Go Back   Forums @ The Digital Fix > Entertainment Discussion Forums > Sports Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-06-2004, 12:11   #1
Guest 18772
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 2,073
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Super Caley don't get promoted, the SPL's ridiculous

Shocking:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...em/3763893.stm


I wonder what excuse will stop a team getting promoted from the Scottish first division next year. Caley earned the right, they were even prepared to play 120 miles away from home for their 'home' games.

I hope they take legal action.

Guest 18772 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 16:09   #2
Guest 7430
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,571
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
http://skysports.planetfootball.com/...206358&cpid=14

It's ridiculous.

Caley Thistle should be allowed to take their spot in the SPL. Why some SPL clubs decided to vote against ground sharing is beyond me.

From a selfish point of view Partick remaining in the SPL gives me another close away game but they don't deserve to be in the top division having finished bottom. Inverness could have been a good weekend.
Guest 7430 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 16:18   #3
Guest 14046
Trusted User
 
Guest 14046's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Edinburgh.
Posts: 2,763
Thanks: 1
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
It look's like they have at last reduced the stadium capacity from 10,000 down to 6,000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...em/3767137.stm
Guest 14046 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 18:18   #4
Horatio
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,546
Thanks: 8
Thanked 6 Times in 3 Posts
6,000 is a far more sensible number

The standard of the pitches, undersoil heating, training grounds/academies, etc. should be far more important, rather than that ridiculous figure of 10,000 seats.

Finally the SPL have done something right
Horatio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 18:53   #5
Guest 18772
Trusted User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 2,073
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Did the creditors vote on behalf of Livingston and Dundee?

I bet the five clubs that voted for Partick were:

Partick
Dundee
Livingston
Motherwell
Kilmarnock

i.e. those clubs with most to fear from Inverness being promoted.

Was it a case of self-preservation?
Guest 18772 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 19:00   #6
Guest 7430
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,571
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Reports suggest that it was Selleck, Motherwell, Livingston, Partick (vested interest methinks) and Rangers.

I can see why the clubs would vote against as the rules were in place at the start of the season. However, I still think ICT should have been allowed to ground share for a season.
Guest 7430 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 19:10   #7
Guest 35897
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm glad they've not been allowed up. As per last season, the rules were known by all the clubs but they still chose not to bother with their grounds. It would be unfair to Partick who have got their ground up to standard.

At least next season we have new rules. I suspect Livingston will get relegated next season.
Guest 35897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 20:25   #8
Guest 3357
alba gu brath
 
Guest 3357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 7,421
Thanks: 21
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jolt
I'm glad they've not been allowed up. As per last season, the rules were known by all the clubs but they still chose not to bother with their grounds. It would be unfair to Partick who have got their ground up to standard.

At least next season we have new rules. I suspect Livingston will get relegated next season.
But they would have been in a stadium that complied with the rules.

Im sorry but Scottish football is a joke and this sort of thing just makes it more of a laughing stock of Europe.
Guest 3357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 20:29   #9
sanityfalls
Trusted User
 
sanityfalls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 57
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Celtic & rangers eh. Hmm, 2 away games at firhill or an extra couple of long trips to pittodrie ??? What a joke, caley deserve to go up.
sanityfalls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 20:41   #10
Guest 17223
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 7,095
Thanks: 40
Thanked 13 Times in 10 Posts
I am with jolt on this one. The 10,000 rule has been known for years and years now (I am aware of the more practical 6,000 rule from next season). Partick Thistle got their stadium in order and did not spend much money on players. Other teams chose to spend their available money on players and ignore the stadium rule hoping that the SPL would make exceptions. They gained an unfair advantage.

At least next season we should not have the same nonsense.

Last edited by jayok; 01-06-2004 at 20:48.
Guest 17223 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 21:12   #11
Sheepking
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,551
Thanks: 8
Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by JCL
Reports suggest that it was Selleck, Motherwell, Livingston, Partick (vested interest methinks) and Rangers.

it wasn't Motherwell according to teletext.

I'll bet it was Dunfermline, so that Aberdeen don't benefit from the groudshare. Yorkston is a bitter little git, so he'll be loving it.
Sheepking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 21:18   #12
Guest 35897
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I heard it was Dundee United.
Guest 35897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 21:50   #13
Guest 3357
alba gu brath
 
Guest 3357's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 7,421
Thanks: 21
Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jayok
I am with jolt on this one. The 10,000 rule has been known for years and years now (I am aware of the more practical 6,000 rule from next season). Partick Thistle got their stadium in order and did not spend much money on players. Other teams chose to spend their available money on players and ignore the stadium rule hoping that the SPL would make exceptions. They gained an unfair advantage.

At least next season we should not have the same nonsense.
But as far as i can see ICT were going to be in a ground that passed these rules and were paying for the use of the stadium.

This is a joke along with the administration fiasco. Teams in administration but were not punished by the league???laughable
Guest 3357 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2004, 22:04   #14
Guest 35897
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yes but ground sharing isnt actually allowed that's why there had to be a vote on it.
Guest 35897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2004, 22:38   #15
Guest 4429
aka Onionbagger
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 770
Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
This decision makes the SPL an utter sham. Caley should be promoted.

Personally, it's easier for me to get to Firhill rather than Pittodrie but Caley earned the right to promotion.

There's still a chance a SFA appeal may overturn this decision. That will take place at the end of June. Due to this next season's fixture, due out in three week's time, will probably be delayed.
Guest 4429 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2004, 23:26   #16
Guest 35897
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
No, Caley were too late with their bid anyway. If they wanted to groudshare the deadline was the end of March. Caley applied to use temp stands at their own ground instead in March, and that was not allowed.

Yes the SPL should have changed the capacity rule last year when the Falkirk problem happened, but they didnt and Caley knew the rules. Partick spent money on their ground that's why they're in the SPL.

I'm just annoyed the SPL cant get their act together quicker. This should have been fixed at least a year ago. But as the rules stand, the clubs that didnt vote in favour of Caley were quite right to do so. In fact Partick were taking the SPL to court and would have won, because by the SPL rules Caley should not have been allowed up.
Guest 35897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2004, 23:46   #17
nscol
Trusted User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
Posts: 826
Thanks: 8
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think that Caley should have been allowed into the league, but guess where I'm from? (see location of user)
At the end of the day Falkirk were not allowed up so the same should apply to Caley.

Colin.
nscol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2004, 10:04   #18
macca1476
Homer is god
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Finally in Inverness...
Posts: 433
Thanks: 3
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jolt
I'm glad they've not been allowed up. As per last season, the rules were known by all the clubs but they still chose not to bother with their grounds. It would be unfair to Partick who have got their ground up to standard.

At least next season we have new rules. I suspect Livingston will get relegated next season.
The SPL is pretty much a closed shop. Teams cant afford to upgrade the stadium until they are in the SPL, but cant get in the SPL because they're stadium isnt up to scratch.. Essentially it means the only teams that can go up are those that have been relegated from the SPL previously as they are the only ones that have the grounds.

So really it makes a mockery of the SPL (the only thing to be decided is the UEFA places if you arent Celtic or Rangers) and the First Division (no real prize for the winners).

The rule is a nonsense. Did they stop Celtic playing at Caley when they met in the cup? Nope of course they didnt, so why arent Caley able to host them in the league?

I'm biased towards Inverness too as it's my home (or will be in a matter of weeks) but i've had the same opinion in previous seasons.
macca1476 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2004, 10:10   #19
Guest 35897
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Yes well next year the 6000 rule will be in place.
Guest 35897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-06-2004, 10:35   #20
Guest 35897
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,158
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
INVERNESS Caledonian Thistle yesterday confirmed they will appeal to the SFA against the decision to refuse them promotion to the Bank of Scotland Premierleague as it emerged they had in fact been supported by the Old Firm in Tuesday’s controversial vote at Hampden.

It was initially believed Celtic and Rangers had been among the five clubs who either abstained or voted against the proposed groundshare agreement between Inverness and Aberdeen at Pittodrie which would have allowed the Scottish First Division champions to meet the SPL’s current 10,000 all-seater stadia criteria.

However, both Old Firm clubs responded to the widespread assumption yesterday by making it clear they had voted for the Highland club at the SPL board meeting.

With Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs, Motherwell and Kilmarnock all having previously declared their backing for Inverness, it means the five clubs who now appear to have denied them access to the top flight of Scottish football for the first time in their remarkable ten-year history were Partick Thistle, Dundee United, Dundee, Livingston and Dunfermline.
Guest 35897 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:44.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018 Poisonous Monkey Ltd. Part of The Digital Fix Network