The Partick Thistle thread

[Sting777]

45 minutes ago, sirscottyoung said:

Than spending god knows how much on legal fees and the time of it too.

 

It’s not costing us anything in legal fee’s!!

[Reid]

RandomGuy is a VL.

[Nightmare]

2 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:

Dire financial position' - We are waiting on the outcome on the insurance judgement at which point we could be in one of the healthiest financial positions in Scotland. If it goes against us, then like all other clubs, we'll need to make drastic cut backs and be in the horrible position that most clubs are in right now. It's not rocket science.

Partick Thistle fans. Fucking hell. You've really went off the edge here.

Not really. It’s not Thistle fans jumping into other teams’ threads spewing nonsense, in a desperate attempt to get bites so they can rattle off the tired “lol you’re all seething” patter.

Of course there are the usual few simpletons in our support crying conspiracy, but for the most part, P&B’s Thistle contingent have been generally pretty rational and realistic about the club’s current situation, and know that it’s the club’s own doing that’s lead us here. Shite ownership, shite management and shite players are why we’re now a third tier club. But I know that doesn’t fit the standard P&B “seething, heads gone, over the edge” narrative, so you just batter in with that if it makes you happy.

[Bishop Briggs]

2 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:

Dire financial position' - We are waiting on the outcome on the insurance judgement at which point we could be in one of the healthiest financial positions in Scotland. If it goes against us, then like all other clubs, we'll need to make drastic cut backs and be in the horrible position that most clubs are in right now. It's not rocket science.

Partick Thistle fans. Fucking hell. You've really went off the edge here.

Are you heading for administration yet again?

After Nelms' disgraceful behaviour, that would be karma. 

The schadenfreude on here would be glorious!

[Ludo*1]

38 minutes ago, Nightmare said:

Not really. It’s not Thistle fans jumping into other teams’ threads spewing nonsense

Ah, so you're one of those posters that think fans of other clubs shouldn't post on their teams thread on a multiclub forum. The rest of your post is deluded nonsense - no-one other than you lot are allowed to comment on Partick Thistle without waves of your roasters coming out in force - like the post quoted below.

32 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

Are you heading for administration yet again?

After Nelms' disgraceful behaviour, that would be karma. 

The schadenfreude on here would be glorious!

No, we're not.

Will you survive this court case?

After Low's disgraceful behaviour, that would be karma.

The schadenfreude on here would be glorious!

See how silly that is? Fs.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Ludo*1

[Nightmare]

4 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

Ah, so you're one of those posters that think fans of other clubs shouldn't post on their teams thread on a multiclub forum. The rest of your post is deluded nonsense - no-one other than you lot are allowed to comment on Partick Thistle without waves of your roasters coming out in force - like the post quoted below.

There's a difference between not being allowed to post on another team's thread, and regurgitating the same drivel in another team's thread on a daily basis. This really shouldn't be a difficult concept to comprehend.

[Ad Lib]

3 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

I did.

02/03 - Falkirk denied promotion for refusing to ground share with SPL team. Wanting to use a SFL stadium (Airdrie), and the SPL/SFL being separate entities, made it impossible to guarantee there wouldnt be clashes between Falkirk and Airdrie playing home matches. Falkirk denied promotion.

03/04 - ICT agree to ground share with SPL side. No chance of home match conflicts, ICT promoted.

Interesting to read about that season, while Partick fans bring it up to moan about self interest. In 2004 Partick, who finished bottom of the league over the course of a season, took legal action to try and deny ICT a promotion they earned. An act of self interest, and self preservation, that's worse than what Hearts are currently up to.

Except it wasn’t that simple was it?

The ICT groundsharing proposal had previously been deemed unsuitable and there was a second vote in which Clubs changed their mind.

You also omit the bit about Thistle investing over a million pounds expanding their own ground’s seated capacity just two years earlier specifically to meet the SPL’s (ridiculous) stadium rules, forcing them to operate off of by far the lowest budget in the league, only for them then to be relaxed to below the capacity of the Jackie Husband Stand once they’d been relegated.

[Dr Koop]

4 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

So you were "shat on" by being relegated from a division you finished bottom of over 38 games?

Not about the football, which was unspeakably mince. When the season started, teams were required (as best I recall) to have 10,000 seats to be allowed to take part in the league. The SPL could have relaxed that daft and costly rule at the start of the season.  

[Ad Lib]

37 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

Ah, so you're one of those posters that think fans of other clubs shouldn't post on their teams thread on a multiclub forum. The rest of your post is deluded nonsense - no-one other than you lot are allowed to comment on Partick Thistle without waves of your roasters coming out in force - like the post quoted below.

Ludo you support Dundee you’re not allowed to post here.

[Ludo*1]

12 minutes ago, Nightmare said:

There's a difference between not being allowed to post on another team's thread, and regurgitating the same drivel in another team's thread on a daily basis. This really shouldn't be a difficult concept to comprehend.

Yep, and you're not getting the difference quite clearly. Dundee fans were never here on this thread 'regurgitating the same drivel'.  You can maybe apply that to RG - but even then, he's just arguing a point that is held by the many. 

[Ad Lib]

28 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

Yep, and you're not getting the difference quite clearly. Dundee fans were never here on this thread 'regurgitating the same drivel'.  You can maybe apply that to RG - but even then, he's just arguing a point that is held by the many. 

Ludo. You support Dundee. You're not allowed to post here.

[jagsfan57]

So looks like, that'll be what we will say then. Therefore the SFA can't really do us for anything. The way the media has handled this situation in many respects, has been appalling as well, a lot of mis-leading information, a lot of spewed bile, a lot of nonsense. 

Why would they want to ?

[jagsfan57]

Except it wasn’t that simple was it?
The ICT groundsharing proposal had previously been deemed unsuitable and there was a second vote in which Clubs changed their mind.
You also omit the bit about Thistle investing over a million pounds expanding their own ground’s seated capacity just two years earlier specifically to meet the SPL’s (ridiculous) stadium rules, forcing them to operate off of by far the lowest budget in the league, only for them then to be relaxed to below the capacity of the Jackie Husband Stand once they’d been relegated.

Was there a vote not to promote Falkirk or just a decision by SPL board ?

[Ranaldo Bairn]

58 minutes ago, jagsfan57 said:

Was there a vote not to promote Falkirk or just a decision by SPL board ?

A vote. Motherwell got to vote on whether they would be relegated or not. Gallant of them not to recuse themselves.

It was 8,4 or 9,3 iirc. Dunfermline were good guys and I think the Embra teams as well.

[Thistle Bonnet]

3 hours ago, Dr Koop said:

Not about the football, which was unspeakably mince. When the season started, teams were required (as best I recall) to have 10,000 seats to be allowed to take part in the league. The SPL could have relaxed that daft and costly rule at the start of the season.  

Thistle had to have a 10,000 SPL compliant Stadium by 31 March of their promotion season - they had to make the investment on the Stadium in advance as they were specifically told they would otherwise not be promoted.  Inverness were not willing or able to make the required investment on their Stadium and it was generally expected that they would not be promoted.  It took two votes and then simply disregarding the Stadium rule  for the Cartel's Agenda to succeed. 

As now, Thistle had been the author of their own misfortune in finishing bottom by appointing a hopeless Manager in Gerry Collins. They also were at a disadvantage as in addition to Stadium costs they ran a balanced budget and couldn't compete for players with the other Clubs, six of whom went into Administration.

 

 

[Bishop Briggs]

6 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:

No, we're not.

Will you survive this court case?

After Low's disgraceful behaviour, that would be karma.

The schadenfreude on here would be glorious!

See how silly that is? Fs.

Rattled again! 

Your club has a history of financial skullduggery, almost as bad as Sevco's. IIRC your club cheated charities and small businesses . Jacqui, despite my Low opinion of her, has not led us to such financial ignominy. 

There's a real possibility that League One and League Two will be mothballed next season.  Another is that we'll be playing in a league formed from those that can afford to play. Why shouldn't we take legal action?

The courts will not look kindly on Doncaster's ridiculous conflict of interest - he's the CEO of the SPFL and a director of the SFA.  Let's see how Maxwell defends that appointment! Regulators should not have a regulatee's CEO on its board. It is the equivalent of the Bank of England having RBS's Fred Goodwin on its board.

Our Terminator is looking forward to your Judgement Day!

[Ludo*1]

Just now, Bishop Briggs said:

Rattled again! 

Your club has a history of financial skullduggery, almost as bad as Sevco's. IIRC your club cheated charities and small businesses . Jacqui, despite my Low opinion of her, has not led us to such financial ignominy. 

There's a real possibility that League One and League Two will be mothballed next season.  Another is that we'll be playing in a league formed from those that can afford to play. Why shouldn't we take legal action?

The courts will not look kindly on Doncaster's ridiculous conflict of interest - he's the CEO of the SPFL and a director of the SFA.  Let's see how Maxwell defends that appointment! Regulators should not have a regulatee's CEO on its board. It is the equivalent of the Bank of England having RBS's Fred Goodwin on its board.

Our Terminator is looking forward to your Judgement Day!

 

[Bishop Briggs]

^ That's typical of a Dundonian - too obsessed and thick to post a sensible reply. 

 

[Ad Lib]

10 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

The courts will not look kindly on Doncaster's ridiculous conflict of interest - he's the CEO of the SPFL and a director of the SFA.  Let's see how Maxwell defends that appointment! Regulators should not have a regulatee's CEO on its board. It is the equivalent of the Bank of England having RBS's Fred Goodwin on its board.

I think you'll find the reason that the Chief Executive of the SPFL is on the Board of the SFA is because the Articles of Association of the SFA explicitly contemplate it.

Article 64.3 of the SFA Articles sets up the Professional Game Board. On that board, among others, are to sit five

Quote

representatives of the Scottish Professional Football League, one of whom shall be its Chief Executive for the time being

Article 61(2)(e) of the SFA Articles then states that, among the members of the SFA Board itself there shall be:

Quote

two members of the Professional Game Board nominated annually by the Professional Game Board

Therefore Ian Maxwell will not have decided whether Neil Doncaster was to be appointed as a Director of the SFA. Neil Doncaster is, ex officio on the Professional Game Board, which will then have nominated him as one of their two representatives on the main SFA Board.

But sure, engage in a conspiracy theory.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Ad Lib

[Ludo*1]

6 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I think you'll find the reason that the Chief Executive of the SPFL is on the Board of the SFA is because the Articles of Association of the SFA explicitly contemplate it.

Article 64.3 of the SFA Articles sets up the Professional Game Board. On that board, among others, are to sit five

Article 61(2)(e) of the SFA Articles then states that, among the members of the SFA Board itself there shall be:

Therefore Ian Maxwell will not have decided whether Neil Doncaster was to be appointed as a Director of the SFA. Neil Doncaster is, ex officio on the Professional Game Board, which will then have nominated him as one of their two representatives on the main SFA Board.

But sure, engage in a conspiracy theory.

 

6 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

^ That's typical of a Dundonian - too obsessed and thick to post a sensible reply. 

 

Or I could let one of your own dismantle your tinfoil hat pish since AdLib has declared I'm not allowed to post here. #SorryAdLib