mgow

I think them most likely date for either team winning the league is after the games on Sat 27/04. To clinch it any earlier, either team would have to obtain & sustain a 7 point advantage until the end of Sat 20/04. From a Thistle perspective, the concern is that first time around the remaining 7 games only yielded 9 points (2 wins at home, 3 away draws plus a defeat both home & away). Further, two of the draws needed late goals to get the point (one very late) and even one of the wins needed a goal in 86 minute – it could have easily been only 5 points. On the plus side, even with “only 9 points”, it would put is on 74 points and leave Greenock needing 5 wins out of 6 for their games (or 4 wins and 2 draws). Thistle do have the ability to win this league, but there is still a lot of work to do, starting tonight. Results on Sat 30/03 mean that Thistle are guaranteed to go into the match vs. Greenock on Wed 10/04 at the top of the league. However, a win tonight vs. Rovers would also guarantee Thistle still being at the top regardless of what happens on Wed 10/04. I think that could be a crucial physiological advantage going into that game. That said, even a point tonight would be a good result. These are exciting if stressful times!

Billy Dodds – I have no desire to see him here as a manager. As a media pundit, his comments range from the bizarre to the unintelligible, although I must confess that I am sure I have heard him utter sense on a few occasions – must be the law of averages I guess. However, although he has many sins as a player, we should not forget his two magic moments in a Thistle jersey 1) In his first spell, 4 goals on Boxing Day against East Fife which I am pretty sure resulted in “back page headlines” (for younger readers, people used to have to read paper sheets to get any form of news, so this was a big thing!) 2) In his second spell, he got shoved in the back at Inverness. That doesn’t seem like that consequential to the Thistle universe, but we got a very late penalty and Mark Roberts secured a 2-2 draw in the Scottish Cup. That led to a live replay on Sky and more cash. The replay was duly won on penalties (our first EVER win of any kind on live TV) and we got another live Sky game in the next round plus a share of the cash from Tynecastle. These funds secured full-time football for the following season.

I caught a bit of Radio Scotland yesterday before 3pm. Derek Ferguson was making reference to an on air interview that Jackie had clearlly just given but I didn't hear it. He mentioned that "Jackie made a lot of sense" and I get the impression that it wasn't too favourable to the Middle 8 split. However, did anyone else hear what Jackie actually said?

For clarity, I was only suggesting that points could be carried forward for the Top 8 of 24 (teams 1 to 8 in SPL 1) and also the Bottom 8 of 24 (5 to 12 in SPL2) as their seasons will consist of playing the same teams as eachother all season (7 teams 4 times and 4 teams twice). The Middle 8 of 24 (teams 9 to 12 in SPL1 and teams 1 to 4 in SPL2) would of course have to start the post-split on 0 points. A minor point against this proposal considering all its other flaws.

On the actual SPL proposal of 12+12, I would be wary of anything that puts more power (in the form of more member clubs) to that shower (while accepting that the other 2 bodies aren’t very good either). For those in the middle 8 post the split: you are throwing away 22 games and bring promotion / relegation down to a 14 game sprint. Potential “meaningless games” are a factor of any league. While it is less likely to occur in the final 14 games (but if you lose your first 4 or 5 it might), I think we are equally as likely to get meaningless games within the 22 played in any new SPL2. As an example, take a look at the points gathered in the current SFL1 after 12 games (top 6): 26, 26, 22, 19, 19, 13. Ignoring the teams involved and looking just at the numbers, with 10 games until the split, I would reckon that probably only 5 teams have a realistic chance of a top 4 finish. The top 2 would look near certainties, so you have 3 teams playing for 2 spots and a whole host of near-meaningless games. Also, the prospect of gradually building a team to win the 2nd top league and then using a that momentum to consolidate in the top league would be gone at a stroke. Instead, most of these “middle team”, which Thistle are most likely to end up, would spend most seasons in this group with no real ability to plan for a full season at a time. As a Thistle supporter, the reality of playing in the top league is one of numerous defeats and unjustifiable expense. However, it is exactly where I want us to be (judging by our house, even little things like the lack of a sticker collection outside of the SPL makes the fight against the OF harder). While the current set up of only 1 up is laughable, this proposal has gone too far the other way and actually makes wining promotion less special. For those in the bottom 8 post the split: you do have the advantage I presume that points from the first 22 games can be carried over. That reduces the risk of meaningless games early on in the campaign, but unless your are planning to relegate 4 of the 8 (where to?), there quickly becomes little to play for once a couple of teams start to get detached at the bottom. No one would be fooled by the prospect of winning a trophy for effectively being the 5th best team in your league. In terms of the detail, what happens to the remaining 18 clubs in the SFL? Overall, the SPL idea is all about preserving the notion that the top teams need to play each other 4 times to survive. However much razzmatazz or frippery they dress up the rest, these extended play-offs will only really work for the top 8.

UEFA "34 game" rule – my understanding was that, for a number of years now, UEFA was trying to persuade all its member countries so have a top league of 18 (hence 34 league matches). I always understood that 34 league games was seen as the maximum, not a minimum or set number. The primary driver was to free up more slots for expanded European competitions. With the advent of the Europa league and now more Champions’ League groups, you could argue they have already got their expansion anyway. Given that only 1 of the 5 major leagues conform (Germany 34 games); the other 4 all play 38 games (Italy, Spain, France & England). This suggests to me that this potential constraint is broadly irrelevant to any proposed restructure here in Scotland.

In terms of a captain, I have always found it hard to quantify what they do other than call heads or tails at the start of a game. Curiously though, all teams that I can think of that had any real degree of success had an “Inspirational captain” in their midst!. Judging by the way Paton was rallying the players even as Craig was sloping off the pitch on Saturday, I think Paul is well on the way to being a pretty inspirational captain for us too. I am comfortable with either Archie or Paton as captain right now, but they need to be getting in the starting 11 on merit alone. Right now, that puts Paton in pole position!

Catering: The Fanta we bought was the fizziest it has been all season. Given the low quality and high prices, we avoided the hot food this time. As mentioned before, the large price list above the kiosk and also the small one stuck to the drinks fountain both still listed hot dogs as £2.70. Last time I was charged £3.80. Joined the queue 15 seconds after half-time whistle, but was more annoyed that I seemed to pick the slowest server. I did notice that a certain gettingjaggy did get a whole new queue opened for her: not sure if it was the “teenagers shorts” or her celebrity Jags Blogger status that merited that honour ;-) Facebook pictures: His mum wasn’t too happy about our eldest attending his second match in 24 hours; as dad, I couldn’t let him down, could I? Especially so as it was on the back of 3 evening sessions of football training midweek last week, and the same again this week plus another Scotland game tomorrow! However, the resulting picture on the excellent Thistle Facebook site of the two of us seemed to make partial amends for her. On the pitch: Smashing. Keep it up please!!!!

He wasn't on wind up, but I agree with you that a side on view is far better. That is why I said "with what he felt was a diminished view". In his opinion, he could see the entire pitch from the North Stand last season. Being at the end of JHS this season, he struggled to see the action at the corner between the JHS and The Bing. My general point was that, while Home fans take precedence, Away fans make a contribution in terms of finance & atmosphere, so it could be useful (albeit difficult) to canvas some views from them as well.

This feedback actually only covers the home games until Dumbarton (25/08), as I couldn’t make the Hamilton game. Hope it is still of use: Catering – Lots of problems here. Single easily fixable one for me that is that the Price List above the stalls is wrong (or at least in couple I have been too). Hot dogs are listed there as £2.70 but they are now £3.80 (I was told that “the price has gone up”!). Nearly got embarrassed as only had enough cash when I found a loose £1 in my pocket. In terms of quality, they looked pretty poor but my two still ate them. That said, at that price, I am much more likely to bring some crips etc instead and risk the wrath of my two kids. Drinks aren’t too badly priced but so far this season the fizzy drinks have been flat and / or weak. As we can’t bring in our own drinks, this is a big let down. In more general terms, hats off to onethistle with all the things they are trying to do to improve things. Not all of them will work, but hopefully we can all help shape a better match-day experience off the pitch. Looks like I will have to wait a good few years before mien are old enough to sample the North Stand (but it might be worth stating over 16 only on the official site: http://ptfc.co.uk/matchday/admission_prices ). I spoke to a Falkirk fan at work after their visit, and while enjoying the football (not the result), he wasn’t too happy with what he felt was a diminished view of the action, stating it would probably impact any decision to return for the later fixture. While it won’t be easy to get genuine / sensible feedback, any plans to canvas away fans on their thoughts?

I have heard that throwing ripped up Half-Time draw tickets in the air can resolve that particular issue.

He will def get into Jackie H at anytime as I have done it a few times before. If no stewards outside, bang loudly on red fire exit doors in middle of stand. As uberteeb says, it is half price (but if 1st half hasn't finished it is still full price). If your son is under 16, I am not sure if half of FREE is FR or EE ;-)

Weirdly, the night before the changes first appeared I was looking at the site and thinking that the logos etc. were all several years old and depicted player in the old hoops top. Broadly speaking, I think the changes are positive and it is good to see effort being put into the web site – thanks to those who gave their time (as I suspect it would be volunteers). There are a few niggly items that I am hopeful will evolve over time. Here is some feedback to those it may concern: Initial splash page – to me it works best if it is highlighting something very specific and isn’t there all the time (e.g. our current one should include a link to buy the purple strip and then drop off in a week or so). The SFA use one to good effect when tickets for Scotland fixtures go on sale. A few clicks too many – Unless you can hover over the links at the top (which I can’t work out how to do on my mobile device), clicking the main link (e.g. “Teams & Fixtures”) requires about 4 clocks to get to the real info. These links should go to the most likely / current info, with additional links to get historical stuff. Matchday Info link – While retaining the link at the top, in the final few days before a home game we need a big & prominent button to press that takes you to a single page with the key info about attending the next game / all kids go free etc. Info on stands – we need a diagram that gives the names of the stand in relation to street names etc. Google maps doesn’t tell you were the Jackie Husband (North End) really is Video – it is great feature and I really like the additional angles and emerging use of replays. However, the video from the likes of Queens Park shows just how much further we could improve full screen, compatibility for other devices / browsers , controls to rewind accurately etc

Thanks. Manually added my post to that thread.

From the other thread I started in error.... Came across this: http://www.dailyreco...86908-23912841/ (SPL and SFL on brink of agreeing £1.2m Rangers telly deal with Sky). While anything written in the DR needs to be viewed with a degree of scepticism, if true, it seems to be underselling the value of those rights. If the £1.2m is for 45 matches over 3 seasons, it works out at £13K per club every year if shared evenly among all 30 teams (as all other SFL media monies seem to be). Assuming Newco get to play and don’t go bust, most SFL clubs with a ground capacity under 5,000 would probably still come close to selling out their grounds even if there was live TV, so any TV money is a bonus. However, surely most other clubs with bigger grounds would lose out. If live TV put off much over 2,000 supporters across the 2 games they are likely to get in that 3 year spell, the entire £39K would be wiped out. Also, as this plan is being dreamed up to attempt to bail the SPL out of their ”Sky TV problem”, shouldn’t it be used as a bargaining chip to get genuine League Reconstruction sorted out first. I would have hoped that the SFL chairman will have thought of all of that though, so will have a plan! If anyone was listening, my personal preference would always be for a highlights package over live games. With highlights, more teams get exposure and it sets people up to watch on a regular basis and perhaps is more likely to make them become interested enough to go to an actual match.

Came across this: http://www.dailyreco...86908-23912841/ (SPL and SFL on brink of agreeing £1.2m Rangers telly deal with Sky). While anything written in the DR needs to be viewed with a degree of scepticism, if true, it seems to be underselling the value of those rights. If the £1.2m is for 45 matches over 3 seasons, it works out at £13K per club every year if shared evenly among all 30 teams (as all other SFL media monies seem to be). Assuming Newco get to play and don’t go bust, most SFL clubs with a ground capacity under 5,000 would probably still come close to selling out their grounds even if there was live TV, so any TV money is a bonus. However, surely most other clubs with bigger grounds would lose out. If live TV put off much over 2,000 supporters across the 2 games they are likely to get in that 3 year spell, the entire £39K would be wiped out. Also, as this plan is being dreamed up to attempt to bail the SPL out of their ”Sky TV problem”, shouldn’t it be used as a bargaining chip to get genuine League Reconstruction sorted out first. I would have hoped that the SFL chairman will have thought of all of that though, so will have a plan! If anyone was listening, my personal preference would always be for a highlights package over live games. With highlights, more teams get exposure and it sets people up to watch on a regular basis and perhaps is more likely to make them become interested enough to go to an actual match.

That has always been my understanding, hence the annual "settlement payment" when the original SPL was set up. To get round this, SPL2 would need to re-negotiate that payment (would expect it to be lower as less clubs would be left in SFL) but that would need a majority or more of current 30 SFL clubs to agree. Hence, if the SFL clubs sit tight, I can't see how SPL2 can happen, so it can be a "free" vote on NewCo to Div3.

This sudden loss of the "settlement payment" from SPL to SFL has been referred to a couple of times and is rapidly becoming an example of the old maxim about repeating a lie often enough then it will eventually become true. If the SPL choose not to pay it then, even in the "interesting times" we currently find ourselves in, the SFA would have to intervene as surely it would be a football debt that would need paying; otherwise redress would be sought by the SFL via the legal route. The only other scenario that fits would be if enough of the SPL clubs went under (effectively meaning the SPL goes bust) but then we would have the surviving clubs all seeking to join the SFL. Similarly when it comes to setting up SPL2, won't some form of settlement payment be needed in lieu of 2 years notice to leave the SFL? Even that would need the majority of the 30 SFL clubs to support it so why would any of the 20 clubs being cut adrift vote for it without including provisions for promotion and relegation? I would like to think that all it would take is some clear thinking and some solidarity from the SFL clubs to say to the SPL / SFA that "your ideas for change are brilliant and we will happily consider them over the next few months so they can be in place for 2013/14; obviously we are all committed to sticking with the current flawed system for one more year because if we don't then it will look like we have been bribed or bullied and we know you don't want that; now do you want us to promote a 2nd club or not because we really need to know if we have a vacancy in what looks like the final season of our 3rd Division". Yes, it is geniunely nice to hear from these and others, despite the circumstances. This forum and our club are enhanced by their inputs.

The document makes reference to the "settlement agreement" 2. RANGERS TO THIRD DIVISION • The settlement agreement becomes a major risk 5. RANGERS TERMINATED OR SUSPENDED • Settlement agreement is obliterated I take it this settlement agreement is the one the original SPL clubs signed up to when they broke away from SFL? In turn for being "allowed" to leave the SFL without giving the required 2 years notice, this agreement spells out the money they need to give the SFL each year, plus agree to take the SFL champions if they met the required ground criteria (or if the SPL fancy ignoring them for a laugh). If that is what it is, why on earth would the existence / league position of one club impact it? Is the inference that the SPL could "legally" rip it up or perhaps that the SPL would be too broke to pay it?

From memory, the 4th in a 4-1 win down there in the Colonel Gees strip.

Falkirk said: “It would be totally unacceptable if a “Rangers Newco” were admitted to the First Division on the current rules”. I agree that the “on the current rules” could be a nod to reconstruction meaning all bets were off. However, it does go on to say that: “ Even a weakened “Rangers Newco” would have resources that far outstripped all other First Division clubs and this would pretty much guarantee them promotion before the season even starts” plus uses the F-word in that “Fairness is a word not often quoted in the current situation”. As I said on the other thread, in the end, it would all come down to how the SFL teams actually vote if it is ever put to them. Football boards have been known to vote differently from their publicly stated position (Raith Rovers voting to change the SPL structure from 12 to 10 is one I recall).

I got a reply from the club late this afternoon, directing me to the statement on the official site - http://www.ptfc.co.uk/news/2012-2013/june_2012/statement_from_board_of_directors . I remain unconvinced that some of the language is enough to lessen the anger being felt by many e.g. "we want to ensure the sporting integrity of our game is upheld. At the same time, however, we also need to be mindful of the commercial situation". I think many would be happier with a statement like the one from Falkirk – it references fairness - http://www.falkirkfc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5986&Itemid=320 It is infuriating in many ways as there has been a number initiatives off the park that were generating a real feel-good factor for the up-coming season. In addition, most supporters would be in agreement with the majority of the other things Beattie said (from adversity comes opportunity, League re-construction and more than 1 promotion place).) In terms of Season Ticket renewal – much of these statements is pure conjecture. Even if Beattie was making the same statements as Falkirk, in the end, it would all come down to how they actually vote if it is ever put to them. Football boards have been known to vote differently from their publicly stated position (Raith Rovers voting to change the SPL structure from 12 to 10 is one I recall). I am in a minor quandary about whether or not to get our renewals tomorrow or hold off. I think that, on reflection, there is nothing concrete here at present. I suspect that I will renew. If things pan out the wrong way in terms of a future vote, I hope to have decades to make any protest without making one right now when nothing has actually happened. I think it would be very sad if we allowed speculation about something that NewCo might do to damage our club now – that mob have done enough! I have faith, perhaps misplaced, that if it ever comes down to it, the PTFC Board of Directors will vote to ensure that all football clubs are treated equally and fairly (to me, that means that any new club trying to join a league structure must join at the lowest level and work their way up). However, should the SPL vote for fairness (and they have missed plenty of opportunities to do that), I do believe that it will require a concerted effort from all SFL supporters to ensure that their respective boards do vote for fairness too. Therefore: get your season ticket if you can but keep up the pressure on our board!

Statement from our board on OS - http://www.ptfc.co.u...rd_of_directors Compare it to Falkirk's - http://www.falkirkfc.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5986&Itemid=320

Thanks twinny. I notice that the SFA link says "Notes for Editors: The Judicial Panel Tribunal shall issue a note of reasons in early course". I guess that detail is being withheld until after the appeal.

I've been trying to keep up to date, but I'm struggling to find much coverage of this on TV, radio, newspaper etc. ;-) So apologies if these have been covered already: - Have the details of the reasons for the SFA penalties (fines for Whyte & his club plus a transfer embargo) ever been published? If so, did the SFA cover the "dual contracts" issue or is that investigation still to conclude? That seems to me to be the biggest issue in all of this. - On the "Big Tax Case": if this ever concludes and finds in favour of HMRC, would that liability follow any "new co" or reside / die with the existing company? If the liability does follow "new co", wouldn't "new co 2" be inevitable anyway if HMRC kicks in later during 2012/13? We would be able to kick off this whole circus again. Overall, I am struggling a little to understand the furore over which league a potential "new co" would play in. Most of the concern is around ensuring that a suitable level of punishment is handed out. To me, the main offence has been committed at the point of entering Administration (financial doping in terms of having players that they couldn't afford, no longer able to pay creditors in full etc.). It is too late for this case (as it always seems to be for Scottish football), but I would much rather see stiffer penalties for entering Administration in the first place, rendering debates about liquidation / "new co" irrelevant.