potty trained Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 Oh very clever editing there! Well done! If you look at my edit, and your original post, you'll see that all i did was remove the bumff. i left your condescending remark, unedited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 No! a good pitch givesw you the option for entertaining football. at the start of the season we were shit due to tactical errors, players off form and a defence/goalkeeper who had no faith in each other. at the start of the season, we tried to play football, just were not capable of it. now we have gelled, we are... but the pitch will not allow us to. thats everyones point you cant guarantee that good football goes along with winning soooooo can we take that gamble... and incase you are unsure the answer is no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie Of The Month Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 In my opinion, I've found them, though. I just need the club to back me, and i will be proved right. In your opinion, we don't need to get lapsed fans back as money is coming from else where? Are you seriously telling me, you believe, that if Thistle were playing entertaining football the crowd wouldn't increase by 10 or 15%? If so, how should we get them back, we're now pulling crowds below 2000, and we are down to directors pulling money out their companies petty cash to subsidise us. We need to get the fans back. How do you suggest we do that? Please don't mix up entertaining football, and winning, there is a big difference. Just ask the folk who aren't returning, even tho we won a couple. Stirling 6-1 Dunfermline 2-0 Queen of the South 3-1 All played on a shite pitch. Tell me which ones we didn't play entertaining football in as I rather enjoyed all 3. Winning and entertaining and yet again the crowds never came back after any of them. Or you could continue throwing around the condescending accusation when you've been far more condescending to LMJ in this thread than anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaggybunnet Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 I fully accept that at the moment we rely completely on the warriors income. However, WHY is this? Why are other clubs surviving without renting their grounds to rugby teams? I would argue that the reason we rely on the warriors income so solely down to the financial mismanagement of the club over the past 10 years. I would argue that the football has suffered because of the rugby. because they are in debt up to the hilt and have people who are willing to lose lots of cash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Dave Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 All good posts on this I feel. I think the reason crowds all over the first division are down is that in the main there's nothing to play for I.e no play off spot for second place. But who cares? As long as the old firm get to play each other 7 times a season then everythings ok. It's time the cowardly chairman of all our teams took some action and stood up to them two but of course that will never happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 Stirling 6-1 Dunfermline 2-0 Queen of the South 3-1 All played on a shite pitch. Tell me which ones we didn't play entertaining football in as I rather enjoyed all 3. Winning and entertaining and yet again the crowds never came back after any of them. Or you could continue throwing around the condescending accusation when you've been far more condescending to LMJ in this thread than anyone else. Show me one post where i have made a condescending remark to any jags fan. But no worries, if you've misread anything i've said. It's all about opinion afterall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
little_miss_jag Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 In my opinion, I've found them, though. I just need the club to back me, and i will be proved right. In your opinion, we don't need to get lapsed fans back as money is coming from else where? Are you seriously telling me, you believe, that if Thistle were playing entertaining football the crowd wouldn't increase by 10 or 15%? If so, how should we get them back, we're now pulling crowds below 2000, and we are down to directors pulling money out their companies petty cash to subsidise us. We need to get the fans back. How do you suggest we do that? Please don't mix up entertaining football, and winning, there is a big difference. Just ask the folk who aren't returning, even tho we won a couple. Even if we got the lapsed fans back - why should we say no to 100k from the warriors? I think if we were challenging for the title then yeah of course fans would come back. But if we are sitting 4th and playing entertaining football then honestly no I don't think loads more fans would come back. Those folk you refer to am sure will always have an excuse not to come back. I do not have the answers - havent said I do - I just think for you to say that we do not need warriors money is stupid. If you have found 300 fans then as I said I will eat my red and yellow hat - why do you need the clubs backing to get those fans back?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie Of The Month Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Show me one post where i have made a condescending remark to any jags fan. But no worries, if you've misread anything i've said. It's all about opinion afterall. Have 8, and even if you disagree as you say "it's all about opinion". I think you've said enough. But, we're only sharing opionion, not fact. Don't know, don't care. Calm down! let me repeat this again!!! our pitch is shit!!! we cannot play entertaining football on it! if we had a good pitch we could play entertaining football. if we play entertaining football, people will come to watch us, as it is entertaining! people do not come to watch us... one of the reasons is, it is not entertaining!!! ARGH!!!!! Is it me? Oh for the love of god! Please don't mix up entertaining football, and winning, there is a big difference. Just ask the folk who aren't returning, even tho we won a couple. If you look at my edit, and your original post, you'll see that all i did was remove the bumff. In fact even the tone in this is condescending in its nature towards LMJ It's good to read a member of staff on this thread not being hysterical, or being condescending to the paying customers. Now let's get back to the point of my post, which of those 3 games wasn't entertaining on our rubbish pitch? Or you could continue yet again to ignore the many many points various people in this thread have made which show you up to be talking nonsense. Edited March 21, 2011 by Pie Of The Month Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 I fully accept that at the moment we rely completely on the warriors income. However, WHY is this? Why are other clubs surviving without renting their grounds to rugby teams? Long story short is they aren't. I would imagine that our pre-existing debt levels, to whom we owe it, and on what terms it is owed have a big impact on our budget. You will probably also find we have higher overheads than other clubs relating to the size, design and location of our stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 The pitch is a feckin disgrace. End of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 Have 8, and even if you disagree as you say "it's all about opinion". Aye, but apart from that, what have the Romans done for us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lineens weegie army Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 A couple of points about this: 1) How bad is the pitch, really? It's not the worst ive ever seen it, and I have only been going to Firhill for 4 years.. Also doesn't look anywhere near as bad as Fir Park in previous seasons (not seen it recently), and McDiarmid looked far worse last time I saw it aswell. 2) Why do people think the pitch will suddenly resemble the Emirates or Old Trafford, simply by kicking the Warriors out? These grounds have fantastic pitches because their owners spend millions of pounds to keep them fantastic, not because they don't host rugby matches (infact, OT does host rugby - albiet not as frequently as Firhill). If it was that simple, why does Hampden not have a perfect surface (despite probably spending far more on maintainance than Thistle/the SRU do)? or any other ground in Scotland for that matter. the poor pitch is caused by the hard winter, not what sports have been played on it. Granted, the extra strain of 15 rugby matches on top of Thistle games will not have helped the pitch, but it is playing games (rugby or football) after extended period of bad weather that have led to its current state. I have been at ever Glasgow game this season, yet on several occassions this season I have noticed the pitch looks significantly worse than when we last left. That suggests the football is doing a fair amount of damage to the pitch aswell. Look at the season before last - when the pitch held up fine. Rugby was played on it that season aswell, so what is the difference? Oh yeah, we had nowhere near as hard a winter... 3) in relation to other clubs not having rugby clubs as tennents - that is almost entirely because there is only really one team with a need to use a football ground (and only 1 ground that is suitable for that matter - so consider yourselfs lucky). Strangely enough, Falkirk, Dundee, St Johnstone, Inverness CT and Aberdeen have all accepted SRU cash to host games in recent years (OK, Aberdeen was a full international so worth a hell of a lot more, but the others are U20 or 'A' games), and I am fairly sure that if the SRU were to revive the Caly Reds then Dundee would bite their hands off for the chance to bring in an extra £100k a year. So far as I know, the only football club to turn down the SRU in recent years is Hibs. Infact, to the best of my knowledge, the only other club in the world to have turned rugby down is Barcelona - and even there it was approved by the board and only vetoed by Guardiola. Im pretty sure if the Olympic Stadium pitch holds up fine next month then that one will happen next season. If the state of the playing surface is so important to the number of 'supporters' that turn up, then why not pressure the club to change something that will make a real difference? push for summer football, for example? (even with the same pitch, that would possibly get you your 300 fans AND keep the £100K from us!) Or even install an artificial pitch? (again, best of both worlds - although I would be amazed if crowds suddenly shot up!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potty trained Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 Or get your groundsman to do the job their paid to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lineens weegie army Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 Or get your groundsman to do the job their paid to do? sorry, no can do. He is hitting the gym right now so that he is ready to play for us next season while our internationals are at the World Cup (actually, im not going to joke about that. I wouldn't put it past that clown McKie..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 The pitch is a feckin disgrace. End of. Agreed. But in response to the OP, it is not the worst it has ever been. Couple more months to go though yet, still time for possibility of that unenviable accolade, so out of question, yet, it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted March 21, 2011 Report Share Posted March 21, 2011 This may or may not have been raised in the thread already but it is playing games in the rain that causes the damage to the pitch, and that's regardless of whether it's rugby or football. If that happens then there will be problems. It's the churning of the wet surface by players of either sport. Last season there were no games played in heavy rain and the pitch lasted well from start to end of the season. There's been a few games played in heavy rain this season, most recently the downpour towards the end of the Queen Of The South game. Season before last was poor and I think there six games played in heavy rain that year. We could get rid of the rugby but we'd hit the same issues if we got rain in a couple of games playing football. I'm not sure what options might be available, if any, to mitigate against this but I suspect the room for manoeuvre is limited Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Hosie Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 This may or may not have been raised in the thread already but it is playing games in the rain that causes the damage to the pitch, and that's regardless of whether it's rugby or football. If that happens then there will be problems. It's the churning of the wet surface by players of either sport. Part of the problem also comes from the fact that the undersoil heating was used so extensively. It kills the roots of the grass apparently, which makes it easier to churn up the pitch. I don't think it is any concidence that the parks in better condition now are the ones that didn't stage matches/use their undersoil heating during the worst of the winter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lady-isobel-barnett Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Part of the problem also comes from the fact that the undersoil heating was used so extensively. It kills the roots of the grass apparently, which makes it easier to churn up the pitch. I don't think it is any coincidence that the parks in better condition now are the ones that didn't stage matches/use their undersoil heating during the worst of the winter. Putting the finances aside we'd feel right clowns if we ditched the rugby only to find the pitch still didn't hold up. For reasons, as Tom points out, that could easily happen. Hampden, Fir Park & McDiarmid have all been/are dodgy this season, tho' I think Geoff Brown blames Elton John . Not been mentioned yet but one way forward could be a plastic pitch but I have reservations. Plus side would be opportunities to rent out pitch during week, not have to rent other pitches/training facilities so often, and far less likely to lose a game to the weather (tho' I noticed Stenhousemuir had a game postponed recently while Falkirk's was on). Also the income wouldn't be as guaranteed as at Ochilview, Recs, and as was New Douglas Pk where there isn't the same competition. But, just my opinion and I've watched many games on plastic, I feel something's missing from the entertainment value. Kinda like watching golf on lush parkland courses as opposed to traditional links. Everything's that wee bit more predictable and duller. I've only brought this subject up as I don't see the point in complaining about our pitch without offering some sort of solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) I would assume that the cost of running the undersoil heating is less than the loss of income in a match rescheduled to midweek. If not, then we should give serious consideration to limiting its' use given Tom's point. Of course, where cash flow is important getting the money in may well be more important than the impact on the pitch in the short term, although it's undoubtedly a false economy in the longer term Edited March 22, 2011 by Allan Heron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Willjag Posted March 22, 2011 Members Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 I suspect the USH was used primarily this season for getting Rugby matches on. I certainly can't recall us sticking it on in order to make sure a game was played? I'm no gardener, but I suspect the grass roots die because the USH taes all the moisture out of the ground. Perhaps the pitch should therefore be watered when the USH is on (and fingers crossed it doesn't freeze)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northernsoul Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Yeah forgot it's a conspiracy and the board don't care one bit about us and they're in it for themselves. The same board who raised the 100k we needed until the end of the season eh? Back to "lets blame the board", yawn, is it not getting a little boring? And why was that exactly? Financial mismanagement, that's what. You know what the reason the product on the park is pants is because lapsed fans don't go and we have hardly any playing budget or any money for that matter. How can we possibly say we do not need the warriors. We clearly do. Absolute rubbish. Or perhaps its the fact that lapsed jags always seem to have an excuse of some sort. The pitch is crap, it's too expensive, I don't like the board etc etc why not just admit you can't be arsed to come along week in week out and see the team win lose or draw. That’s a very ignorant outlook. 3) in relation to other clubs not having rugby clubs as tennents - that is almost entirely because there is only really one team with a need to use a football ground (and only 1 ground that is suitable for that matter - so consider yourselfs lucky). Remind me to thank you personally in the future. If the state of the playing surface is so important to the number of 'supporters' that turn up, then why not pressure the club to change something that will make a real difference? push for summer football, for example? (even with the same pitch, that would possibly get you your 300 fans AND keep the £100K from us!) Or even install an artificial pitch? (again, best of both worlds - although I would be amazed if crowds suddenly shot up!) 'Supporters'? You know diddly-squat about why the Club is on its arse. Why get so touchy about people criticising the pitch and the ground sharing agreement with the Warriors? I know what you and SRU are hoping for anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWM Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Right I was wondering. If the club got a plastic pitch, saved a fortune on USH, hiring out pitches for training and the youth teams and so on, as well as the other maintenance costs, and maybe even making money off it from community use, would we be better off in that position or in the position of taking the rent from the Warriors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lineens weegie army Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 Why get so touchy about people criticising the pitch and the ground sharing agreement with the Warriors? I know what you and SRU are hoping for anyway. I was merly trying to point out the fatal flaw in the OP's plan - ie. what happens if you kick us out and the pitch doesn't improve. And do you? care to tell me what that is? Right now, I am hoping we still have a pro team in Glasgow when the current deal for Firhill expires - something that isn't exactly certain at the moment Right I was wondering. If the club got a plastic pitch, saved a fortune on USH, hiring out pitches for training and the youth teams and so on, as well as the other maintenance costs, and maybe even making money off it from community use, would we be better off in that position or in the position of taking the rent from the Warriors? No reason why you can't have both - several russian rugby clubs already play on artificial turf, and Saracens will become the first Heineken Cup team to play on the stuff next season. (Racing Metro of Paris are also planning to install astroturf when they move into their new ground in a few years) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 There is no reason why we can't have an artificial surface with the Warriors continuing to play at Firhill. The only problem is that we would like to compete in the SPL sooner rather than later and until they relax their rules on the matter we probably shouldn't have it installed. I don't understand the SPL's stance on artificial surfaces when it has been fine for the Champions League final. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck snort Posted March 22, 2011 Report Share Posted March 22, 2011 There is no reason why we can't have an artificial surface with the Warriors continuing to play at Firhill. The only problem is that we would like to compete in the SPL sooner rather than later and until they relax their rules on the matter we probably shouldn't have it installed. I don't understand the SPL's stance on artificial surfaces when it has been fine for the Champions League final. An artificial surface hasn't been used for a Champions League Final. If you're thinking of the game in Moscow the pitch was grass that night. Russia do you use it for internationals and the Moscow teams for Champions League early round games though. 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.