The Third Division title has already been won with all the games up to now being played as competitive matches. There is no need to mess with next season. Having a season where the team finishing in 33rd place is promoted above the team finishing 24th is ridiculous. The best way to get to 12,12,18 is to do it for the start of next season and avoid a season of friendlies or over-promoting the Div Three winners.
But having a system with the winners of the SFL3 this season have no reward compared to finishing last in terms of their division next season is even more ridiculous.
And anyway the winners of SFL3 would have to playoff against SFL2 teams in the system I produced, with the higher your league placing, the less games you would have to play to get into the 2nd tier.
In terms of over promoting the SFL3 winners, in affect all the clubs in SFL3 would be getting promoted anyway, as the system is reduced from 4 to 3 tiers. What you are doing is letting the SFL3 winners have the opportunity to be promoted one tier above the level that all the other SFL3 teams will be in.
When in England the conference north and conference south in non league football was introduced a system of a one off format of matches was introduced to ensure that teams not only could go from the old level 7 to a (slightly higher standard) new level 7, but also go into a new level 6. In affect going two divisions higher than their old league. No one complained that if a team won these matches they were "over promoted" because they had to win football matches to do this.
An SFA commissioned survey reveals the majority of fans want a bigger SPL and July/August-May season.
I respect that, but I still think both things would be completely wrong for the game. Democracy and football are generally a bad mix - what the fans want is often the complete opposite of what would actually work. Nobody seems to want to admit it, but one of the main reasons that fans want a bigger SPL is that they want to protect their club from relegation/artificially promote themselves into the top tier. Blind self interest like that isn't the best way to make a decision.
I'd much rather we had the American model of running sport, where the authority is essentially invested in one person - i.e. a "Commissioner". It's the only way you can get strong decision-making and avoid self-interest ruling everything. Things like the lopsided distribution of TV revenue in favour of the Old Firm are only possible because we used a democratic form of decision-making - in which the Old Firm's power was enough to persuade everyone else to go along with it.
The Scottish Premier League has confirmed that it is seeking legal costs claimed to exceed £500,000 for the costs of the Lord Nimmo Smith inquiry from the legal entity that is Rangers.
The commission was set up to investigate the use of employee benefit trusts, and ultimately decided that the entity did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the player payment arrangements, and that no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed.
The entity was found to have contravened disclosure rules, and a fine of £250,000 was imposed. The SPL is now seeking the legal costs of the inquiry from the legal entity that is Rangers.
The claims came to light in a blog posting widely circulated via social media channels.
The Scottish Premier League confirmed to The Firm that the blog’s payment claim was correct, although it did not verify whether the amount claimed was accurate.
“There has been a routine application for costs given that the case was successfully pursued by the SPL,” a spokesman for the SPL told The Firm this afternoon.
The SPL set up the commission to investigate financial, contractual and other arrangements between Rangers and its players between November 2000 and May 2011.
Harper Macleod, who represent the SPL would not confirm or deny the claims. In a statement issued via its PR and Communications Manager, Harper Macleod told The Firm: “We do not comment on legal issues relating to any of our clients.”
Hang on a minute. I thought they were innocent and have been punished enough lol
But having a system with the winners of the SFL3 this season have no reward compared to finishing last in terms of their division next season is even more ridiculous.
.
I completely disagree! There is absolutely no reason to delay this change for another year. The redistribution of money needs to happen now.
Rangers will still be Div Three winners and have that trophy in their cabinet. Next season they will be playing 8 new teams and will undoubtedly win promotion to the second tier.
What is the problem?
I completely disagree! There is absolutely no reason to delay this change for another year. The redistribution of money needs to happen now.
Rangers will still be Div Three winners and have that trophy in their cabinet. Next season they will be playing 8 new teams and will undoubtedly win promotion to the second tier.
What is the problem?
Because Green has promised investors he will raise season ticket prices and he knows its a hard sell. I think its more to do with the drivel put on display by McCoist and only an idiot would pay more to watch that!!
I am not sure about that. The dive was clearly designed to win a penalty.
But it was outside the box - it was the wrong decision to award a penalty for two reasons:
1 - The 'dive'
2 - Incompetent refereeing.
If the dive was inside the box then he should be banned, but why should a dive just outside the box be treated any different from a dive in the centre circle.
It makes out the referee was conned by Concalves, completely ignoring his incompetence.
But it was outside the box - it was the wrong decision to award a penalty for two reasons:
1 - The 'dive'
2 - Incompetent refereeing.
If the dive was inside the box then he should be banned, but why should a dive just outside the box be treated any different from a dive in the centre circle.
It makes out the referee was conned by Concalves, completely ignoring his incompetence.
Simply because by throwing himself into the box he was trying to gain a penalty. Do you honestly believe he was hoping for a free-kick?
Simply because by throwing himself into the box he was trying to gain a penalty. Do you honestly believe he was hoping for a free-kick?
I'm with bhoy07 on this one.
The referee really had 2 options open to him. Play on and book the guy for diving in the next break in play or give a free kick to St Mirren on the edge of the box. Instead the referee gave option 3.
Concalves wouldn't be getting 'offered' a ban if it happened elsewhere on the pitch, the SFA are just trying to cover their own arses for the referee being useless on Sunday.
Neil Murray - Gone
Toodle - Gone
Tommy Wilson - Gone
Ross McCaskill - Apparently soon to be gone
Sandaza - Suspended and more than like gone in the summer
All the while Chuckles is saying there will be wage cuts so he can deliver promised profit to the shareholders and is withdrawing money from peoples bank accounts even though they haven't agreed for it to be withdrawn.
Concalves wouldn't be getting 'offered' a ban if it happened elsewhere on the pitch, the SFA are just trying to cover their own arses for the referee being useless on Sunday.
If he did it anywhere else on the pitch he wouldn't be trying to win a penalty would he?
I ask again, do you think he was trying to get a penalty or a free-kick?
Comments
But having a system with the winners of the SFL3 this season have no reward compared to finishing last in terms of their division next season is even more ridiculous.
And anyway the winners of SFL3 would have to playoff against SFL2 teams in the system I produced, with the higher your league placing, the less games you would have to play to get into the 2nd tier.
In terms of over promoting the SFL3 winners, in affect all the clubs in SFL3 would be getting promoted anyway, as the system is reduced from 4 to 3 tiers. What you are doing is letting the SFL3 winners have the opportunity to be promoted one tier above the level that all the other SFL3 teams will be in.
When in England the conference north and conference south in non league football was introduced a system of a one off format of matches was introduced to ensure that teams not only could go from the old level 7 to a (slightly higher standard) new level 7, but also go into a new level 6. In affect going two divisions higher than their old league. No one complained that if a team won these matches they were "over promoted" because they had to win football matches to do this.
I respect that, but I still think both things would be completely wrong for the game. Democracy and football are generally a bad mix - what the fans want is often the complete opposite of what would actually work. Nobody seems to want to admit it, but one of the main reasons that fans want a bigger SPL is that they want to protect their club from relegation/artificially promote themselves into the top tier. Blind self interest like that isn't the best way to make a decision.
I'd much rather we had the American model of running sport, where the authority is essentially invested in one person - i.e. a "Commissioner". It's the only way you can get strong decision-making and avoid self-interest ruling everything. Things like the lopsided distribution of TV revenue in favour of the Old Firm are only possible because we used a democratic form of decision-making - in which the Old Firm's power was enough to persuade everyone else to go along with it.
http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/3160/Exclusive%3A_SPL_confirm_Nimmo_Smith_inquiry_legal_costs_demand_from_Rangers_Sevco_.html
Hang on a minute. I thought they were innocent and have been punished enough lol
I completely disagree! There is absolutely no reason to delay this change for another year. The redistribution of money needs to happen now.
Rangers will still be Div Three winners and have that trophy in their cabinet. Next season they will be playing 8 new teams and will undoubtedly win promotion to the second tier.
What is the problem?
Because Green has promised investors he will raise season ticket prices and he knows its a hard sell. I think its more to do with the drivel put on display by McCoist and only an idiot would pay more to watch that!!
That link tells us nothing.
I asked yesterday, and it wasn't answered, so I'll ask again.
Who was the history bought from?
I dont agree with this because the 'dive' was outside the box. So unless all free kicks are to be checked this shouldnt stand.
I am not sure about that. The dive was clearly designed to win a penalty.
CHEAT!!!
yes i even call my own team players that when they do it!
and it was just before the penalty box line too
But it was outside the box - it was the wrong decision to award a penalty for two reasons:
1 - The 'dive'
2 - Incompetent refereeing.
If the dive was inside the box then he should be banned, but why should a dive just outside the box be treated any different from a dive in the centre circle.
It makes out the referee was conned by Concalves, completely ignoring his incompetence.
Simply because by throwing himself into the box he was trying to gain a penalty. Do you honestly believe he was hoping for a free-kick?
I'm with bhoy07 on this one.
The referee really had 2 options open to him. Play on and book the guy for diving in the next break in play or give a free kick to St Mirren on the edge of the box. Instead the referee gave option 3.
Concalves wouldn't be getting 'offered' a ban if it happened elsewhere on the pitch, the SFA are just trying to cover their own arses for the referee being useless on Sunday.
Toodle - Gone
Tommy Wilson - Gone
Ross McCaskill - Apparently soon to be gone
Sandaza - Suspended and more than like gone in the summer
All the while Chuckles is saying there will be wage cuts so he can deliver promised profit to the shareholders and is withdrawing money from peoples bank accounts even though they haven't agreed for it to be withdrawn.
Cash crisis anyone???
A guilty verdict means the 3-match suspended sentence from last season is activated.
seeing as Jim Goodwin has admitted to responding in just as colourful language I expect he'll be up on a charge as well.
You would think so, as would every other player or manager who uses similar language in the future.
Other than Goodwin admitting it, and the people around him who heard it!
Clearly being picked up by a microphone is.
If he did it anywhere else on the pitch he wouldn't be trying to win a penalty would he?
I ask again, do you think he was trying to get a penalty or a free-kick?
A throwaway quote! Goodwin has admitted it.
If managers and players are going to be charged with swearing at football games, then fine. Just make sure everyone who swears is charged.