Jump to content

G51

Gold Members
  • Posts

    6,483
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by G51

  1. 2 minutes ago, Caley_Scot said:

    I know its like a hammer to crack a nut. But maybe its whats needed as some of these guys dont seem to be heeding the we’ve asked you nicely approach, so why not go hammer and tongs? Maybe it’ll work or it won’t. But might make them think twice first

    The problem with it is that it would have a huge and disproportionate effect on the league table.

    FWIW I think that a player is more likely to be hurt by a fine and a ban, therefore hurting his income, rather than points lost for his team, which affects others much more than it affects him.

    The only scenario where I could see a points deduction making sense is if, like stated above, a Club has knowingly and deliberately disobeyed the rules and played a player who should have quarantined or is positive or something.

  2. 5 minutes ago, Caley_Scot said:

    One way to send a message through discipline is that and offending club has to forfeit all their games in the following 14 day window with standard 3-0 loses and as for the likes of what happened on sunday. That result is over turned and the full 3 points are given to the opposing  team and if they also have to call off any games in that 14 day window. Then just its just standard re-arranged games

    That would have a huge impact on the league table if we did that. I appreciate where you're coming from but it feels like using a hammer to crack a nut.

    As others have said, these guys are unlikely to be the last. Important not to lose the run of ourselves. I think a fine and a ban for the offenders would be suffice.

  3. Just now, Mr Positive, sometimes. said:

    If true they honestly should just give it up. 

    3 weeks in and we'll be at the point of more games called off then actually played. 

    If this is the precident for calling off whole week worth of games then whats going to happen when there's the inevitable non rule breaking outbreaks at clubs... 

    Always likely to happen in the winter. We'll be 20+ games down!

    It's just a rumour for now, but I would really struggle to understand the logic behind this one.

    Postponing Celtics games? Yeah, I could understand that. Killie? Bit of a stretch but again, understandable.

    The other teams? I don't see the justification in terms of health risks. If it's about sending a message, surely that is better sent through discipline of individual players/clubs.

  4. 1 minute ago, CambieBud said:

    If Morelos doesn’t leave Ibrox, RIFC will be in serious financial difficulties. They announced that they needed £10 million to complete last season, put their players wages on hold and have spent over £10 million on Hagi, Roofe etc. Popcorn on order

    My source in the Square Mile tells me that during a recent conclave among the Ibrox hierarchy, it was pointed out that the directors committed to covering all losses through soft loans and the conversion of this to equity.

    Stay tuned, Dear Reader.

  5. 2 minutes ago, Frank Grimes said:

    I wonder if we’ll need to shorten the season now

    No way they can pause and squeeze all these games in later

    Scenes if we need to pull out of Euro competitions as well 

    Hope the ScotGov think very carefully about this. As someone who votes SNP, the political fallout from shutting it down again would be pretty significant 

    I'm starting to wonder that too.

    Suppose from the SPFL's point of view, it's easy enough to just cancel the split and that'll buy you 5 extra matchdays and get rid of a scheduling headache. Won't be popular but it makes sense if something needs to be done.

  6. 9 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

    That’s all well and good but the Tv money being split evenly 12 ways would require a 11-1 vote in favour of it which would never happen.  Because of the monumentally fucking stupid 11-1 voting system.

    Agreed, the first thing to do is scrap the 11-1 system, which only benefits short-term thinking Old Firm teams. It amazes me that this survived Rangers' spell in the lower leagues.

    But ultimately, there will come a time in the near future where an Old Firm team propose a resolution that requires the support of other members. Perhaps I'm naive about the process, but I don't understand why other clubs don't say "Okay, but in exchange, the 11-1 system goes."

  7. 1 minute ago, Tutankhamen said:

    Feel sorry for the Italian and German fans in those one horse leagues.

    Those leagues are not perfect either, but at least in Italy a team like Atalanta were able to mount a title challenge. I can't imagine an equivalent-sized team mounting one in Scotland.

    Atalanta were able to put together a challenge because they found a tactical edge over their opponents and had the money to keep it together for a good while. We don't have the money to do that in Scotland, so we have to look at other ways to foster competition.

  8. Eventually, a team outside of the OF will win the league. But that's only as a result of variance - eventually, we'll have one season that is just so mad that a non-OF team wins it. Which is a shame - because the conditions for another team to put together a title-winning side should be more favourable.

    A lot of times there are Scottish football fans who look at other leagues and are envious - envious of the money and players in places like England etc. And when we look at how to close the gap to these superleagues, there's a myriad of ideas about how to do it. But one that is often overlooked is that a lot of these leagues are set up in a way that encourages more parity among teams than ours, which is what makes them more exciting, and in turn makes the league more desirable and (most importantly for us) fun.

    The frustrating thing is that the teams in the SPFL do not seem to recognise the benefits this would bring. It's not just related to prize money either - there are other rules you can implement that help to limit the advantage that Rangers and Celtic have. The five sub rule that was voted through earlier for example - all the indications we have is that this benefits bigger clubs over smaller clubs. So how did this get passed? And even if it does pass, what concessions do the smaller clubs negotiate in return? At the moment, the rules are overwhelmingly in favour of Rangers and Celtic to the detriment of the actual league.

    I take the weekends game for example - we'll see a match like Rangers 3-0 St Mirren 25 times this season. Rangers dominate the ball, St Mirren stick ten behind it, Rangers have 45 shots and three of them go in, St Mirren cross the halfway line maybe twice in the whole match. It's an instantly forgettable game that neither side will remember in two months time. Who actually enjoys this? For Rangers fans, it's a sense of relief that we haven't dropped points, because any Premiership title winner needs at least 85 points now so we can't afford to drop points. For St Mirren fans it's (I assume) a game that you can't really be arsed with and don't enjoy watching your team play in.

    It doesn't have to be that way.

    I would sorely like to see sweeping rule changes across the leagues that would make them more competitive and limit the advantage that Rangers and Celtic have over others. I don't think there's a single club that wouldn't benefit - Rangers and Celtic included. A strong league is good for everyone. Parity will be impossible to achieve, but we should still aim for it, and coming close is achievable.

    All of the above is just my opinion, of course.

×
×
  • Create New...