Jump to content

West Ender

What if they shut down the season?

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Personally I think the statement is poor, plays the victim card, brings NHS into it, and blames all for the predicament we are in bar those that got us to 27th place in Scotland from 6th a few years ago.

We have barely cut wages, squad size or back room staff size since leaving premiership,  stating we should have got more money cause we are full time yet part time clubs got more than us, these part time clubs are above us, in leagues with higher crowds and higher admission fees. 
 

We are doing ourselves no favors with the “Poor us” statements, we are where we are because of results on the park and piss poor decisions off it over last few years, not because a vote, not because distribution of Government funds (Remember Premiership clubs only get a loan, we actually receive £150k more in fee money than Livi or Accies). 
 

Ending the season last year in the way it did, diverted us away from the shambolic affairs on and off the park, our financial results show that with COVID only impacting for 2 months on those figures.  We should never been in the situation of being basically bottom of the leagues for nearly 3 complete seasons, and even dropping down yet another level we are struggling to keep up with the leaders. 
 

Sometimes victims are actually victims ......for some however the blame is always with our board .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, javeajag said:

Sometimes victims are actually victims ......for some however the blame is always with our board .

The statement is full of self entitlement and playing the victim.

It states "At the season start, the SPFL made it clear that clubs who were unable to play at any point would be penalised. Yet here we are, prepared to play but unable to do so as we are in a league of predominantly part-time clubs"  We haven’t been able to get a game on at Firhill last few weeks despite having undersoil heating, which appears we didn’t use (perhaps rightly) for financial reasons, should based on the statement from our chair, we be penalized for being unable to play based on a financial decision?

Once demoted, we fought for a restructure of leagues to allow us, as an ambitious full-time club, to continue playing”  The same ambitious full time club that has barely been able to fill a bench all season against part time rivals who have.

We warned last week that the football authorities’ distribution of monies, which penalised Thistle by £350k, could come back to bite us” Perhaps not overspending our income by nearly £400k last season would have cushioned that blow, we also got the same as every other team in our league, why should we have got more? Because we grossly outspend the majority of teams we are competing with? 

The final straw is the impact that this may have during the transfer window.”  only last week we basically issued a statement stating we were skint yet now we we’re going to splash the cash in transfer market to turn our season around.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't find a lot at fault with the statement. From a strictly PR perspective it may have had more appeal in answer to a journalistic setting, as it's a tad too detailed.

I would tho' have omitted all mention to the transfer window. In reality it may well have been a neutral window (new players balanced by those leaving) but it comes across as we were going to dig into the grant money to help finance any intake. So it could be construed that had we got the extra £350K we'd have used even more grant money to bolster the squad. 

I've no idea re the actual cost of covid testing but I believe it doesn't come cheap. If it results in Championship fixtures being postponed on a widespread basis it could feasibly eat up that £350K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gianlucatoni said:

If it’s a decision emanating from Hampden then you are never going to hear the true story - liars one and all.

As a previous poster said, if we are  deemed non essential then why are the top two  divisions not treated likewise?

 

That's why I said that the Scottish Government must answer the question.   This is not a question that can be claimed to be commercially sensitive,  its a matter of public health, which must be dealt with in the public domain. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, East Kent Jag II said:

That's why I said that the Scottish Government must answer the question.   This is not a question that can be claimed to be commercially sensitive,  its a matter of public health, which must be dealt with in the public domain. 

I think you have your answer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55622874

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Don't find a lot at fault with the statement. From a strictly PR perspective it may have had more appeal in answer to a journalistic setting, as it's a tad too detailed.

I would tho' have omitted all mention to the transfer window. In reality it may well have been a neutral window (new players balanced by those leaving) but it comes across as we were going to dig into the grant money to help finance any intake. So it could be construed that had we got the extra £350K we'd have used even more grant money to bolster the squad. 

I've no idea re the actual cost of covid testing but I believe it doesn't come cheap. If it results in Championship fixtures being postponed on a widespread basis it could feasibly eat up that £350K.

It would cost £50k in testing between now and the end of the season though unlikely to be needed  that long .... and how much gave clubs just received ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, McCall Out said:

I think you have your answer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55622874

Thanks McO.  McLeish is right in what he says.  Petrie, Maxwell and Doncaster  more than likely have gone into their meeting with the SG with the suspension of the lower leagues as the ace up the sleeve for the appeasement of the Government.  If so, and if the SG confirm that it came from football,  all of their positions become untenable.  There should be 20 lower league clubs unhappy enough  to act with the existing malcontents  to get rid of the whole cabal.

That's the theory.  But I get the impression that some part time clubs will be happy for the season to end, and will keep their heads down.  We don't have enough Championship & PL clubs on board  yet to be successful.   £500,000 to Championship clubs was a blinder of a move. Divide and rule.

But confirmation from the SG would be sweet revenge for them.  Are you listening, SG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Norgethistle said:

The statement is full of self entitlement and playing the victim.

It states "At the season start, the SPFL made it clear that clubs who were unable to play at any point would be penalised. Yet here we are, prepared to play but unable to do so as we are in a league of predominantly part-time clubs"  We haven’t been able to get a game on at Firhill last few weeks despite having undersoil heating, which appears we didn’t use (perhaps rightly) for financial reasons, should based on the statement from our chair, we be penalized for being unable to play based on a financial decision?

Once demoted, we fought for a restructure of leagues to allow us, as an ambitious full-time club, to continue playing”  The same ambitious full time club that has barely been able to fill a bench all season against part time rivals who have.

We warned last week that the football authorities’ distribution of monies, which penalised Thistle by £350k, could come back to bite us” Perhaps not overspending our income by nearly £400k last season would have cushioned that blow, we also got the same as every other team in our league, why should we have got more? Because we grossly outspend the majority of teams we are competing with? 

The final straw is the impact that this may have during the transfer window.”  only last week we basically issued a statement stating we were skint yet now we we’re going to splash the cash in transfer market to turn our season around.

A post full of twisted bizarre logic that manipulates facts to suit eg we said we have financial issues and that we would move players on to bring players in eg breen 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, javeajag said:

It would cost £50k in testing between now and the end of the season though unlikely to be needed  that long .... and how much gave clubs just received ?

There surely can't be even an estimated figure put on testing? By that I'm going on the assumption that the cost is pro rata. For every positive return that requires a postponement will thus increase costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

There surely can't be even an estimated figure put on testing? By that I'm going on the assumption that the cost is pro rata. For every positive return that requires a postponement will thus increase costs.

That’s the estimate for clubs testing from now to the end of the season 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

There surely can't be even an estimated figure put on testing? By that I'm going on the assumption that the cost is pro rata. For every positive return that requires a postponement will thus increase costs.

And a build up of postponed fixtures causes the SPFL even more difficulties.  I can see them calling the season for league 1 and below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fifexile said:

And a build up of postponed fixtures causes the SPFL even more difficulties.  I can see them calling the season for league 1 and below.

I agree and because there was nothing confirmed in the rules after last season, they will probably make it up as they go on .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

There is obviously going to be more in the Premiership, because they are being tested weekly. Just because you didn't test positive, doesn't mean you didn't have it.

But because someone hasn't tested positive, it doesn't mean that they are positive, or even that they are likely to have it.

Sure, with all the testing that's been going on in the Premiership and the numbers of cases they are returning, if anything it's them that should be stopped playing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

I agree and because there was nothing confirmed in the rules after last season, they will probably make it up as they go on .

I wouldn't be surprised if they form a kind of "Pools Panel" to decide the outcomes of the Scottish Cup games, for example, thereby ensuring of course that all Premiership Clubs would qualify for the later stages. Those of us in the lower leagues would have to "take our medicine." The sad thing is, there are probably tens of thousands of supporters of you know who who would agree that this is the "fairest" way to do things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jaggernaut said:

I wouldn't be surprised if they form a kind of "Pools Panel" to decide the outcomes of the Scottish Cup games, for example, thereby ensuring of course that all Premiership Clubs would qualify for the later stages. Those of us in the lower leagues would have to "take our medicine." The sad thing is, there are probably tens of thousands of supporters of you know who who would agree that this is the "fairest" way to do things.

I suspect it'll be much simpler than that, any team unable to fullfil a fixture as they are banned from playing will have a 0-3 scoreline put against them and they will be removed from the competition. Any teams remaining that cannot play, will simply give a bye to the next team they are drawn against in a subsequent round and thus be removed from the competition as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take away how they came to the decision, but you have to say that continuing with the lower leagues had become untenable. With the spread of the virus and the new variant being so much more infections, it was impossible to allow untested part time players to be travelling around the country and coming into close contact with other untested part time players. That simply had to be done, or introduce mandatory testing and players forming bubbles which would then impact on their permanent jobs. Yes that does hurt us, but public health and players welfare has to be the top priority.

Whether it is right for Premier and Championship to continue is a different argument, but that is not our fight.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only someone would be kind enough to give clubs some money to cover the costs of testing........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Alb said:

I suspect it'll be much simpler than that, any team unable to fullfil a fixture as they are banned from playing will have a 0-3 scoreline put against them and they will be removed from the competition. Any teams remaining that cannot play, will simply give a bye to the next team they are drawn against in a subsequent round and thus be removed from the competition as well.

Or take a short cut and just dump any team outside the Premier or championship out of the cup. If that leaves an uneven number of teams in the 5th round then use byes ( a new SFA rule will be introduced to state that the ugly sisters will be awarded the first two byes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alb said:

If only someone would be kind enough to give clubs some money to cover the costs of testing........

Not certain if you're highlighting what I was alluding to or not.

Just if you receive monies to help see you thru this crisis, and about the first thing you're seen doing is entering the transfer market........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Not certain if you're highlighting what I was alluding to or not.

Just if you receive monies to help see you thru this crisis, and about the first thing you're seen doing is entering the transfer market........

I think that the reference is to the Anderson money which was supposed to cover testing for all clubs

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Take away how they came to the decision, but you have to say that continuing with the lower leagues had become untenable. With the spread of the virus and the new variant being so much more infections, it was impossible to allow untested part time players to be travelling around the country and coming into close contact with other untested part time players. That simply had to be done, or introduce mandatory testing and players forming bubbles which would then impact on their permanent jobs. Yes that does hurt us, but public health and players welfare has to be the top priority.

Whether it is right for Premier and Championship to continue is a different argument, but that is not our fight.  

I agree with almost all of this. I think the club are caught in the eye of the storm with a very unlucky set of circumstances to say the least. What smells wrong is the timing of the decision and how it was made. It may of course have happened irrespective of the Celtic situation, but I think that was the final straw for the SG. We can only hope that the club comes out the other side of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alb said:

If only someone would be kind enough to give clubs some money to cover the costs of testing........

And not have it hi-jacked by the SPFL and diverted to the top flight maybe?

Have the lower league clubs already received their share of the SG money? Maybe they won't need it now they're not playing and the authorities can give it to the needy premier and championship clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

I think that the reference is to the Anderson money which was supposed to cover testing for all clubs

What happened to that money? I believe it was paid out 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

There surely can't be even an estimated figure put on testing? By that I'm going on the assumption that the cost is pro rata. For every positive return that requires a postponement will thus increase costs.

There is also the question of footballers taking up testing resource at the expense of the general population and whether that is justified.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, javeajag said:

That’s the estimate for clubs testing from now to the end of the season 

Per club or in total ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×