stevoraith

Nah, don’t get wound up to be fair, it was more meant as a bit of fatherly advice to a guy who appears to be young and a bit naive. He posted it on the Hearts thread where a few hearts fans were being total roasters and it brought attention to a Raith fan being a roaster which is never a good thing. I’m definitely not a ‘woke’ everything is offensive type but you’ve got to know your audience.

She’s done herself no favours and I think a lot of football fans will agree that she’s a fud. But in the same way that because some redneck joins the KKK doesn’t mean that all white men are racist, she doesn’t represent all women. Quite disappointing that you don’t realise that and apologise.

So because folk are ignoring the rules the government should just say “f**k it, do what you want”?

Was there a game at brockville in the mid/late-nineties where someone (Sinky maybe?) caught the ball on the goal line and got sent off? Or did I make that up?

McInally is a bit of a cretin. But it’s hard to disagree with him on that to be honest.

Well yes, it would appear so. I’m surprised as I work beside quite a few Jambos and they’re all gid c***s. Would also be interesting to see the financial damage done to Hearts when they were last in the championship. Budge basically claiming it’s financial Armageddon for them to be relegated- how did it affect them last time?

Is kickback known for being populated by a load of knuckle-draggers or are the views on there a good representation of Hearts fans? It’s like primary school politics.

Ooft, that’s bowfin’

Exactly. There was no talk of, and seemingly no appetite for, reconstruction before March of this year. What we have isn’t perfect but it’s probably the best solution. Reconstruction has only been on the table in order to stop relegations from an incomplete season. What is desperately needed is a redistribution of the prize money so that it doesn’t so heavily favour the premier, and the top two in particular, but that’s never going to happen.

[emoji23] The state of that. All the talk of “voting us down” and “teams that demoted us”. You’d think they’d picked a random team to relegate and not the one that had the lowest points per game average when a global pandemic stopped any chance of completing the season. Totally understand why they’re pissed off at not being able to finish the season but holding up Rangers, ICT and Partick as bastions of morality is laughable. Do they really think those clubs voted to save Hearts from the injustice of relegation rather than in their own self-interest like almost every other club?

I think you’re missing the point on how the checkpoints would work. Nobody is suggesting that you’d go back to the standings at the checkpoint and ignore what happened after. The checkpoints would be used as markers- for example: less than 25% of games played- null and void. 25%-75%- end the season and award prize money but no promotion/ relegation Over 75%- end the season as it stands and promote or relegate as the standings were after the final game (adjusted for points per game), whether that be 75% of games played or 95%. That’s exactly what happened this season so no legal challenge from anyone and from now on everyone would know where they stand.

And in addition to that, you’d imagine that a checkpoint after 75% of the season would be used to end the season ‘as-is’. That’s consistent with what happened this season so wouldn’t induce a legal challenge from anyone ‘wronged’ last season. The more difficult decisions would be what to do if only 25% or 50% was reached for example. But they’d be absolutely daft not to put some sort of contingency and clarification in the rules for the same thing happening going forward.

Yeah sorry, I may have got my wires crossed there. The report in the Fife Free Press stated “As the Press went to print the SPFL were meeting to discuss the possibility of league reconstruction model put forward by Hearts owner Ann Budge, one which Rovers voiced their disapproval towards.” I thought the 14-14-14 model was already dead and that the statement was regarding the 14-10-10-10 which was what Hearts initially proposed was it not? So I took it to mean Rovers would be against the 14-10-10-10 but in hindsight I think I was wrong.

Raith chairman stated today they’ll vote against. EDIT- might have picked up the quote in the paper wrong- they’ll vote against “Hearts proposal”. I took that to mean the 14-10-10-10 as I thought the 14-14-14 had already been thrown out. Might not be the case though and maybe it’s just the three 14s we’re against.

The two smartest tops in the division there [emoji1360]

f**k sake. So it really is a case of Budge saying “as long as Hearts are ok, I don’t give a shiny shite what happens in the other leagues”. Farcical that someone with such a vested interest should be allowed to chair the committee on reconstruction. Although as others have said, there is no real appetite for reconstruction other than to stop relegations so it’s no surprise.

Do you really think the league structure will change without a corresponding change in the prize money distribution? (That’s a genuine question btw, not an “omg you’re so stupid” question- difficult to get that across in written format). As you say, there’s a massive drop between bottom of one league and top of the next one down- surely there’s absolutely no chance that anyone would think it reasonable to keep that sort of step change based on an arbitrary number of teams that were in the league under a previous structure?

I can see us being bottom until at least October. Hopefully find our feet after that though [emoji1360]

I wonder more often what would have happened if we’d scored in the 89th minute and gone up as champions. How long would we have had to put up with Smiths boring football in the championship?

Oh FFS. I give up, you’re correct. Let’s move on.

Not sure what’s so confusing. Those two posts are not contradictory. It’s a shite idea. My first post said I wasn’t sure if it would work. The point of it was that you couldn’t dismiss it on the grounds that people wouldn’t pay to see meaningless games which is what Shadwell was saying. Hence pointing out that people pay to watch (meaningless) friendlies every year.

Just for the avoidance of doubt, I’m not advocating that at all. It’s a shite idea. RandomGuy suggested it (and I don’t think even he was particularly serious) and I don’t think anyone else has jumped on it as being a good idea. Shadwell and Sarge just annoyed me with their “you’re so stupid, I know best” routine.

Ah, semantics about what constitutes “plenty of people” at a lower league Scottish football game. [emoji849] Thanks for pointing out that games which mean something have relatively higher attendances than those that don’t. I, and I’m sure many others reading the forum, had never made that correlation.

Care to explain what has exasperated you so much in that post? I wasn’t advocating Randomguys suggestion. Shadwell stated people wouldn’t pay for games that mean nothing. I pointed out they do so every season. And that’s without the incentive of it being either that or you don’t see your team play for ten months.

Aye but the signings made in the January window made the difference and it’s well known that they weren’t affordable. Anyway, it’s water under the bridge. As someone else said no point going over it again. I think you’re mostly gid c***s, just like *most* of us are gid c***s.