Thistle v Morton

[fifexile]

9 hours ago, Jaggernaut said:

One thing I wonder about with the pitch is why it is SO bad this season. We've had teams ground sharing with us before, sometimes for years on end  (Clyde, Hamilton, Warriors.... Didn't Clydebank even share with us for a while?) and so with just as many games being played as now. Even in the old days of the Reserve leagues, when the first team were away from home the Reserves had their matches at Firhill, so there was probably no overall greater use than now.

We know that over the years the club has put money into improving the draining of the pitch, yet this year it's clearly in a disastrous state (as bad as in some of those old photos from the 1960s!)

So why is it SO especially bad this year? 

Has the findings of the company who were brought in to survey the pitch been released? I seem to recall the issue being a combination of a blocked drainage system, additional games and the poor weather? 

I'd love to see a hybrid pitch like a lot of bigger teams (Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal and the ugly sisters) have but I have read that installation would cost around £600k so can't see that at Firhill any time soon.

[a f kincaid]

The Edinburgh Evening News recently reported that Hibs were concerned about their "problem" pitch (!) and that they would love to have a hybrid but they can't afford the £700k price tag.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

1 hour ago, a f kincaid said:

Don't know where I saw this but I read that QP are being charged around £8k a game (say £160k in total).  If the figure of £40k is correct then at around £2k a match, it's ridiculously low.  In short, no-one knows.

If you see my previous post re some back of the envelope arithmetic I'd suggest that £8k a game would be crippling to QP. Great if that's the case but that would represent perhaps the income of over 600 fans a game to cover the rental. QP have previously used Airdrie and Alloa as a home match base but perhaps with these clubs (plus Clyde & Falkirk) being in the same division their options for groundshare were on the low side. It would tho' be playing hardball to get £8 a game out of a club that hardly generate enough gate money to cover the rental

1 hour ago, a f kincaid said:

The Edinburgh Evening News recently reported that Hibs were concerned about their "problem" pitch (!) and that they would love to have a hybrid but they can't afford the £700k price tag.

£700K wouldn't be an insurmountable sum if we had a groundshare agreement with a displaced club. An agreement with either of the OF re their colt team, visiting Euro clubs and  training, the SFA re Women's, Under 20s, Youth international fixtures etc. Apart from the obviously good playing surface, our geographical position & to a lesser extent, facilities would be a major selling point. Big drawback of course is a chicken and egg situation.

[jaggy]

If the £40k is true then I’d be pretty sure Leeane Dempster earns more of a salary.

 Also it’s chicken feed for Lord Haughey and some others that are involved in QP

[fenski]

I've thought about the hybrid pitch option too, remembering back to when there was a similar situation at Murrayfield. I think I've read the £700k figure too. As a one off investment which potentially eliminates what has been a recurring issue for years and means the pitch could be used more frequently without being ruined, is it really insurmountable?

[westertonjagfan]

On 2/24/2022 at 7:01 AM, Fawlty Towers said:

I don't seem to recall many (if any) posts about the number of people in the management team after a victory 

100%

[jlsarmy]

5 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

If you see my previous post re some back of the envelope arithmetic I'd suggest that £8k a game would be crippling to QP. Great if that's the case but that would represent perhaps the income of over 600 fans a game to cover the rental. QP have previously used Airdrie and Alloa as a home match base but perhaps with these clubs (plus Clyde & Falkirk) being in the same division their options for groundshare were on the low side. It would tho' be playing hardball to get £8 a game out of a club that hardly generate enough gate money to cover the rental

At this moment after selling Hampden for circa £5 million to the SFA it’s fair to say Queens Park should be pretty flush for money just now .

I would hope that whoever did the deal with QP has factored in the damage to the pitch, think when Glasgow Warriors were using Firhill they helped with the costs to repair the pitch at the end of the season.

I would hope our Chief Executive has factored in a  6 figure deal for the use of our pitch and facilities.

[jlsarmy]

20 hours ago, Fawlty Towers said:

That is fair.

More general discussion point - at the start of a season should it be the board or the manager who sets the targets?

The Board of course 

[Fawlty Towers]

52 minutes ago, jlsarmy said:

The Board of course 

I would agree but after discussion with the manager so the target is realistic.

[AirdrieJag]

On 2/24/2022 at 9:44 PM, Third Lanark said:

Unfortunately I don’t think the state of our pitch is going to help with any targets.

 

unless something radical is done over the summer we could lose our better players and miss out on other targets.

I have no idea if the £40,000 income for the hire of the pitch is true but if it is and we are left with having to pay something like £200,000 to repair it then it has to go down as one of the most ridiculous decisions the club has made in recent years- on a par with appointing a manager because of a power point presentation and just as costly

If we dig the pitch up and relay it over the summer its not going to cost anything like 200k.  £50-55k would be a realistic estimate for that work. 

[AirdrieJag]

13 hours ago, fenski said:

I've thought about the hybrid pitch option too, remembering back to when there was a similar situation at Murrayfield. I think I've read the £700k figure too. As a one off investment which potentially eliminates what has been a recurring issue for years and means the pitch could be used more frequently without being ruined, is it really insurmountable?

In the context of the financial impact of relegation, the unfair Covid settlement, no  fans etc. , I suspect a hybrid pitch is outwith our reach at the moment. But I sense there's a growing body of opinion in support of that as a long term aim

[fenski]

I'm watching my son play on a 4g pitch this morning. Infinitely better than Firhill.

[Garscube Road End 2]

1 hour ago, fenski said:

I'm watching my son play on a 4g pitch this morning. Infinitely better than Firhill.

A Hippo's mudbath would be better than Firhill. 

[sandy]

On 2/26/2022 at 12:22 PM, Garscube Road End 2 said:

A Hippo's mudbath would be better than Firhill. 

The Hippo might also score

[Garscube Road End 2]

Just now, sandy said:

The Hippo might also score

Let's sign them up to face Arbroath. 

[elevenone]

On 2/26/2022 at 10:29 AM, fenski said:

I'm watching my son play on a 4g pitch this morning. Infinitely better than Firhill.

Can he play out wide or up front?  Asking for my mate Ian.

[JAG1970]

With Putin putting his nuclear threat on high alert maybe we’ll be vacating Firhill whether we like it or not  

[partickthedog]

2 hours ago, sandy said:

The Hippo might also score

To quote Aristotle on the subject of hippopotami:

"One wallow does not a summer make"

[AirdrieJag]

On 2/24/2022 at 3:01 PM, laukat said:

I don't see much wrong with the coaching team, the playing style they are trying to play or the playing squad (bar a lack of a striker). If anyone should be considered for a P45 then it must surely be the person(s) responsible for agreeing the groundshare.

If its true that we are only getting £40k from Queens Park for the pleasure of playing on mud and messing up our promotion chances then that looks an extraordinarily bad piece of business. I could understand it if Queen's were paying £100-150k as they would then be funding 3 or 4 players and a promotion push that we normally struggle to finance  but at £40k that's really just one player less.

Gerry Britton was a brilliant player but he doesn't appear to be making a great chief exec.

I'm not clear on who's at fault in the Rudden deal. I get that Rudden wanted to go for a bigger payday but why did we allow a loan and not make a permanent transfer even if the fee had to be decided by arbitration at a later date? If we had rejected the transfer would Rudden really have not given his all after the window closed?

I'm not particularly bothered to lose Rudden as whilst he has potential he was still a bit hit and miss. I've just more concerned that the deal we struck to allow him to leave looks poor and we so far haven't replaced him with a similar type of player.

Whilst Jukubiak is a decent player I'm not convinced McCall looked at him and defintely wanted him to replace Rudden. I think McCall had his eyes on other targets but either was told we could only afford Jukubiak or his original targets knocked us back because of the state of the pitch.

It seems to have become the 'conventional wisdom' on this site that we got £40k from Queen's Park for the groundshare, and this is now treated as a fact, despite the lack of evidence to support the assertion.  The club's silence on the issue doesn't help. 

We took a massive financial hit with relegation in 2020, no fans at games for almost a year and the £150k Covid payment.  Supposing the offer from Queen's Park was much more than the £40k being touted, and that that funded Tiffoney and some of the other players we have brought in, would that make the Board's decision more understandable and reasonable? 

[lady-isobel-barnett]

11 hours ago, AirdrieJag said:

It seems to have become the 'conventional wisdom' on this site that we got £40k from Queen's Park for the groundshare, and this is now treated as a fact, despite the lack of evidence to support the assertion.  The club's silence on the issue doesn't help. 

We took a massive financial hit with relegation in 2020, no fans at games for almost a year and the £150k Covid payment.  Supposing the offer from Queen's Park was much more than the £40k being touted, and that that funded Tiffoney and some of the other players we have brought in, would that make the Board's decision more understandable and reasonable? 

That's kinda like what I was wondering, if not thinking. If the net income is say considerably above £40K could it not be construed as good business? More than likely the pitch was always going to need substantial repair irrespective of QP using it around 20 times. Of course if any Saturday postponement was avoidable had QP not been at Firhill, the drop in revenue to midweek would have to be factored in. 

Think what I'm trying to say is that there's a lot of unknowns and conjecture out there. Perhaps the bigger sin was in not anticipating the rapid deterioration of the pitch? Then again I'm the world's worst gardener so my opinions are largely worthless