The St. Mirren FC 2023/24 thread

[buddie06smfc]

I don’t think it will be as harsh as a 6 point deduction. That in effect would be the same punishment as we got initially. I think we could be looking at a 1/2 point per game deduction. That being said we should absolutely not be getting any sort of points punishment given all that has gone on in the past week & in August.

[djchapsticks]

2 minutes ago, ZingaliMan said:

If 6 points are deducted we are back down to the bottom of the league with 17 points with Hamilton. 

Why would 6 points be deducted?

It's absolutely nonsensical to deduct 3 points for every fixture that is postponed. There is nothing written out that a covid breach = a 3 point deduction for every game missed and this would be the biggest example yet of the SPFL making up punishments as they go along.

[Ralstonite]

5 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Apparently, the youth players weren't part of our testing regime at that point and couldn't have played.

 

4 minutes ago, NorthBank said:

We could not have used youth players as they were not being tested.

Celtic have more money hence a larger squad. Poorer clubs could suffer simply because they are poorer.

@FTOF and @Northbank - fair enough. I wasn't aware of that. It shouldn't have been difficult to get  few youth players tested, but if that  wouldn't have been good enough for the SPFL, then I agree we had no option.

3 minutes ago, ZingaliMan said:

If 6 points are deducted we are back down to the bottom of the league with 17 points with Hamilton. 

Is that likely to happen? I thought we were simply appealing the punishment given, which is forfeiture of the games? 

[Coventry Saint]

4 minutes ago, ZingaliMan said:

If 6 points are deducted we are back down to the bottom of the league with 17 points with Hamilton. 

There won't be a deduction.

Bear in mind, that is the punishment that has been decided already, and we are simply appealing that. It'd be rare (ie really fucking bizarre) for them to hear that appeal but dole out a different punishment.

[Ric]

Yeah, not really sold on Mulgrew I have to say. This isn't like the other season where Ferdinand was brought in because we needed the experience in an inexperienced defence. Who would he replace? McCarthy? No. Shaughnessy? No. Tait? No. Which means he'd be sitting on the bench. There is certainly no guarantee he can still cut it at this level, and I can't believe we'd get him, either permanent or loan, on the cheap.

At other times in St Mirren history, I'd be more than willing to see him join up. Not just now though.

[Ric]

1 minute ago, Coventry Saint said:

Bear in mind, that is the punishment that has been decided already, and we are simply appealing that. It'd be rare (ie really fucking bizarre) for them to hear that appeal but dole out a different punishment.

I believe that is the case actually. It may have been CraigKillie but perhaps not, however someone had mentioned the SFA were adjudicating on whether the forfeiture was fair and if not the SPFL had a range of other punishments that were to be applied should the appeal succeed.

[djchapsticks]

I was initially accepting of us having to forfeit both games given that our breaches were apparently severe but with the hindsight of what has gone on in Scottish football since, then both St. Mirren and Kilmarnock can more than reasonably argue that the punishment meted out is too severe.

I'd be amazed if an alternative punishment, much less more severe ones are even on the table.

The only outcomes are that the appeal is rejected and upheld in full or the appeal is upheld and the punishment thrown out.

I don't even know if something in between can be applied (ie the forfeits overturned and the £40k fine dished out instead).

[ZingaliMan]

2 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Why would 6 points be deducted?

It's absolutely nonsensical to deduct 3 points for every fixture that is postponed. There is nothing written out that a covid breach = a 3 point deduction for every game missed and this would be the biggest example yet of the SPFL making up punishments as they go along.

I agree with you but we are dealing with a bizarre organisation.  Not a bad artical in todays Record from Henry McLeish telling lower clubs to rebel.  Saying there is no leadership at the SFA and SPFL he is right. 

[welldaft]

4 minutes ago, ZingaliMan said:

I agree with you but we are dealing with a bizarre organisation.  Not a bad artical in todays Record from Henry McLeish telling lower clubs to rebel.  Saying there is no leadership at the SFA and SPFL he is right. 

I am not sure that they can deduct points.  They can as they did award the points for forfeiture.  So St Mirren will still be on the same points but have 2 more games played and - 6 goals applied as originally happened. 

They will either uphold the original punishment or order the games to be replayed if they feel it was too severe.  The circumstances around ordering the games to be replayed would be very interesting.  You could legitimately argue that St Mirren will have a stronger team / squad available with Brophy and Quaner added. 

I may be totally incorrect but you would expect (as difficult as it may be) for the appeals panel to discount what has happened since the SPFL made their judgement.  It should be based on whether the punishment was fair at the time the decision was made with the evidence available. 

Killie and St Mirren were right to appeal as they felt wronged.  My main gripe is how long the initial decision took and how long the appeal will have taken.  TBH either way I will be glad when Thursday is out the way and we can move on.  

 

[craigkillie]

I believe that is the case actually. It may have been CraigKillie but perhaps not, however someone had mentioned the SFA were adjudicating on whether the forfeiture was fair and if not the SPFL had a range of other punishments that were to be applied should the appeal succeed.

You seem to be mixing up a speculative answer about a different question about who is responsible for the outcome if the appeal wins.

If the appeal is successful then they can hardly apply a tougher sanction subsequently. I have no idea what the grounds for the appeal are or what the clubs are seeking, but I don't think points deductions are going to be on the cards.

[craigkillie]

With what the SPFL said to Celtic regarding last nights game I have a bad feeling Saints and Killie punishment will stand. If Celtic did not play last night points were going to Hibs.  

Choosing not to play a game is totally different to being unable to play a game. It is more of a similar situation to Saints not wanting to play because their keepers weren't available.

Clubs like to dramatise in these scenarios - my guess is that someone from the SPFL has contacted Hibs to remind them that failing to turn up for a game could lead to sanctions up to a forfeiture. The club then leak that out as being threatened with a forfeiture.

The appeal is also being heard by an independent panel under the jurisdiction of the SFA, and is nothing to do with the SPFL. I don't think it will have any bearing on our decision at all.

[thomas]

15 minutes ago, welldaft said:

I am not sure that they can deduct points.  They can as they did award the points for forfeiture.  So St Mirren will still be on the same points but have 2 more games played and - 6 goals applied as originally happened. 

 

 

Going back to original punishment would be horrific as clubs would be affected by the gained points for Motherwell and Hamilton

[Munoz]

With the lack of proper leadership from the SPFL & the SFA throughout this season, it really wouldn't surprise me if they just stick with the original outcome. Really hope I'm wrong. 

[Coventry Saint]

1 minute ago, thomas said:

Going back to original punishment would be horrific as clubs would be affected by the gained points for Motherwell and Hamilton

The main take-home message is that there are really no winners here. I'd even argue that even Motherwell, for example, have missed out: the extra points put a gloss on 'Well's form for a while. They might have made a managerial change sooner had they been scraping around at the bottom for longer. (I know Robinson walked, but I think the point broadly stands.) Now Alexander stands to receive the easiest new manager bounce ever seen.

[flyingscot]

On Mulgrew I'd probably be happy enough with that. Fairly experienced, has played at a decent level and we need cover in his positions. He's not long term but it would work and I guess he might want back up the road now similar to Thommo at his stage of his career. He was also our man of the match in the league cup semi final in 2013! 

As for the appeal is the appeal Thursday or the outcome? 

[capt_oats]

1 hour ago, Coventry Saint said:

The main take-home message is that there are really no winners here. I'd even argue that even Motherwell, for example, have missed out: the extra points put a gloss on 'Well's form for a while. They might have made a managerial change sooner had they been scraping around at the bottom for longer. (I know Robinson walked, but I think the point broadly stands.) Now Alexander stands to receive the easiest new manager bounce ever seen.

I'd dispute that tbh.

Prior to the point the original games were scheduled we'd beaten St Johnstone and scudded Aberdeen 3-0. We'd also beaten Glentoran 5-1 and though we didn't play well we went through to the next round of the Europa against Coleraine.

I don't think that anyone would dispute our form was poor at the start of the season but from the end of August up to the St Johnstone 1-1 the only sides to have beaten us were Celtic, Rangers and Hapoel.

The forfeits were announced on the 4th December, we were 8th at that point - 2 points off top 6, 5 off 5th with 2 games in hand albeit also 4 points off St Mirren in 2nd bottom. Our form in the previous 10 games (not including the 3-0 walkovers) was (most recent first) XLWWLLWXWW - there's not a lot of gloss to put on that.

Our form then went off a cliff (funnily enough around the point we lost our first choice goalkeeper to a long term injury and 2 Scotland u21s being forced to self-isolate after the Scotland u21s shitshow).

Basically, our run of poor form has largely been after the forfeitures were announced.

Edited January 12, 2021 by capt_oats

[Ric]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

You seem to be mixing up a speculative answer about a different question about who is responsible for the outcome if the appeal wins.

If I could be bothered, I'd hunt down the comment I'm referring to. It might be yours it might be somebody else's, I honestly can't remember which is why the I'm loathe to go hunting for it. I'm happy to accept it wasn't you on that occasion but I'm not mixing it up with your comment about who is responsible.

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

If the appeal is successful then they can hardly apply a tougher sanction subsequently. I have no idea what the grounds for the appeal are or what the clubs are seeking, but I don't think points deductions are going to be on the cards.

On this I agree, but we are also having to deal with the arrogance of the SPFL. On one hand it's mirthsome when the ire is directed at others (for example, Hearts last season) but less enjoyable when it's directed at your own club. The SPFL, imo, will be determined to make a point, not that I think that it's specifically against Kille and St Mirren they wish to make it, just that that want to be seen in the right. If an appeal succeeds I feel they will push the boundaries as far as possible, without the SFA getting involved again, with regard to a replacement punishment to prove that point. I don't see them holding their hands up and saying, "fair enough, we'll just stick with the suspended fine for now".

 

 

 

 

[Coventry Saint]

21 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

The forfeits were announced...

Our form then went off a cliff 

Basically, our run of poor form has largely been after the forfeitures were announced.

That was actually the point I was trying to make, but may have done it badly. It seemed clear for a while - and I remember remarking to the effect on here - that the extra six points had you in a false position in the league, prior to the point at which they decided to take the points away again. 

I think my main error was my perception that the forfeited points were on the board for longer than they were, and I accept it's unrealistic that you'd have sacked your manager based on a few weeks of poor form. I've honestly lost all ability to judge time over the past 12 months.

Edited January 12, 2021 by Coventry Saint

[capt_oats]

33 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said:

That was actually the point I was trying to make, but may have done it badly. It seemed clear for a while - and I remember remarking to the effect on here - that the extra six points had you in a false position in the league, prior to the point at which they decided to take the points away again. 

I think my main error was my perception that the forfeited points were on the board for longer than they were, and I accept it's unrealistic that you'd have sacked your manager based on a few weeks of poor form. I've honestly lost all ability to judge time over the past 12 months.

Ah! I get you, I read your post as masking our poor form at the point they awarded us the 3-0s. As I say, our form (if not necessarily our performances) was largely fine at that point. What was costing us was the poor start and losses to the likes of County and Accies which the 2x forfeits kind of balanced out.

Fwiw, I think the way the points thing has been handled actually played a part in Robinson's general level of scunneredness that led to him resigning. I seem to recall him having a moan about the length of time the SPFL were taking to come to a decision when we could just have scheduled the games and got them played.

So to then come to a decision, then suspend it a fortnight later on top of the injuries and performances - it led to him just thinking "f**k this - I'm out".

Edited January 12, 2021 by capt_oats

[Torfason]

2 hours ago, Munoz said:

With the lack of proper leadership from the SPFL & the SFA throughout this season, it really wouldn't surprise me if they just stick with the original outcome. Really hope I'm wrong. 

So Saints to get a 6 point and 22 goal deficit as punishment and the league to get immediately ended with Hearts fans wanking themselves into a coma and Thursday January 14th declared National Jambo’s  Day?