jagsfan57
-
Posts
1,285 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by jagsfan57
-
-
10 hours ago, D'Jaffo said:
Would be a good signing but from Oakleys perspective it makes little sense other than getting more money.
Graham has another season in him as first choice striker so you’d imagine any striker that Thistle sign will have a tough job competing with him. Oakley himself isn’t a young player who will be prepared to wait for his chance. Unless of course Doolan is changing the shape or style but even then I’m not sure how well it will work having two target men style strikers playing together.
I think he will have to change shape or style as Lawless won’t be back until the new year at least. We haven’t been scoring as freely lately(Airdrie game aside). The other thing to take account of is that as part of Graham’s new deal that he got there was a coaching element, so maybe he won’t play so much.
0 -
2 hours ago, RedLichtie86 said:
Any club that played in the SPFL Premiership in the 23/24 season that has not reached the group stages of European competitions.
So next season even though Livi will be playing in the Championship they will still recieve these payments but Dundee United will not.
If relegated teams are getting £1M from Eufa is there any need for the parachute payments?
1 -
8 hours ago, RedLichtie86 said:
They will also get the Solidarity Payments from UEFA. Could potentially be around £1m
What/Who are these solidarity payments for ?
0 -
24 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:
I’m more than happy with him taking the calculated risk that there wasn’t going to be a ten goal swing.
Airdrie were also resting players, which I think shows you their thoughts on the likelihood of it.
What is it we are arguing about exactly ? I said it was a risk and Airdrie were happy with 4th.
1 -
59 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:
We could’ve lost 1000-0 last night and it wouldn’t have fucking mattered.
He didn’t know how the Airdrie game was going to turn out.
1 -
3 hours ago, BigMadMental said:
On another day we wouldn’t be playing the subs bench as starters and subbing 16yr olds.
we would have played McBeth, Graham, Robinson, Fitzpatrick, Milne from the start on another day.
also on another day we wouldn’t be playing 3-5-1-1
Of course, the point I am making is that it was a big risk playing such a weakened team against Utd who were sure to be up for the game. It could easily have been 6 or more last night.
0 -
It looked offside on TV. Was surprised they didn’t mention it at the time.
0 -
It was awful. On another day we could have been looking at an even heavier defeat eating into the goal difference advantage we had. Just as well Airdrie were content with 4th place.
0 -
32 minutes ago, mishtergrolsch said:
With the greatest respect to the rest of the league, it should have been won with games to spare.
It should have been won with even more games to spare if we're being honest. And yes, Raith have done well but the amount of times we fucked up ourselves is the reason it's taken this long to clinch it.
Dundee and Killie fans thought the same thing when they eventually won it.
0 -
1 hour ago, Ad Lib said:
It's not a straightforward "per match" cost. You don't install the entire system before every Premiership game. Once it's installed it's installed and it stays there for the duration of the season.
A one-off installation costs more because you don't spread the installation costs across 19 league fixtures!
In much the same way that your home electricity bill doesn't usually double if you double your energy usage because part of your original monthly amount is a standing charge for simply being connected to the grid.
How much does it cost to install. For most clubs it is installed for more than 19 games. Did the premiership clubs get a one off charge ?
0 -
43 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:
I’m not trying to be a dick here, but are you being deliberately obtuse?
No, I am trying to understand what we are actually paying for. Nobody seems to know. I have already said that I don’t think it is reasonable for the SPFL to charge for it without an additional allowance in the “off the top” cut of the playoff game to cover this additional cost.
0 -
1 hour ago, Pie Of The Month said:
I suspect they don't rip it out and reinstall it every game in the Premiership so it might cost more for a team for a one off game where they didn't have it before, it's not that difficult.
He didn’t say £1.2M was installation costs. He said it was the annual cost.
0 -
10 minutes ago, Claudia Gentile said:
VAR costs for top flight teams range from 17% of costs for the champions on a sliding scale, down to just under 6% for the bottom two sides, to make up the £1.2 million annual costs.
I seem to recall £10k being the cost for our playoff game with County.
Not sure if this left any equipment in place or we would need to fork out again.
Bottom line it has been agreed there is a charge. Whither that will be reduced if we make the playoff finals I have no idea. I am inclined to think there will be some charge again.
I am happy to pay it if we can get another shot.
So it costs the premiership clubs £1.2M per year for 228 games in a league season. That’s just over £5000 per game on average.But the championship club has to pay double ?
0 -
9 hours ago, Ad Lib said:
I don't have the figure to hand but I believe it was a five-figure sum.
Not a significant impact, but yes, we have that particular f**k-up from who it was who arranged those contracts to mop up.
No idea.
Correct, it's explicitly used to fund parachute payments on roughly that scale. What is paid can fluctuate depending on whether teams achieve an immediate return to the top-flight the following season (as parachute payment support lasts for two seasons) so the SPFL builds-in contingency so that it can cope with various eventualities (including when there is and isn't a play-off induced relegation).
A five figure sum is a very wide band. Not significant is less than five figures ?
0 -
And one of the nominations for championship player of the year.
0 -
11 hours ago, oneteaminglasgow said:
I think that there’s only one club in the entire SPFL who have any right to complain about VAR, and it’s Greenock Morton. The rest voted for this utter shambles and everything that comes with it.
Irrespective of whether the clubs voted for it or not, asking them to pay for it for one game, without adjusting the off the top cut to cover costs of hosting the game is unreasonable.
0 -
1 hour ago, oneteaminglasgow said:
Presumably the justification is that the Premiership clubs all had to pay for it themselves, so why wouldn’t we.
The Premiership clubs were paying for it for more than one game and in most cases more than one season. Do you think that justifies asking another club that isn’t in the premiership to pay for it for what could and did turn out to be one game ?
0 -
14 minutes ago, Pie Of The Month said:
Only if you fail to read anything beyond the word 'and'.
What’s the justification for paying for VAR
0 -
4 hours ago, Pie Of The Month said:
I believe the justification for it is the SPFL needed the money from gate receipts to be put towards the parachute payment for the 11th placed team if they got relegated. The parachute payment is something like £500k in year 1 and £250k in year 2 and I suspect there would be clubs not willing to agree to the playoffs being introduced if all that money came from their prize money.
Is he not asking about the justification for paying for VAR for 1 game.
0 -
12 hours ago, Thistle_do_nicely said:
Contractual bonuses could be anything really, all depends, but per match and considering there's the manager + at least 11 players, it could pile up very quickly.
Ad Lib points out the VAR cost too which I'd forgotten about entirely and is probably another reason for the chasing it out of Scotland thread...
Although I wouldn’t put it past them, surely the SPFL are not charging the championship club for the installation of VAR for one game. If we haven’t banked close to £50K for the playoffs, there’s something wrong.
0 -
2 hours ago, TxRover said:
We got six of those this year vs the Pars, and if they’d made the playoffs we would have potentially seen eight.
I think when we played QP on the 2nd Jan, that was the 8th time in a year and a day - not quite all in the one season.
0 -
1 hour ago, jaggymct said:
I was at Firhill last night for a shirt sponsors event and Paul McDonald was at our table and this came up, he does not think there is much if any at all of a financial benefit to the playoffs after everything is taken into account.
I think we must have made something from the playoffs last year. We had close to 20,000 people at Firhill over the 3 games
0 -
29 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:
We're Partick Thistle not pushing for it after being "demoted", only to then decide the current set up is perfectly fine after being promoted again?
I've no idea how that has to do with anything we've discussed.
I am sure if you thought hard enough about it you would figure it out.
0 -
2 hours ago, thistledo said:
Yeah maybe bad example, a neutral venue perhaps.
Presumably, you would still have to pay for a neutral venue.
0
The Partick Thistle thread
in Scottish Championship General Chatter
Posted
When he signed his contract extension(to summer 2026)in December, the blurb says it includes a player/coach role in future seasons.