Rector

Hmmmmm. Should have been out of sight by half-time. Some encouraging performances (Patrick, Macleod, Scott); some very worrying ones (McGrath, all the defence). Rothes looked well off the pace, which makes City’s failure to convert more than one of the dozen chances they had even more concerning.

That's an interesting (but I suspect rare) scenario. And of course, the rule could be simply that a denial of a goalscoring opportunity *outside* the box is a pen, a foul (or hb) in the box is a pen, and a foul that denies a gs opportunity in the box is a pen *and* a red card. SO the judgement the ref is called upon to make is the same. Re Saturday, Elsdon wouldn't have made the foul and McAllister would have been flagged offside, of course.

Again, *why* is it ridiculous? Simply stating that it is, as you've now done twice, doesn't move the argument forward. The red card for denial of a goal scoring opportunity is a very recent innovation - it's not 'part and parcel of the game'. So why is that innovation a better solution to the problem of cheating? It makes the game worse. It doesn't recompense the attacking side appropriately. So *why* is it a ridiculous suggestion to say that, for a foul outside box that is the denial of a clear goalscoring opportunity, a penalty is a better sanction than an automatic red?

Oh, and if you'd read my previous post you'd have seen I was there as a neutral (sat among the home support as it happens). So I wasn't 'frustrated' because it happened to 'us'.

Why is it a ridiculous suggestion? 'Professional' fouls are cheating - first and foremost - exactly like diving. Both are using unfair means to gain an advantage. You can use the same argument - sometimes it works out for you, sometimes it doesn't. By awarding a red card, the entire dynamic of the game changes, most often to the detriment of the spectators, and invariably to the detriment of the team with the numerical advantage. This is especially true when the red happens earlier in the game - all of a sudden a game where both sides are going for it becomes 'attack v defence'. So many games have been ruined by this. Secondly, the 'punishment' fits the 'crime' much more accurately. A goalscoring opportunity is denied by unfair play. It is punished with another goalscoring opportunity. The chance to score is not lost and cheating play has been nullified - and crucially the only balance that is at risk in the game is the score, rather than the personnel on the pitch. Football is *always* better when it is 11 v 11. The decision for the referee is the same - is it a clear goalscoring opportunity, with all the controversy and argument that that entails. The difference is the penalty for the offence. You appear to be objecting solely because, on this occasion, it would likely have cost Clyde the win. But if the rule had been in play yesterday, it's much more likely that Elsdon would not have made the foul and donkey McAllister would have been flagged offside. So I say again, what is ridiculous about it? Shibboleths in the rules are long since gone - here's a change that would make a real, positive difference.

Went as a neutral, (Broadwood is just 10 mins up the road from me) as the Ayr game was off. Random thoughts: - if Cove score in the first couple of minutes as they should it's a totally different game; - McAllister looks an absolute shadow of his old self and was surprised to see him stay on the pitch; - Liked Blair Yule (though he had absolutely no support). Suspect he may be destined for higher things come January; - Thought the Cove pen was harsh, especially compared to a couple of other shouts; - Red card was a pet bugbear of mine. Those sort of fouls are just as much cheating as diving, yet are considered 'good' play. Plus a red card is the wrong punishment. I'd change the law and give an automatic penalty *instead* of the card, even if it's outside the box. That way, you are replacing the denial of a goalscoring opportunity with another goalscoring opportunity, but the balance and flow of the game aren't disrupted by the red; - Suspect both teams nearer the bottom than the top of the league come May.

Celtic Aberdeen Hibs Rangers Motherwell St Johnstone Dundee Utd St Mirren Ross County Hamilton Livi Killie

And was subsequently murdered (poison?) I believe.

What you need is an old school ground and atmosphere; a sense of faded glory and old-world lustre; a proper football club,; baggy and a bit loose at the seams; and the best nickname. Forget the Prem glory boys. There can only be one club for you: Ayr United - the Honest Men.

No-one's denying there aren't serious structural problems in the game, particularly with regard to youth development and competitiveness. The idea that somehow chucking colts teams into League 2 will make a difference, just because some other countries do it is nonsensical - a cursory glance at the number of FIFA A coaches and the quality of the coaching at U8 level and beyond will show where the main source of the problem is. And no entrenched views here - I want revolutionary change in Scottish football as much as anyone starting, as I said before, with an end to 11-1, at least an 18-team Prem, revenue sharing and limits on youth squad sizes to prevent stockpiling. You want to screw up the League "for the good of the game". What sacrifices are you prepared to make for it?

I see it's time to get the 'Why Colts and B teams are Anathema 101" notes out again. Oh joy. If you put colts teams in the league, you *inevitably* destroy the integrity of the league. This is because, as several of your previous posts state, the *purpose* of them being in the league is *different* from every other club's. Consequently, decisions about tactics, team selection etc are made not with the same ends in mind as everyone else, you are not competing on an equal footing. If these teams work as planned, some of the colts might graduate to the senior side during the season, making the side considerably weaker at the end of the season than at the beginning - not for normal footballing competitive reasons but for a completely separate agenda. There's no guarantee that the colts played would be Scotland-qualified. So you are asking the league to ruin itself for the benefit of producing better players for your club. That's it. Furthermore, on the slippery-slope principle, it wouldn't be long before the criteria and minimum/maximum age requirements were relaxed and clubs started playing their reserves and not-quite-match-fit recovering injured in the teams. This situation has come about largely because of the ridiculous stockpiling and hoarding of young talent by a couple of clubs. Now the proposal is to f**k up League 2 in order to fix a problem that these two clubs created - at *no* extra cost and considerable benefit to themselves. Why's it the job of League 2 to provide practice matches for your kids/hasbeens? Above all, having established finally a pyramid that rewards sporting achievement (after a fashion) on the pitch, two clubs, or however many you think, suddenly get to have an extra team in the league, violating a basic principle of the league - one club, one team. And before you start off on 'for the good of the national team/national game' nonsense a) there's no guarantee these colts would be Scotland qualified and b) lets see the sacrifices you're prepared to make for it. How about, an equitable distribution of prize money, gate sharing and TV money, an end to the 11-1 rule and an expansion of the Prem to 18 clubs. If you want your kids to develop, loan 'em out. Even better, stop hoarding them like their loo roll.

It's not about punishment. It's about wanting to play in a league that isn't fixed. If the same rules don;t apply to every club then the game is as real as wrestling. If clubs go bust, they go bust. But if the league's bent, what on earth is the point of playing in it or paying to watch it?

Yep. If they vote Sevco in and then promote them to the 1st, I'll be at East of Scotland league matches - mainly Peebles Rovers.

For every SFL club that stands firm against this outrageous SPL bullying, I'm gonna buy a bit of their merchandise. Won't be much - a hat, a mug, a scarf - but if everyone who is opposed to this nonsense does the same, it might make a bit of difference. Plus of course I'll take in a game at their ground. Kind of like a reverse boycott. Groundhopping with honour. Could be fun.

If the suits are getting together to do a deal, why can't we? Why can't the chairs of the Supporters' Trusts of every club that has one get together (with one obvious exception) and agree a course of action should Doncaster, Regan and Longmuir press ahead with their machinations - and then release a statement. That would leave everyone in no doubt where the fans stand and what will happen to the game if RFC are punted straight to SFL1.

Might be worth mentioning that now, more than ever, we need to put pressure on the rest of the SPL to ensure that any thoughts of a newco in the SPL are consigned to the dustbin. The last thing we want is chairmen buckling to the inevitable propaganda campaign about how Scottish football needs Rangers in the SPL come what may. We need to bombard them with emails etc letting them know that under NO circumstances will we accept newco Rangers in the SPL.

Sorry - yes, that's what happened. There was a firesale of players, all staff, playing and non-playing had to sign wage deferrals (i.e. were paid nothing) for almost a year and the money saved was spent on paying off HMRC. It was pretty brutal, especially for the non-playing staff, some of whom lost their homes, and as a result PAFC fans raised nearly £100K for the staff.

It is in facte ven more serious for Rangers than that. HMRC have been raging about (mainly English( clubs getting away with CVAs for years, but because of the 25% rule have been unable to do anything about it. I was involved with the Fans Trust at Plymouth for a short time and in meetings during the early stages of our administration the club explained that HMRC had made it crystal clear that they didn't care about the money, they were *desperate* to take a club down, pour encourager les autres. The whole strategy at Plymouth - and ultimately what saved the club - was frantic levels of cost-cutting to reduce the debt to HMRC to below 25%. In fact, I think it's true that HMRC have NEVER voted in support of a CVA, not in recent times, anyway. I have no doubt that the tax are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of taking a club the size of Rangers down, given the paradigm shift that would then inevitably occur in football financing. They are remaining tight-lipped in public - for obvious reasons - but the idea that they will cut a deal with Rangers is out of the question. And explains why, by the by, there has been (unwise IMHO) political pressure applied from Holyrood.

Yes it is - thanks. So presumably the answer is, "stuffed". Out of interest, anyone know how many ST holders they have? And what that might drop to?

Just wondering.... Where would Ticketus be if Rangers fans decided en bloc not to buy STs at all, but instead pay on the day, ensuring the cash went into the club and not to pay off Ticketus? Unlikely I know but when Plymouth were in admin and looked like they were going to be bought by Kevin Heaney, fans did just that.