DiegoDiego Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 2 hours ago, DreamOakTree1 said: flaunting the rules Did we learn nothing from the COVID thread? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moses1924 Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 14 minutes ago, TxRover said: then possibly try to cancel the contracts Presumably the contract could be set up in such a way that if promotion is not secured the contract is null and void? Having bankrupted ourselves once trying to meet SPFL entry requirements I would rather stay down than lay a grass pitch until promotion had been secured. There are a lot of benifits to the artificial pitch which outweigh a season or two in the top flight. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CountryBumpkin Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 Its an incredibly nuanced topic that, like most on a forum, is going to be doused with opinion being treated as facts, zero evidence to back up claims and no one willing to change their opinions regardless anyway. For me, i'd prefer a top quality grass surface every day of the week, but these pitches are a lifeline to a lot of clubs, the benefits of being able to train at the ground, get multiple uses from the facilities and have the stadium be somethng more than just a place to watch a game 20 times a year is massive. To be able to have kids go and use the surface and play on the same pitch as the players they support at the weekend is huge, its creates a bond and brings people back to the club more often than it doesn't. The increase in Raiths crowds this year is primarily down to the re-engagement with the local community (new board have pushed on that massively) and being able to engage with everyone that uses the pitch is a big part of that. I'm sure the same rings true at Falkirk, Airdrie, Cove etc as well. This vote essentially came about because Celtic got beaten by Kilmarnock and needed to find an excuse for their performance. There was no research carried out to build a case for banning artificial surfaces, no studies, no evidence provided to back up any claim. It came about because some permatanned bawbag couldn't rally his collection of second rate foreign garbage to beat a smaller on-form team. It should also be noted that this agreement that the SPFL have with a "top UEFA approved firm" will be engaging with Premiership clubs, not any of the other clubs, which means it could be unlikely that a grass pitch at Partick, Morton, Raith or any other could be deemed unsuitable or failing to meet the criteria by the time they get promoted anyway. Its the 10,000 seat fiasco all over again 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 3 minutes ago, CountryBumpkin said: Its an incredibly nuanced topic that, like most on a forum, is going to be doused with opinion being treated as facts, zero evidence to back up claims and no one willing to change their opinions regardless anyway. You say that like it's a bad thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted June 2 Share Posted June 2 7 hours ago, Bairn in Exile said: Because Firhill is missing an end and not a side? So doesn't apply to PT? His point clearly does suggest that this something which should apply at Firhill. The view from the gantry in the Jackie Husband Stand is miles better, but unfortunately it looks at the (often empty) Main Stand. Which looks shite on TV or highlights - as does the permanent embarrassment of the abandoned south end. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forameus Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 Hypothetical question - say in future seasons you're coming down to the final weeks of the season, and two teams have pulled clear. No specific clubs, but those two both have artificial pitches, and are very happy with their quality and the way they fit in with the club themselves. Would we end up having the case where neither side really wants to actually win the league, because they'll essentially be signing themselves up to getting rid of the thing that is benefiting them, to install something that will be a big financial hit to them, and which may become irrelevant if they go straight back down? Would that not be a massive riddy to the SPFL in general, or are they still not capable of embarrassment? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baba douche Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 2 hours ago, forameus said: Hypothetical question - say in future seasons you're coming down to the final weeks of the season, and two teams have pulled clear. No specific clubs, but those two both have artificial pitches, and are very happy with their quality and the way they fit in with the club themselves. Would we end up having the case where neither side really wants to actually win the league, because they'll essentially be signing themselves up to getting rid of the thing that is benefiting them, to install something that will be a big financial hit to them, and which may become irrelevant if they go straight back down? Would that not be a massive riddy to the SPFL in general, or are they still not capable of embarrassment? That would suit them fine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiegoDiego Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 2 hours ago, forameus said: Hypothetical question - say in future seasons you're coming down to the final weeks of the season, and two teams have pulled clear. No specific clubs, but those two both have artificial pitches, and are very happy with their quality and the way they fit in with the club themselves. Would we end up having the case where neither side really wants to actually win the league, because they'll essentially be signing themselves up to getting rid of the thing that is benefiting them, to install something that will be a big financial hit to them, and which may become irrelevant if they go straight back down? Would that not be a massive riddy to the SPFL in general, or are they still not capable of embarrassment? Surely they'd still try and win the league, but would be denied promotion, similar to what happened with Buckie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Diamond For Me Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 (edited) Absolutely zero decisions should be made on the basis of what people who think football is a TV show would prefer. Not pitches, not seating arrangements, not VAR. Edited June 5 by A Diamond For Me 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Diamond For Me Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 "We should market our game as traditional" shouldn't mean "we should create a pastiche of traditional football for a TV spectacle". Why not hand out wooden rattles and get rid of running water in the lavvies while we're at it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiegoDiego Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 I quite like the idea of brining rattles back. I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxRover Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 5 hours ago, forameus said: Hypothetical question - say in future seasons you're coming down to the final weeks of the season, and two teams have pulled clear. No specific clubs, but those two both have artificial pitches, and are very happy with their quality and the way they fit in with the club themselves. Would we end up having the case where neither side really wants to actually win the league, because they'll essentially be signing themselves up to getting rid of the thing that is benefiting them, to install something that will be a big financial hit to them, and which may become irrelevant if they go straight back down? Would that not be a massive riddy to the SPFL in general, or are they still not capable of embarrassment? 1) Winning the league results in more money, even if you won’t be promoted. 2) Will the hoi oligoi looking down at the hoi polloi decide to NOT automatically promote the team in third place and then just put the fourth place team directly into a playoff with number 11 if the second place team will not qualify? 3) Or would they promote the third place team and call it good? 4) Or maybe even deny any auto promotion, allow normal playoffs and then if the second place team wins, deny them promotion too! -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipie1983 Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 My local club SUTTON UTD won the English conference league playing on ASTRO. They were told if they did win promotion, they MUST REMOVE ASTRO FOR GRASS! LEAGUE 2 ENGLAND! But bizarrely we let our top flight get away with it! Joke rules for a joke association! -4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbyDiamond Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 On 02/06/2024 at 10:04, Chicken Soup said: The same attractive football would be a better spectacle if played on a quality grass pitch though, you are able to demand both. It’s a shame fans of these clubs would rather protect their own current setup than push for a higher quality product for themselves, and by extension, everyone. Sitting in an away stand with a roof in the pouring rain would also be nice but we can't have everything eh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 1 hour ago, CumbyDiamond said: Sitting in an away stand with a roof in the pouring rain would also be nice but we can't have everything eh You can sit in an away stand with a roof in the pouring rain at Cappielow whenever you want champ. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 3 Share Posted June 3 7 hours ago, forameus said: Hypothetical question - say in future seasons you're coming down to the final weeks of the season, and two teams have pulled clear. No specific clubs, but those two both have artificial pitches, and are very happy with their quality and the way they fit in with the club themselves. Would we end up having the case where neither side really wants to actually win the league, because they'll essentially be signing themselves up to getting rid of the thing that is benefiting them, to install something that will be a big financial hit to them, and which may become irrelevant if they go straight back down? Would that not be a massive riddy to the SPFL in general, or are they still not capable of embarrassment? It's not a hypothetical question - it's a ridiculous one. Everyone knows fine well that the clubs complaining about the rule change would chuck every community organisation, women's team, under 12s diversity futsal tournament and even their own granny under a bus if they get within a sniff of playing football in the top flight. The extra top flight revenue and parachute payments would more than pay for the change of pitch, which is why the mewling for compensation (a bribe) can also be filed in the bin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pogo1910 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 On 02/06/2024 at 13:17, Mediocre Pundit said: It’s a continued riddy - and we should do something to make it tidier and eventually develop that end. But we actually do a decent job of ensuring as much as possible of a broadcast is shot from that end and up towards the developed side of the stadium. What is the reason that end of the ground has been neglected and how long has it been like that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 18 minutes ago, pogo1910 said: What is the reason that end of the ground has been neglected and how long has it been like that? This won’t be the most detailed explanation ever, but I’ll give a brief synopsis. It dates back to when our old board sold off the city end of the ground, where the purchasers of the land were planning on building a small stand & attached office space. The old terracing was then bulldozed before planning permission was even granted for this new project. Planning permission was then refused, and we’ve been sat looking at a hideous grassy mound / scaffolding ever since. The city end is now back in the hands of the club, thankfully. So at some point I’m sure get it sorted, but it’s quite low down the list of priorities for the club at this point. ETA - to answer the other part of the question, this end was sold and the terrace demolished in the late 2000s iirc. The land was only returned to the club a few years ago. Edited June 4 by Nightmare 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuctifano Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 The city end terracing was ripped up in summer 2006 so the Bing is now legally old enough to drink. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Duck Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 On 03/06/2024 at 17:31, virginton said: You can sit in an away stand with a roof in the pouring rain at Cappielow whenever you want champ. Apart from the “sit” bit, assuming you’re over 5 foot 0. And good to see your rancid chat is still a carbon copy of that from 5 years ago. Champ. 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.