Jump to content

The SPFL recommendation?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Clyde01 said:

 


I am yet to see a decent argument in favour of 14-14-14. What does it actually achieve?

Either we have a terrible 39 game uneven season or we split and play some teams 4 times as now. So there isn’t significantly less repetition.

Of course league 2 are in favour as it allows them to try and shut the trapdoor for a season. Longer term it gives some smaller clubs a chance of getting into tier 2 as well but is that enough of a reason to rip up the current system.

As a Clyde fan you could argue that we would be more established in tier 2 longer term but getting chucked back into the bottom tier to facilitate this is a kick in the stones and not something we should be accepting.

I like the idea of only 3 leagues but I think at least one of those (not the premier obviously) should be a bigger league of 18-20 clubs only playing twice. That would at least be a significant step away from the status quo rather than change for the sake of it or to benefit a couple of sides.

 

Yes, I don't see any positives to it.

1 hour ago, kvz2000 said:

Rangers have said they will release their evidence to other clubs prior to any further meetings so I see no issue with that , no one would put on public display their case for the other side to see and give them the chance to cover up or remove any traces of wrong doing ,

reading between the lines I feel you are more against the fact it’s Rangers that’s standing up for a proper investigation than the reasons for it , if you can’t rise above your dislike or hatred for certain clubs then we are lost as a footballing family , what if your club were calling for this investigation I guess you might have a different view .

Sevco and a 'football family'! 😅

If such a 'family' existed Sevco would not be a part of it. Bag of c***s.

Their predecespredecessors Rangers wanted nothing to do with Scottish football and were desperately trying to get away. They acted always in their own interests and never gave a f**k about any other club. They actively tried to kill some clubs.

Then they (brilliantly) died and this new club have picked up the same attitude.

Any time Sevco say something it absolutely should be instantly doubted and looked in to to see the intent. They're proven liars and bullshitters and possibly even more vile and selfish than the old, dead club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deloitte may well have given an honest answer but when the question was set by the SPFL, it doesn't really pass the first hurdle of scepticism does it?
Deloitte investigation covered off all the points raised by the previous poster. What else are you wanting them to investigate?

I think Doncaster is an idiot and the vote turned into a farce but unless Rangers release this supposed dossier of evidence I don't see the point in chucking more money at another auditor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rangers have said they will release their evidence to other clubs prior to any further meetings so I see no issue with that , no one would put on public display their case for the other side to see and give them the chance to cover up or remove any traces of wrong doing ,
reading between the lines I feel you are more against the fact it’s Rangers that’s standing up for a proper investigation than the reasons for it , if you can’t rise above your dislike or hatred for certain clubs then we are lost as a footballing family , what if your club were calling for this investigation I guess you might have a different view .

You appear to have completely missed my initial point. If rangers think that matters have not been dealt with properly why has their director who sits on the spfl board not raised it within the spfl? If they then do not get a proper response the matter could be taken to further investigation. I’d have exactly the same view no matter which club acted in this way
Link to comment
Share on other sites



A similar sentiment to the one Alex Smith expressed when he suggested Celtic should be allowed to buy out “provincial” (a euphemism for “diddy”) club Clyde so their colt team could get a place in the senior league.


https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-celtic-should-buy-over-9258820


How is me saying ambitious clubs looking to progress being road blocked by perma-shite diddies anything like saying it’s ok to sell out and become a glorified colt team?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Clyde01 said:

How is me saying ambitious clubs looking to progress being road blocked by perma-shite diddies anything like saying it’s ok to sell out and become a glorified colt team?

 

Listen to billy big bollocked Clyde over here dishing out the perma-shite diddy patter. Your rapist loving rabble have quite literally been a laughing stock pissing around in the basement of Scottish football for over a decade, sit doon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



How is me saying ambitious clubs looking to progress being road blocked by perma-shite diddies anything like saying it’s ok to sell out and become a glorified colt team?


If I have to spell it out for you, then ok.

It’s pretty easy to be dismissive of the impact of supporting the aspirations of ambitious clubs if your club isn’t one of the ones affected.

Similarly, Smith is cool with the idea of sacrificing the independence of provincial teams such as Clyde and Airdrie to enable teams with grander ambitions a chance to fulfill theirs.

I’ll leave it to Brechin and Albion Rovers fans to compare recent records with Clyde’s and assess whether there is any irony in a Clyde fan asserting that they are “perma-shite”.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen to billy big bollocked Clyde over here dishing out the perma-shite diddy patter. Your rapist loving rabble have quite literally been a laughing stock pissing around in the basement of Scottish football for over a decade, sit doon.


Maths clearly wasn’t your best subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites



If I have to spell it out for you, then ok.

It’s pretty easy to be dismissive of the impact of supporting the aspirations of ambitious clubs if your club isn’t one of the ones affected.

Similarly, Smith is cool with the idea of sacrificing the independence of provincial teams such as Clyde and Airdrie to enable teams with grander ambitions a chance to fulfill theirs.

I’ll leave it to Brechin and Albion Rovers fans to compare recent records with Clyde’s and assess whether there is any irony in a Clyde fan asserting that they are “perma-shite”.


I’m not talking about sacrificing anyone’s independence though, I completely disagree with that.

But I have no problem with ambitious clubs giving some of the bottom feeders a shake up. East Stirling’s relegation was long overdue. Berwick have shown they are miles off being competitive even at lowland league level. Albion rovers are another perennial struggler who won’t be long till they’re gone. You shouldn’t get countless reprieves, that’s not how a pyramid is supposed to work.

I don’t think it’s good for the game if all the clubs coming up are unsustainable basket cases like Gretna but some fresh blood is long overdue at lower league level.

As for your last point, our spell in league 2 was the first time in our history we had played at that level and I can assure you that throughout it the support was driven by getting out again. Unfortunately there were/are plenty teams down there without that ambition happy to coast along and get their SPFL cash. Chapman and the half Annan squad he brought with him soon found out there was a massive gulf in expectation between Clyde and other clubs in league two.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Albion Rovers were playing in a higher league than Clyde only two seasons ago. 


Of the past 25 seasons Albion rovers have spent 20 of them in the bottom tier. Just because one of their brief sojourns out of it coincided with us being at our lowest ebb doesn’t prove anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Clyde01 said:

 


The bit where you suggested 9 years was more than a decade. emoji23.png

 

Apologies, I didn't actually know how long Clyde had been an utter irrelevance, I guessed at more than decade. Thanks for clarifying it was just 9 years, hopefully Clyde can continue to dazzle the rest of Scottish football and acheive another ambitious, *checks notes*, 7th place finish in Scotland's third tier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Moonster said:

Listen to billy big bollocked Clyde over here dishing out the perma-shite diddy patter. Your rapist loving rabble have quite literally been a laughing stock pissing around in the basement of Scottish football for over a decade, sit doon.

A rabble that looks to have pushed your buttons by the tone of the last couple of posts. You're going to have a heart attack over not very much. CTFD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is three rounds of games, 39 in total, the only option likely to be considered if they switch to three leagues of 14 teams?

Lopsided fixture lists were, and still are, shite. Any reason why the leagues couldn't split after two rounds of games for another two rounds of games between the teams in the top and bottom halves, for a total of 38 games each? I might be able to live with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

Is three rounds of games, 39 in total, the only option likely to be considered if they switch to three leagues of 14 teams?

Lopsided fixture lists were, and still are, shite. Any reason why the leagues couldn't split after two rounds of games for another two rounds of games between the teams in the top and bottom halves, for a total of 38 games each? I might be able to live with that.

Something along the lines of this?

4 hours ago, Scottydog said:

But the main problem is simple finances and the drop off in revenue between leagues (in the event of relegation).  Potentially a 10 team Championship playing 4 times with Dundee Utd/Hearts and Dundee, Dunfermline, Falkirk Partick and Raith is much more lucrative to Championship clubs (though perhaps less so much to East Fife as away support is limited to 1000) than a 14 without 2 or 3 of those big clubs. I do think a 14 team league with a 8/6 split after 26 games followed by another 14/12 games could well be the long term answer as it would bridge the both the financial gap and fill the fixture list. Admittedly it still means playing some teams 4 times but it would just have to be as part of the compromise.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

A rabble that looks to have pushed your buttons by the tone of the last couple of posts. You're going to have a heart attack over not very much. CTFD

Not at all, just putting a guy who's let that 7th place finish go to his head in his place. If he/she or any other Clyde fan wants to act like they're a level above "diddy" then I'll tell them as well.

What does CTFD mean?

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...