lady-isobel-barnett

One of the flawed arguments against larger SFL leagues is that a larger bottom division would have no relegation. So you could have four or five teams competing for promotion from the bottom league and maybe a dozen teams playing meaningless fixtures for much of the season. A league no matter the size without relegation season on season is nonsense. The perennial and regular 3rd Div clubs like Montrose, Berwick, Albion Rovers and many more will obviously vote for the status quo of a ten club bottom division and no to a pyramid system. Just another case of self preservation within the SFL. Sandwiched between the aforementioned lower league clubs and the self preservation league itself are clubs like Ayr, Raith, Ross Co, Pars, Falkirk and of course ourselves. It's hardly any surprise that it's ourselves and these other clubs that are facing the greatest financial hardships. The fact that we're playing in a a repetitive tedious league of ten is no coincidence nor is the fact that clubs of similar status to ourselves are the ones who've been haemorrhaging support.

Know where you're coming from but there should still be some minimum criteria. I agree that clubs shouldn't have to upgrade capacity but they should be made to comply with having to offer a certain percentage of their capacity to away support. Also if there was an SPL 2 there should never be another Raydale and Morton should have to clean up their act.

Hardly worth arguing against your points, Steven, but I think Paddy T's far more representative of the real beef against 10 club leagues. I don't envisage larger leagues would have much of a mid league cushion where clubs could feel easier blooding youngsters. Any new larger league set up will have to counter the increased likelihood of "meaningless games". Measures in place would probably be along the lines of play off places (top and bottom) or even cash or seeding initiatives based on final place in league. Much as I want to see younger Jags players introduced sooner rather than later I would prefer to see any larger league every bit as competitive as the current set ups. The tedium of playing other clubs a minimum of 4 times a season is undoubtedly the principal reason for scrapping the status quo. btw limiting every club to a squad of say 16 players over the age of 21 with no restriction on the number of players below that age would be a far more effective way of bringing in youngsters to first team football.

I suppose the eight top teams in SFL Div1 would be invited but there could be minimum stadia standards etc.

I'm sure this Doncaster fellow was only a matter of months ago advocating a larger league.

Surely it must be much more than that?

the latest I've heard is that four SPL clubs (Hearts, Dundee Utd, Killie & ICT) are NOT in favour of the proposed change(s).

Agree. I can't think of any successful commercial business that can build a sustainable model completely ignoring the wishes of the end user.

Maybe worth re-reading this I'm of similar opinion as Willjag on this. My immediate reaction would probably be not renewing my season ticket and likely attending only a handful of games. I repeat once again, what the **** is our only supporters association doing about this? Has the idea of canvassing its membership even occurred to the Trust? We already know that (thru Supporters Direct) nearly 90% are against a 10 team SPL 1 and over 70% in favour of enlarged leagues. We really need to confirm that our fans are broadly in line with Supporters Direct. So while I'd probably no longer support the Jags to the same degree as I do just now I've still a certain sympathy with David Beattie. He can only vote for what he thinks is best for the Club. But the Club is the fans and his judgement is severely hampered by not knowing what the majority of the support want.

Doubt it. Don't you know that there's more attractions on a Saturday, it's too dear and folk won't sit in a stand under 50F? True there'll be a handful of Jags fans, myself included, in attendance but we're just the thickos who are oblivious to the patronisation from the rest of our support.

That's as I understand it. They were probably going to sign the guy Robb (who I assume is playing for nothing) but he can now only play a few games as trialist. Not sure if he slipped in under the radar or not. I'm guessing they'll still sell Griffiths but they'll maybe be balancing up selling Harkins against their prospects of avoiding relegation. Their cup game will surely show their intentions and it'll be interesting to see who they cup tie. I'm unclear on whether they can sell Grifiths to another club and get him back on loan. I suppose they could structure any deal so as they effectively aren't paying Griffiths (or Harkins) during the loan spell and thus get round the embargo. All they need do is agree a price with the buying club and then knock a few grand off.

I'd say no. Couple of reasons being he's not played anything like 90 mins this season and he's not scored. Also he may have lost a yard, thru his injury, what pace he had (similar circumstances to Buchanan). That's actually three reasons and I just feel it would be too much of a gamble.

They may have just been caught off guard. They could have been planning to sell Griffiths and/or Harkins for decent money and bring in a couple of cheap replacements. They were assuming that while under appeal to SFA the new player embargo would be temporarily lifted. They've just found out that route remains closed. Their so called chief exec McLean is most indignant about this. Obviously he doesn't see anything morally questionable about ripping up folks contracts, making them redundant and then a few months down the line replacing them.

Bannigan is the type of player who could win us a lot of free kicks just outside the box. All we need is dead ball expert. Hardie? It's a pity Stuart has missed out on games thru postponements but must be a certain starter against Hibs this weekend. Personally I'd rather see Bannigan returning after that and MacBeth go out on loan. We really need to see the bigger picture first to know if any midfielders are moving on.

I thought Balatoni played very well the game against Ross Co when he came on shortly after Archie was red carded.

Lad's only 19. Bound to improve.

So yellow ones cost more. Something to do with inflation?

Far from it. Who'd have thought thirty year ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Château de Chasselas, eh?

We're really obliged to play Balatoni and help in his development otherwise we'd face difficulty getting loan players in the future. We'd maybe be better sending Lochhead and maybe McGeough out on loan tho' we could struggle at right back if Paton is unavailable. In any case I think Lochhead's future may be more as a holding midfielder. I wouldn't be surprised if Robbo is told this month he's free to find another club as he isn't likely to be offered a new deal in the summer. That would be the fairer way to treat the guy than just releasing him in May. I don't see why we can plead poverty on one hand and have so many centre backs (or fill ins) on our books. We've Willie K, Archie, Balatoni, Robbo plus McNamara, Maxwell, McGeough, Lochhead and at a push Rowson who' wouldn't be out of place in a back three. Boyle can also play there tho' there's no real cover for him at left wingback except maybe Hodge.

More Pressleyspeak here re Binos having to play with a weakened side, Elvis strongly refutes this on his club's official website but in the next sentence he adds .Quite a complex character is Mr Pressley.

Not just the last game but the postponed one the other week. Pressley evidently said that we weren't keen to play them that day. I'd suggest it was just the opposite.

Some smashing photos in there. For younger viewers the New Camp Bar was for a while owned and run by Roughie and his look-a-like brother. btw I'm assuming Alex Campbell's next to Peacocks the Baker is a bookies. The photo looks almost certainly early/mid sixties. Surprised then to see such sophistication as an extractor in the windae.

Much as it pains me I doubt a 3 pts and a 2 goal plus from a Falikrk home game against the Binos can be considered out of the ordinary. Putting my Mr Positive Bunnet on my rather stressed and cynical cranium I'd say that Falkirk playing at home against a team in the same division, plagued so much by sickness and injury, and only winning by two goals, will be no match next week for the mighty Jags. Here's hoping

With next week in mind hope they knock lumps out of Falkirk.

Talking to a Bino fan today and rightfully he's angry about this. Effectively Falkirk are getting three points handed to them on a plate. Albion should just turn up with 8 players or whoever is fit. It's the SFL that are, not unusually, making a mockery of things.