rhubarb1974 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 13 minutes ago, clansman said: Weren't you the one who wanted all the teams who don't own their own grounds, rent from the councils, have artificial surfaces or ground shares excluded. That would eliminate Clydebank, Beith, St Cadocs, Cumnock, Benburb, Gartcairn, Kirkintilloch and Largs. Clydebank are happy to take on anyone even a resurgent Talbot. We might not win but we will keep plugging away. I for one wouldn't see Tommy Sloan tanking a playoff to avoid promotion so might not be a long term problem. I personally think Talbot lost too many points in the initial spell for them to win it. I do however think it will be an Ayrshire top 3 come the end of the season. In which order I am not sure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensmad Posted February 28 Author Share Posted February 28 4 minutes ago, rhubarb1974 said: So from that list Clydebank, Bens and KRR shouldn't be able to be licensed imo due to ground sharing. KRR aren't a licensed club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIRUU Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Ffs rhubarb not only do you target your own club with your nonsense, you are now having a go at every other team. Think you need to come out as a cricket fan as obviously not a football one with your sleekit wee agendas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhubarb1974 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 Just now, glensmad said: KRR aren't a licensed club. I never meant they were, I meant teams ground sharing shouldn't be able to get a license. I think teams should have their own ground and the match secretary be in a position to cast them fixtures when suits him not needing to sort 3/4 leagues to try and balance ground sharing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhubarb1974 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 minute ago, GIRUU said: Ffs rhubarb not only do you target your own club with your nonsense, you are now having a go at every other team. Think you need to come out as a cricket fan as obviously not a football one with your sleekit wee agendas. Please back this up or feel free to keep your troll status. I at least provide explanations. Any word from the committee on the gate split yet or an apology? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanner Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 hour ago, clansman said: Go back to the SJFA then and reconstitute the West Region. Anyone who wants to leave can leave and the WSFL can continue with clubs who want to be there. Bizarre reaction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clansman Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 I'm sure fixture guy has considerably more problems from non ground sharing clubs with grass parks who can't get a game on whenever there's heavy rain than organising Yoker and Clydebank s fixtures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clansman Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 6 minutes ago, Shanner said: Bizarre reaction. No it would be bizarre if anyone did as WOSFL is considerably better than West Region was in end. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhubarb1974 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 minute ago, clansman said: I'm sure fixture guy has considerably more problems from non ground sharing clubs with grass parks who can't get a game on whenever there's heavy rain than organising Yoker and Clydebank s fixtures. I disagree, there have been games off this season on astro as well when grass parks have been on. i.e. Largs off, Talbot on in the one weekend. Groundsharing will cause the most disruption to match planning. We lost a weekend due to groundsharing already this season. Instead of the match secretary looking at one league at a time and casting the fixtures he need to look at multiple leagues to get it to balance. There is more than just Clydebank/Yoker sharing so it isn't just one or two fixtures effected. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIRUU Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 55 minutes ago, rhubarb1974 said: Please back this up or feel free to keep your troll status. I at least provide explanations. Any word from the committee on the gate split yet or an apology? You said it was split between auchinleck and Darvel which was rubbished. Don’t jump in with the truth as if a different split was your idea in the first place. We see right through you regardless what the split is mr felippe felope 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clansman Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 (edited) Just out of interest, what is WOSFLs cut when it comes to semi finals and finals for comparison Edited February 28 by clansman 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 13 minutes ago, clansman said: Just out of interest, what is WOSFLs cut when it comes to semi finals and finals for comparison Quote In all matches except for the Final, the cost of the match officials shall be deducted from the gate receipts and a 10% levy of the remaining sum paid to the League. The remaining monies shall be divided equally between both participating clubs. Both WoSFL Cup and Strathclyde have that in their rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhubarb1974 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 25 minutes ago, GIRUU said: You said it was split between auchinleck and Darvel which was rubbished. Don’t jump in with the truth as if a different split was your idea in the first place. We see right through you regardless what the split is mr felippe felope Historically that was the case with the 3 way split hence the slagging we received from Talbot fans asking about our clickers, I then corrected myself to 40/60 split between home team and SJFA. You were then adamant that I wasn't correct as the committee of Darvel hadn't understood things correctly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIRUU Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 minute ago, rhubarb1974 said: Historically that was the case with the 3 way split hence the slagging we received from Talbot fans asking about our clickers, I then corrected myself to 40/60 split between home team and SJFA. You were then adamant that I wasn't correct as the committee of Darvel hadn't understood things correctly. No it was you that said they didn’t understand. It was about tickets v pay at gate. Nothing about the split, which you said you as an equal split. But crack on rewriting yourself. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhubarb1974 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 1 minute ago, GIRUU said: No it was you that said they didn’t understand. It was about tickets v pay at gate. Nothing about the split, which you said you as an equal split. But crack on rewriting yourself. Ticket are not required to be sold in advance, the only mention of tickets is each fan entering should be given a numbered ticket. There is absolutely no requirement for pre-bought tickets. I am sure for clarity and trust, the SJFA would prefer to have it pay at gate and a numbered ticket issued to each person. SJFA officials check the numbers before and after game. As mentioned above I corrected myself around the split as this season they have changed the rules, previously a 3 way split of home and away gates, this season 40% to home team, 60% to SJFA. Away team get nothing. Look back on your posts you said I must be wrong as that isn't what the Darvel Committee said. I am sure if you knew football at this level longer than just when we started spending money you'd be aware of this? That is the problem when you have people involved in clubs that don't understand the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDBENS Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 2 hours ago, clansman said: Weren't you the one who wanted all the teams who don't own their own grounds, rent from the councils, have artificial surfaces or ground shares excluded. That would eliminate Clydebank, Beith, St Cadocs, Cumnock, Benburb, Gartcairn, Kirkintilloch and Largs. Clydebank are happy to take on anyone even a resurgent Talbot. We might not win but we will keep plugging away. I for one wouldn't see Tommy Sloan tanking a playoff to avoid promotion so might not be a long term problem. Benburb don't ground share, St Cadocs do, Benburb own New Tinto Park, get facts right before spouting more nonsense 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clansman Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 39 minutes ago, JDBENS said: Benburb don't ground share, St Cadocs do, Benburb own New Tinto Park, get facts right before spouting more nonsense So if it came to applying the exclusion St Cadocs get kicked out and you lose the revenue. Not like it's going to happen as the suggestion from rhubarb in his prejudice not mine. Apologies I was trying to do from memory and forgot to take ownership into account but it is astro another of his prejudices 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDBENS Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 5 minutes ago, clansman said: So if it came to applying the exclusion St Cadocs get kicked out and you lose the revenue. Not like it's going to happen as the suggestion from rhubarb in his prejudice not mine. Apologies I was trying to do from memory and forgot to take ownership into account but it is astro another of his prejudices Apologies, I was replying to Rhubarb and his inane drivel, and to correct him, we don't groundshare, st cadocs do, and if it were to be banned, we'd be fine, st cadocs would have the problem, but that ain't happening anytime soon, unfortunately in modern times to generate income and survive, astro is the way most clubs invariably will go 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhubarb1974 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 59 minutes ago, JDBENS said: Benburb don't ground share, St Cadocs do, Benburb own New Tinto Park, get facts right before spouting more nonsense I meant St Cadocs not Bens! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhubarb1974 Posted February 28 Share Posted February 28 4 minutes ago, JDBENS said: Apologies, I was replying to Rhubarb and his inane drivel, and to correct him, we don't groundshare, st cadocs do, and if it were to be banned, we'd be fine, st cadocs would have the problem, but that ain't happening anytime soon, unfortunately in modern times to generate income and survive, astro is the way most clubs invariably will go It doesn't help when low quality astro is installed, I know other countries are beginning to ban them due to eniromental impact as well as the negative effect on player health. Yes, bens would be fine. I won't change my mind, football should be played on grass not astros. It is a horrible surface, slows the game down and makes the game a poorer spectacle. I have low critised new tinto, you have two astro surfaces, the big square in middle is different material and length. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.