Jump to content

The St. Mirren FC 2023/24 thread


Recommended Posts

Is there any word on the contract extension for Doyle-Hayes or are we waiting on the double announcement of no forfeiture punishment and 3-year extension for JDH?


I think he’s stalling, which is fair enough. He will get more money elsewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buddie06smfc said:

Is there any word on the contract extension for Doyle-Hayes or are we waiting on the double announcement of no forfeiture punishment and 3-year extension for JDH?

That would be a decent a announcement, but I fear the exact opposite will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BBC sport article. Jim been spending too much time with Fitz? Aiming to emulate Motherwell’s third place finish from last season? Mentioning well, Killie and Livi but leaving out the great achievements of the mighty Saintees? He must read this forum as he’s now winding us up too. 🤣 PS I like Jim, hated him as a player, dirty b but effective. This Saint detests the idea of points being awarded or deducted, except for financial foul play. We Saints should stick together, all this P&B mocking is uncalled for. GIRUY on Saturday, if we’re switched on that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, andrewh said:

BBC sport article. Jim been spending too much time with Fitz? Aiming to emulate Motherwell’s third place finish from last season? Mentioning well, Killie and Livi but leaving out the great achievements of the mighty Saintees? He must read this forum as he’s now winding us up too. 🤣 PS I like Jim, hated him as a player, dirty b but effective. This Saint detests the idea of points being awarded or deducted, except for financial foul play. We Saints should stick together, all this P&B mocking is uncalled for. GIRUY on Saturday, if we’re switched on that is.

The alliance started with the matchwinner bib strip of the late 80’s .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A tweet from Killie (we haven't tweeted anything about it)..

All depends on how you want to read that, but you could say that a decision has been made. That was sent out at 8:51, just under 3 hours after the appeal was meant to start and is written in the past tense. It certainly suggests a decision has been made. It's all conjecture, but you feel if the appeal was unsuccessful then the SPFL would be out of the blocks with a "see, told you we were right" type response. Perhaps I'm just reading too much in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ric said:

A tweet from Killie (we haven't tweeted anything about it)..

All depends on how you want to read that, but you could say that a decision has been made. That was sent out at 8:51, just under 3 hours after the appeal was meant to start and is written in the past tense. It certainly suggests a decision has been made. It's all conjecture, but you feel if the appeal was unsuccessful then the SPFL would be out of the blocks with a "see, told you we were right" type response. Perhaps I'm just reading too much in it.

It's an independent panel so I'm guessing the procedure will be. Guilty or Innocent.  Both Saints and Killie have admitted guilty. Cant see how Guilty can be changed . It's the SPFL who decides what punishment.  Will they see sense reducing the punishment  ? I hope so but let's be honest its numpties who are runing our game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an independent panel so I'm guessing the procedure will be. Guilty or Innocent.  Both Saints and Killie have admitted guilty. Cant see how Guilty can be changed . It's the SPFL who decides what punishment.  Will they see sense reducing the punishment  ? I hope so but let's be honest its numpties who are runing our game. 
I doubt admission of guilt can be changed, but the punishment could be reduced. Unlikely as it is.

JG in the PDE stating that negotiations with JDH are going well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FTOF said:

I doubt admission of guilt can be changed, but the punishment could be reduced. Unlikely as it is.

JG in the PDE stating that negotiations with JDH are going well.

The punishment is an outrage .

No club in Scotland has ever forfeited a League game with s 3-0 deficit due to being 'unable to fulfil a fixture'. Flu, frozen or waterlogged pitch or any other reason means a reschedule. Why, if the illness is Covid and not Flu, should a 3-0 forfeit be imposed?

All SPFL Clubs were asked to vote on a motion of a 3-0 forfeit. This motion was rejected by the vast majority of clubs voting against. Yet the SPFL Board, in direct contravention to the wishes of its members, imposed a 3-0 forfeit.

Yes, we got things wrong about Covid, like many Clubs, however we are being punished for being 'unable to fulfil' a fixture and there is no precedent for such an outrageous punishment nor any logic to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NorthBank said:

The punishment is an outrage .

No club in Scotland has ever forfeited a League game with s 3-0 deficit due to being 'unable to fulfil a fixture'. Flu, frozen or waterlogged pitch or any other reason means a reschedule. Why, if the illness is Covid and not Flu, should a 3-0 forfeit be imposed?

All SPFL Clubs were asked to vote on a motion of a 3-0 forfeit. This motion was rejected by the vast majority of clubs voting against. Yet the SPFL Board, in direct contravention to the wishes of its members, imposed a 3-0 forfeit.

Yes, we got things wrong about Covid, like many Clubs, however we are being punished for being 'unable to fulfil' a fixture and there is no precedent for such an outrageous punishment nor any logic to it.

Not only clubs in Scotland, the English FA are postponing games as a precaution and not looking into the cause, they are fully aware it is a pandemic and protecting players should be the priority, it’s also a pandemic that clubs are struggling in so why would you punish when they are all struggling already

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I noted in that McCarthy interview that he too had Covid and found it tough. It's also emerged that Erwin had it. Got me wondering how many other players have had it. I'm convinced Obika had it, and see how Cammy McPherson can't get a game? Blind speculation, but I wonder if he's struggling for fitness and, far from being dropped/not trusted, they're actually looking after him a bit. 

Jim has name dropped him as being part the future of the club in that PDE piece, so that suggests there might be more to it, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Ric said:

A tweet from Killie (we haven't tweeted anything about it)..

All depends on how you want to read that, but you could say that a decision has been made. That was sent out at 8:51, just under 3 hours after the appeal was meant to start and is written in the past tense. It certainly suggests a decision has been made. It's all conjecture, but you feel if the appeal was unsuccessful then the SPFL would be out of the blocks with a "see, told you we were right" type response. Perhaps I'm just reading too much in it.

The evidence will have been submitted, but the panel will likely have then subsequently convened to discuss it. They may still be doing so.

 

10 hours ago, ZingaliMan said:

It's an independent panel so I'm guessing the procedure will be. Guilty or Innocent.  Both Saints and Killie have admitted guilty. Cant see how Guilty can be changed . It's the SPFL who decides what punishment.  Will they see sense reducing the punishment  ? I hope so but let's be honest its numpties who are runing our game. 

The panel has the right to uphold the existing punishment, completely throw out the case, impose any punishment as they see fit (harsher or more lenient) or to refer the case back to the SPFL. I doubt it will be thrown out completely, and I doubt it will be sent back to the SPFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

That part gives me hope and angst at the same time. :lol: 

I wasn't aware that they could dish out a different punishment.

It's not clear whether they can definitely dish out a harsher penalty here, where clubs are specifically appealing that their penalty is too harsh, or whether that only applies to cases where the compliance officer has appealed that a club or player has been treated too leniently in a particular case. There's a single set of rules for the powers of the commitee that covers both instances, so it may be just written that way to save time.

However, I'd imagine they might want to have the flexibility to remove the footballing penalty (the 3-0 defeats) but increase the financial penalty.

Link to comment
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...
×
×
  • Create New...