partick. 2, If you understand the argument (and you clearly don't) then why are you decrying Raith for it? Name one other club who hasn't done the same or more pointedly would do otherwise in a like for like scenario? 3, Hearts stated all along that they were looking at legal action as hinted Partick and Stranraer, the latter both recanted before somebody decided to fund Partick's case for them. The fact that for some time neither Partick nor Stranraer were taking legal action means it wasn't nailed on, probably not so for the cash strapped Gorgie outfit either had it not been for a wealthy backer. Everyone in football might have thought it a possibility (probably even a strong one) that an action would be lodged but nobody would have predicted Dundee Utd, Raith & Cove being named in the process. You are right Raith are in Limbo, perhaps more so than the other 2 promoted clubs who are clearly much more financially robust. I agree that in all likelihood the relegations will stand and the fallout will in the end only be only financial. That isn't to say it'll all be ok! Barring lunacy on the part of the arbitrators it should all be ok for the rest of the leagues but a 4 day protracted debate will cost around £100,000 and if costs aren't split then it could yet prove ruinous (in the long run) for the likes or Raith who without wealthy backing can least afford the tab. If damages are awarded then it depends greatly on the amount awarded. If I was Hearts I'd be asking for more than I expected so £10M in the hope they get 20% of it, I'd not be surprised to see the final outcome as £1M to Hertz and £250k to Partick. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers_Lad Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Excellent post 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Its not only a game Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 I've numbered you point for ease of answering. 1, You cherry picked part of the point which wasn't directly part of my argument. You failed to pick up on the fact that somewhere down the line there would almost certainly be a return to a smaller Premier league (The very thing the top 11 voted against even happening to start with) and the fact that with the well financed Kelty and Brora automatically added there would likely be one or more of the establishment consigned in the future to the lower leagues as they dropped out. This might well be something that many on here would like to see but I'd doubt you'd see many L2 chairmen vote positively for (and they didn't). As for the death knell of my club, (which I actually didn't specify) well in a return to the staus quo the drop in numbers in the premier would likely lead to more relegations from the Championship (and so on and so forth) in the middle of which could well lead to Raith dropping back to L1. As one who attends AGM's I know how perilous our financial position is as a result of 3 seasons in L1, perhaps after another season in L1 Falkirk fans will have a better idea of how bad financially L1 is for clubs of the like of Raith, Falkirk and Partick. 2, If you understand the argument (and you clearly don't) then why are you decrying Raith for it? Name one other club who hasn't done the same or more pointedly would do otherwise in a like for like scenario? 3, Hearts stated all along that they were looking at legal action as hinted Partick and Stranraer, the latter both recanted before somebody decided to fund Partick's case for them. The fact that for some time neither Partick nor Stranraer were taking legal action means it wasn't nailed on, probably not so for the cash strapped Gorgie outfit either had it not been for a wealthy backer. Everyone in football might have thought it a possibility (probably even a strong one) that an action would be lodged but nobody would have predicted Dundee Utd, Raith & Cove being named in the process. You are right Raith are in Limbo, perhaps more so than the other 2 promoted clubs who are clearly much more financially robust. I agree that in all likelihood the relegations will stand and the fallout will in the end only be only financial. That isn't to say it'll all be ok! Barring lunacy on the part of the arbitrators it should all be ok for the rest of the leagues but a 4 day protracted debate will cost around £100,000 and if costs aren't split then it could yet prove ruinous (in the long run) for the likes or Raith who without wealthy backing can least afford the tab. If damages are awarded then it depends greatly on the amount awarded. If I was Hearts I'd be asking for more than I expected so £10M in the hope they get 20% of it, I'd not be surprised to see the final outcome as £1M to Hertz and £250k to Partick.Read again the post I responded to.! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGuigan1978 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 If any one of DUFC, OURSELVES or COVE, had failed to answer the petition in court , we may well have been found in contempt as well as opening the door for Lord Clark to rule on no promotion, hence why we had to have legal representation seperate from the SPFLHow would we have been in contempt of court? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottydog Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 34 minutes ago, Its not only a game said: Read again the post I responded to.! I don't have to. Your mind is made up and that's it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumswall Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 How would we have been in contempt of court? We wouldn't have. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR #1 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Our chairman said he was in favour of league reconstruction in one interview. That does not mean he then has to then vote in favour of any temporary 1 year reconstruction that is set up solely to save Hearts. If we went 14-10-10-10 for a single year then reverted back to current format, how many teams would be relegated from the championship next year? And people expect our chairman to vote for this after years of battling to get out of the third tier? GTF. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McGuigan1978 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Our chairman said he was in favour of league reconstruction in one interview. That does not mean he then has to then vote in favour of any temporary 1 year reconstruction that is set up solely to save Hearts. If we went 14-10-10-10 for a single year then reverted back to current format, how many teams would be relegated from the championship next year? And people expect our chairman to vote for this after years of battling to get out of the third tier? [emoji23] GTF. The last vote was for a permanent 14-10-10-10 system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finlay21 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, McGuigan1978 said: The last vote was for a permanent 14-10-10-10 system. Was it not meant to be 5 years maximum before reverting back to 12 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottydog Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Robbo63 said: Was it not meant to be 5 years maximum before reverting back to 12 There was definitely a time period, cant remember if it was 4 years or 5 but it wasn't permanent. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirJimmyofNic Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 hour ago, grumswall said: 2 hours ago, McGuigan1978 said: How would we have been in contempt of court? We wouldn't have. Given that we Dont know what was in the papers that were served on us, and I dont know if it came from Hearts or the Court, that was why I said may well have been in contempt, it still doesn't alter the fact that if we not contested it left the door open to the judge to make a different decision 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoBNob Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 42 minutes ago, Scottydog said: There was definitely a time period, cant remember if it was 4 years or 5 but it wasn't permanent. Was it not a minimum time frame? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Grant228 said: Was it not a minimum time frame? The last vote that was held was for a permanent top flight of 14, votes and proposals before this were either temporary (vague) or had a set timeframe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottydog Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 hour ago, itzdrk said: The last vote that was held was for a permanent top flight of 14, votes and proposals before this were either temporary (vague) or had a set timeframe. Apologies to all, you are right enough, the "for a limited time only" option was one of the previous votes, seems you lose count if you don't keep up (I certainly lost count anyway). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanElderRRFC Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 A Colin McMenamin brace helped Falkirk get the better of Raith Rovers in an entertaining Friday night fixture at Ochilview.For the second week in a row, Rovers scored twice away from home but took no points as they lost to Ross County.Raith suffered their 8th defeat in 9 games at the hands of St. Johnstone on a rainy day at Stark’s Park. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ro Sham Bo Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 I had forgotten about Clangers Langfield having a spell with us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Enigma Posted July 7, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted July 7, 2020 22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted July 8, 2020 Share Posted July 8, 2020 Looks like we're sending representation to arbitration per the FFP. 0 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.