Jump to content
Kris.

The Falkirk FC Thread

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, virginton said:

Erm no, you can just apply automatic promotion and relegation to the leagues as they are and say 'hard lines' to the literally three football clubs out of 42 who will  likely pursue a grievance about that decision.

I think there will be more than three plus your now going to tell the likes of Kelty who have pumped money into their team that their not getting a shot at promotion just like that. Rangers, hearts, falkirk, partick, dundee, Edinburgh perhaps ICT could all look at voting no for starters. Think it could be tight due to the way the vote is carried out.  Only 3 champ sides need to say no and its fecked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kelty don't have a vote on the matter and if you think that the likes of Edinburgh City and even Inverness have the luxury of posturing about 'sporting integrity' rather than just battling to keeping the lights on right now and for next season as well then you've got little grasp of how this crisis is impacting Scottish football.

Edited by vikingTON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

I think there will be more than three plus your now going to tell the likes of Kelty who have pumped money into their team that their not getting a shot at promotion just like that. Rangers, hearts, falkirk, partick, dundee, Edinburgh perhaps ICT could all look at voting no for starters. Think it could be tight due to the way the vote is carried out.  Only 3 champ sides need to say no and its fecked.

Sevco now wanting money paid independently and not with vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bantabairn said:

Sevco now wanting money paid independently and not with vote

Yeah I agree with that. The money is being used as a bribe basically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t see why anyone would be overly concerned about Kelty Hearts being hard done by. A Barry Ferguson managed side, spunking way more money than they can afford on average lower league players, being screwed over is a positive as far as I’m concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, R.R.FC said:

Don’t see why anyone would be overly concerned about Kelty Hearts being hard done by. A Barry Ferguson managed side, spunking way more money than they can afford on average lower league players, being screwed over is a positive as far as I’m concerned.

If your basing it on clubs spunking more than they can afford then going by the number of clubs out with the begging bowls in recent weeks after only a months inaction there would be a long list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, virginton said:

Good for you but the vast majority of clubs would not. Particularly when it is perfectly obvious to everyone including the tiny handful of aggrieved parties here that lower league football will not be resuming any time in the near future and so clinging on to a set of outstanding fixtures would simply f**k over next season's schedule as well. All of which is compounded by the distinct possibility that the coronavirus comes round again for a second swipe in autumn/winter and shuts down football for another period of time.

Most clubs are quite sensibly looking to a draw a line under this mess in a way that allows them to survive now and plan for the future with a reasonable degree of certainty, which is why this proposal is on the table.

Finishing the season would not f**k over next seasons schedule. 8-10 games to finish the season, that could be done over 4-5 weeks. In the big scheme of things that timeline is neither here not there. As for season 20-21 that depends on when life gets back to normal. Minimum before a game could be played would be 4 weeks notice from the ruling body. Stadium and pitches brought up to standard. The signing merry go round, training and bounce games to get fitness and match sharp. So you could start 20-21 season 8-10 weeks from normality. Now depending on the start date it could be a shortened season - drop a cup competition - summer football or a combination of all 3. Not perfect- far from it. But it is workable, fair to all and importantly no dispute on who has won and lost what.

It's a solution, any thoughts folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

If your basing it on clubs spunking more than they can afford then going by the number of clubs out with the begging bowls in recent weeks after only a months inaction there would be a long list. 

This is disturbing Shadwell, we are agreeing more and more. Clubs going burst could only be a few days-weeks away. If one goes then that is the dam burst Lenders, Banks and Soft Loans will call them in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HopeStreetWalker said:

Finishing the season would not f**k over next seasons schedule. 8-10 games to finish the season, that could be done over 4-5 weeks. In the big scheme of things that timeline is neither here not there. As for season 20-21 that depends on when life gets back to normal. Minimum before a game could be played would be 4 weeks notice from the ruling body. Stadium and pitches brought up to standard. The signing merry go round, training and bounce games to get fitness and match sharp. So you could start 20-21 season 8-10 weeks from normality. Now depending on the start date it could be a shortened season - drop a cup competition - summer football or a combination of all 3. Not perfect- far from it. But it is workable, fair to all and importantly no dispute on who has won and lost what.

It's a solution, any thoughts folks.

Literally everything that you have outlined involves fucking over the 20-21 schedule and making up a new one on the back of a fag packet. Which is of course exactly what we should be doing given that we i) don't actually know when football matches will be given the go ahead to take place again and ii) don't know whether there will be a second wave of infection in the usual seasonal virus peak of winter 2020-21 or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone actually think the games can be played when the government are indicating that things might not get back to normal for a considerable amount of time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Falkirk fans should be focusing their anger on the clowns in the boardroom who retained McKinnon and gave him a comparatively massive budget to piss up the wall on the dullest shitehouse of a team imaginable.

We should be at least 6-7 points clear and then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead we watched muck like Doyle, Telfer and Sammon plod around endlessly drawing games against sides with 10% of our crowds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HopeStreetWalker said:

Finishing the season would not f**k over next seasons schedule. 8-10 games to finish the season, that could be done over 4-5 weeks. In the big scheme of things that timeline is neither here not there. As for season 20-21 that depends on when life gets back to normal. Minimum before a game could be played would be 4 weeks notice from the ruling body. Stadium and pitches brought up to standard. The signing merry go round, training and bounce games to get fitness and match sharp. So you could start 20-21 season 8-10 weeks from normality. Now depending on the start date it could be a shortened season - drop a cup competition - summer football or a combination of all 3. Not perfect- far from it. But it is workable, fair to all and importantly no dispute on who has won and lost what.

It's a solution, any thoughts folks.

Well, I mentioned a few issues in a previous post:

1) if lockdown doesn't start to be lifted until early June, it's doubtful that a decision on mass spectator sports would be taken before July.

2) that's a 4 month lay off for players who are used to a 1 month lay off and then a two month pre season. We'd be giving them a 4 month lay off, then a 4 week crash course to get fit. Can only imagine we'd end up with more injuries in the short term that way. 

3) however, allowing for a minimum 4 week restart from cold we are looking at August to re-start season 19/20. Assume high intensity two games a week, and with play offs you'd have it done in 5 weeks. So, early September before the new season can begin. October if we give them something like a proper pre season to get ready. 

4) with that in mind, how do you truncate the season? Play three rounds? Two rounds to maintain home and away fairness? The latter ends up throwing away a lot of income. Especially as we are probably chucking the league cup (or at least it's current format with the group guaranteed incomes for lower leagues) to fit in.

5) the major issue though for me is that we are re starting, possibly with very different squads,  possibly even different managers not necessarily with all clubs left to fulfil the fixtures. It's not really a continuation of the previous season, so the idea that this is fair takes a knock in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, virginton said:

Literally everything that you have outlined involves fucking over the 20-21 schedule and making up a new one on the back of a fag packet. Which is of course exactly what we should be doing given that we i) don't actually know when football matches will be given the go ahead to take place again and ii) don't know whether there will be a second wave of infection in the usual seasonal virus peak of winter 2020-21 or not.

20-21 season is workable depending on the date we start and a bit of flexibility on the games played. One home one away for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HopeStreetWalker said:

20-21 season is workable depending on the date we start and a bit of flexibility on the games played. One home one away for example.

The vast majority of SPFL clubs are not going to waive up fully 50% of next season's gate revenue front just because Falkirk and a handful of other teams insist on waiting all year to finally complete just eight games from this season's campaign. That's not happening, try again.

Edited by vikingTON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Falkirk fans should be focusing their anger on the clowns in the boardroom who retained McKinnon and gave him a comparatively massive budget to piss up the wall on the dullest shitehouse of a team imaginable.

We should be at least 6-7 points clear and then this wouldn't be an issue. Instead we watched muck like Doyle, Telfer and Sammon plod around endlessly drawing games against sides with 10% of our crowds.

The worst part of that is the fact that RM said if we were in touching distance of the team at the top then it would be a success which basically sums the guy up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one could have seen this coming of course, and any solution that involves promotion and relegation without competing the games is fucking shite, and in sporting terms, obviously a farce.

But, if it turns out to be they way it goes, it's still only us to blame.

Like all aspects of this, I dont envy the decision makers nor do I trust them to do the right thing whatever that may be.

We have still made a rip roaring c**t of a season which so far shows us to be the second best team in the league. I probably just about fancied us to go on and win it after seeing BSLM put in some decent cameos, but in the context that someone was alwyas going to get fucked, we are to blame for that being us. f**k sake man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, renton said:

Well, I mentioned a few issues in a previous post:

1) if lockdown doesn't start to be lifted until early June, it's doubtful that a decision on mass spectator sports would be taken before July.

2) that's a 4 month lay off for players who are used to a 1 month lay off and then a two month pre season. We'd be giving them a 4 month lay off, then a 4 week crash course to get fit. Can only imagine we'd end up with more injuries in the short term that way. 

3) however, allowing for a minimum 4 week restart from cold we are looking at August to re-start season 19/20. Assume high intensity two games a week, and with play offs you'd have it done in 5 weeks. So, early September before the new season can begin. October if we give them something like a proper pre season to get ready. 

4) with that in mind, how do you truncate the season? Play three rounds? Two rounds to maintain home and away fairness? The latter ends up throwing away a lot of income. Especially as we are probably chucking the league cup (or at least it's current format with the group guaranteed incomes for lower leagues) to fit in.

5) the major issue though for me is that we are re starting, possibly with very different squads,  possibly even different managers not necessarily with all clubs left to fulfil the fixtures. It's not really a continuation of the previous season, so the idea that this is fair takes a knock in my opinion.

All valid and reasonable points. 20-21 season whenever it starts is going to be a compromise the late kick off dictates that . But for credibility and avoiding rancour it would be preferable to complete this season. Whatever the solution is it will have its faults. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HopeStreetWalker said:

All valid and reasonable points. 20-21 season whenever it starts is going to be a compromise the late kick off dictates that . But for credibility and avoiding rancour it would be preferable to complete this season. Whatever the solution is it will have its faults. 

Absolutely, what matters is how to get through the Summer with 42 clubs intact. 

The question at the root of this is why the SPFL have chosen the finish the league route rather than the null and void route. It's not for the Rovers benefit, or Cove or Dundee United. Either solution pisses off one half of the OF so it's not like they are sitting as a bloc dictating policy behind the doors on this.

So why this solution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, renton said:

Absolutely, what matters is how to get through the Summer with 42 clubs intact. 

The question at the root of this is why the SPFL have chosen the finish the league route rather than the null and void route. It's not for the Rovers benefit, or Cove or Dundee United. Either solution pisses off one half of the OF so it's not like they are sitting as a bloc dictating policy behind the doors on this.

So why this solution?

TV rights / Cancellation of new deals etc 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bantabairn said:

TV rights / Cancellation of new deals etc 

So money, that eventually the clubs are due. Basically, are we saying that a null and void season would mean less money going to clubs over a long summer where they need every penny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...