bazil85
-
Posts
10,425 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by bazil85
-
-
43 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
So, in essence, you are:
1. OK with the club not consulting the fans as long as they vote in accordance with your personal opinion.
2. OK with the club consulting the fans and voting in accordance with the majority fan opinion (whatever that may be).
3. Not OK with the club consulting the fans and voting against the majority fan opinion (possibly unless, in doing so, they vote in accordance with your personal opinion - number 8 ).
It was really number 8 I was looking for an answer to, ya bugger - get it answered.
Of course it was but it's a non situation, doesn't need answered because it'll never happen. Comes back to the common sense approach. The reason for my feelings towards this is because it's so clear that there is a one sided belief from supporters. If the subject was a lot more divided and the decision wasn't completely clear to the club, I wouldn't be of this belief because I would fully empathise in the club having a difficult decision to make.
In this situation, they don't have a difficult decision to make, there is clear fan opinion. Compare it to the new team wanting to come into the SP just because they play at Ibrox. Clearly only one call there as well, ABSOLUTELY NOT
-
3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
I don't think that you really answered the question. I'll try to rephrase.
In which of the following situations would you take the actions that you threatened to take: (I think these cover all the eventualities - unless there is no vote whatsoever and therefore the question is moot.)
1. The club voted for the proposal without consulting the fans.
2. The club voted against the proposal without consulting the fans.
3. The club abstained on the proposal without consulting the fans.
4. The club voted for the proposal after consulting the fans and voted in accordance with the fans' wishes.
5. The club voted against the proposal after consulting the fans and voted in accordance with the fans' wishes.
6. The club abstained on the proposal after consulting the fans and voted in accordance with the fans' wishes.
7. The club voted for the proposal after consulting the fans and in voting such were disregarding the fans' wishes.
8. The club voted against the proposal after consulting the fans and in voting such were disregarding the fans' wishes.
9. The club abstained on the proposal after consulting the fans and in voting such were disregarding the fans' wishes.
I would also think that most fans (at least of the non-bigot variety) would be against this, so there is no disagreement there.
Ones in bold are the ones that would cause me to cancel my SMISA membership. I've not answered 8 because for me it would represent a conflict of interest/ morale dilemma which I would have to take some time over to come to my conclusion. And as much as you've put it as a hypothetical, my views are it would never come up so it's not a conflict of interest I'll need to address. (similar to others that won't come up granted)
-
1 hour ago, TPAFKATS said:2 hours ago, bazil85 said:It's not ifs buts and maybes mate, Celtic and Rangers published plans. That's what they're proposing.
The survey is just a survey, like the 1,000+ comments on P&B are just comments and the 100s on twitter are just tweets. To think there is no correlation between the overwhelming negativity, very few positive comments and a Survey that had over five figures in respondents isn't clear cut evidence that fans aren't for it is truly baffling. Is that actually what you think, that there is no evidence fans are against this?
I don't think it is at all. Fans are a clubs main stakeholder, if a club has strong evidence of a very unpopular proposal that fans do not want and makes a decision without consulting fans, that for me and others would be very hard to take.
I think fans need to make a stance on this (if evidence exists the club will vote in favor without consulting us). I'm surprised you don't agree with club fans standing up for what they believe in. Football is a game, the fans are of the utmost importance. There's no justification not to consult them.
Again let me stress, I fully believe St Mirren will consult, or will vote against based on overwhelming evidence that this is against most fans wishes.You should probably have read all of my post and digested it and understood it before replying to it.
What did I miss? you don't believe in a big fan survey and you feel fans are throwing their toys out the plan for not wanting bribery and more Old Firm Pandering to happen in our league set-up?
-
19 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
So is your issue that they may not consult the fans at all or that they will vote for it without consulting the fans? Why do you seem to be OK with them voting against it without consulting the fans?
Will you take the actions you mentioned if they vote either way (or abstain) without fan consultation, or just if they vote for it without fan consultation? What actions would you take if they voted for it after consulting the fans?
For clarity, I'm against the idea of colts too, so this is not a dig at your opinion, more a request for clarity on your stance.
I think this should be approached from a common sense point of view. They majority of fans are against this. Several surveys on social media in last couple days, a massive fan survey published last year, social media and forum comments. I don't think anyone genuinely thinks there's more for and this is likely more a Devils Advocate kind of post. That's why I would be fine with them rejecting it. What's the old expression? 'I don't need a weather man to tell me when it's pissing down.'
If they put it to some sort of fan consultation/ vote and the consensus that fans were in favor of this idea and that was how they voted then fine, I wouldn't like it but it would be the right thing to do. Again common sense should prevail and we should be able to see that isn't really an issue. In all honesty I can count on one hand the number of non Old Firm fans that have said they're in favor of this.
I appreciate getting clarity, it's understandable mate but I just feel it's something most fans are on the same side of.
-
48 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
The league fabric stuff is ifs, buts and maybes.
The survey is just a survey, it's by no means indicative of all fans.
FWIW, I don't want any Colts teams in the league either. My point is it wouldn't fundamentally affect my relationship with the club to the point that I would withdraw any funding. It's kinda toys out of the pram stuff and one of the main doubts I have regarding fan ownership.It's not ifs buts and maybes mate, Celtic and Rangers published plans. That's what they're proposing.
The survey is just a survey, like the 1,000+ comments on P&B are just comments and the 100s on twitter are just tweets. To think there is no correlation between the overwhelming negativity, very few positive comments and a Survey that had over five figures in respondents isn't clear cut evidence that fans aren't for it is truly baffling. Is that actually what you think, that there is no evidence fans are against this?
I don't think it is at all. Fans are a clubs main stakeholder, if a club has strong evidence of a very unpopular proposal that fans do not want and makes a decision without consulting fans, that for me and others would be very hard to take.
I think fans need to make a stance on this (if evidence exists the club will vote in favor without consulting us). I'm surprised you don't agree with club fans standing up for what they believe in. Football is a game, the fans are of the utmost importance. There's no justification not to consult them.
Again let me stress, I fully believe St Mirren will consult, or will vote against based on overwhelming evidence that this is against most fans wishes.
-
12 hours ago, TPAFKATS said:
It won't change the fabric of the league format. Fans across Scotland don't appear to want it, clubs will vote for what they think is in the interests of their board.
If you have a strong opinion take it up with the guy who sits on the St. Mirren board representing smisa.
Not sure it's a majority of fans against but I'm sure you'll be able to evidence this.
I certainly can thanks. Recent fan survey over 74% of respondents were against Colt teams in the league format. It was the biggest fan survey of it's kind in Scotland and I believe very useful as it evidenced there was not a large drag to Rangers and Celtic fans (As in they were not the majority of respondents)
I have taken it up with both SMISA and St Mirren direct. Don't get me wrong I fully believe St Mirren will consult fans on this or simply vote no based on overwhelming evidence that the majority are against further pandering to the big two in this country. My point is purely my relationship with the club would be damaged beyond repair if they choose not to.
You say it won't change the fabric of the league. So extending the bottom tier to 12 teams, two teams in it not being able to be relegated, a change in fixtures and income distribution, a complete disregard for the four leagues below L2 in the pyramid, a third place team potentially being able to be crowned champions, a sixth place team potentially being able to get promoted and a third bottom placed team potentially being relegated. If that doesn't change the fabric of the league format I'd love to know what you think would?
-
31 minutes ago, TPAFKATS said:
Do you really expect to get consulted on every decision the club votes on as a member of SPFL?
You do realise that your vote would be around 1 of 1300. That's 1/1300 of approximately 65-70% of the shares at best. Of course, the 65-70 % is still controlled by Gordon Scott is it not?Every decision? No, don't recall me ever saying EVERY decision.
A decision that will change the fabric of our league format, strengthen Rangers and Celtic further, turn the bottom two leagues into development leagues, potentially cost us some promising young players and that a great number of fans not only for St Mirren but across other clubs are venomously against... Funnily enough, yeah I would want a club that's wanting to move to fan ownership to engage fans. It has a direct impact on what we're left with when the shares move to fans, of course I know who controls the shares right now but to think that's an excuse for not listening to the majority of your fans is nothing short of ridiculous. Thinking it's unreasonable for fans to be consulted on this? Have a look at other forums and social media, it's causing similar backlash to the Sevco fiasco. Crazy comment
-
Beyond a joke this idea is still being lorded around.
- Benefits no one apart from SP giving their young players more competitive games
- 19/20 year olds playing in League 2 are not likely going to be good enough to play at a World Cup Final
- Blatant bribery of lower league clubs to go against wish of their fans by guaranteeing crowd money
- Say it isn't but it's clearly a way to keep a Rangers and Celtic presence if they ever piss off to another league.
Requires 11/12 top flights to vote for it then 75% from rest of the leagues. As a club moving towards fan ownership, if St Mirren don't canvas supporters for how they'll vote my SMISA membership will be immediately cancelled and my season ticket not renewed. Don't mind if a vote comes out yes to colts, as long as there is one. Not a threat, it's something that I feel that strongly about.
-
19 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:
Yes
The boards of both clubs, possibly the player's agent
What an original response
-
Does anyone have any actual information (facts) on the transfer? As far as I can tell there is no information from either club if the deal was percentage profit or percentage of next sale. I don't think it'll make a great difference though, the funds are pocket money either way.
-
On 1/19/2018 at 5:38 PM, Slartibartfast said:
You're right. We'd probably be better looking for a CB.
I'd say so...
-
12 hours ago, st jock said:On 1/16/2018 at 9:53 AM, bazil85 said:The money is saved like the excess money would be saved this quarter. It will either be able to form part of another option short-term, long-term or put to the buyout cost.
Meant what would happen to the ladies team as it seems that they are counting on it!??
I don't think they're counting on it too be honest. They will be able to raise funds through a number of means. Pretty sure it'll pass anyway.
-
1 hour ago, zico said:
No you didn't
No need to apologies.
-
34 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:
Even shull?
God no!!!
-
19 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:
but, but IT'S A DEBATE.
Seriously, if the idea that someone disagrees with you is frustrating-then don't get involved.
It would be a lot easier not to if people didn't respond directly back to me saying the exact same thing over and over...
-
24 minutes ago, zico said:
Sharing the same opinion as others isn't copying!
And what is your point if not to change everyone else's opinion?
You have your opinion and I have mine.
You think we could do with a central defender more than a striker.
What's the point in posting this over and over and over and over again if not to try and get everyone who disagrees with you to agree with you?
Pointless.
Same point as people messaging back to me over and over again saying what about XY & Z. I can read and I can take the points. Doesn't mean i have to see them 15 times.
-
21 minutes ago, zico said:
where did you say that it would be better to bring in a striker than a central defender in your post I replied to?
I didn't, I said I'd agree with bringing in a striker and you said you disagree with everything I said.
-
1 hour ago, zico said:
Where did I say that I was trying to change your opinion?
You have given your opinion on this thread over and over and over again.
I have given my opinion once.
What is the point of your reply? To try and change my opinion?
Or do you think that you own this thread?
I disagree with everything you have said in your reply.
I'm assuming that JR is looking to bring in someone who is capable of being a first choice striker or at least challenge to be first choice. A new striker can be a game changer from the bench.
In my opinion, we can get a better standard of central defender on emergency loan than we can attract as permanent 4th choice - and we don't need to pay his wages until we need him.
So you disagree with bringing in a striker then?
-
28 minutes ago, beyond our ken said:
the debate is actually up and running, you seem to be arguing for a debate and then complaining that the other parties are trying to brainwash you
Nope not at all. Just frustrating that people think my point about a new cb isn’t valid then use the same arguments I’m using for the ST position. Also frustrating that people can’t read basic English. I’ve said several times that I’m for a new striker as well, just more worried about an injury to a CB.
-
58 minutes ago, zico said:
Where did I say that I was trying to change your opinion?
You have given your opinion on this thread over and over and over again.
I have given my opinion once.
What is the point of your reply? To try and change my opinion?
Or do you think that you own this thread?
I disagree with everything you have said in your reply.
I'm assuming that JR is looking to bring in someone who is capable of being a first choice striker or at least challenge to be first choice. A new striker can be a game changer from the bench.
In my opinion, we can get a better standard of central defender on emergency loan than we can attract as permanent 4th choice - and we don't need to pay his wages until we need him.
You’ve just copied points other people have said. What’s the point if not to Change my opinion. You have your opinion I have mine. You think we need to improve a strike force with more than 30 goals between them more than we need another CB option fine.
You think we couldn’t attract a cb that could challenge for a start but could a striker fine
But why post the same thing again if not to try to get me to agree with you? Pointless
-
15 minutes ago, MenstrieSaint said:
I'd be happy if he didn't play
Maybe if we're 2 or 3 nil down in the game we could let him score a hat-trick to add a wee bit to his value
-
15 minutes ago, zico said:
Unless we are going to sign a central defender who is better than Davis or Baird then there is no reason to sign another central defender.
If one of the central defenders is injured then Eckerskey has shown that he is a more than capable stop gap.
If the new central defender is to basically be 4th choice then we would probably be able to get someone of better quality on emergency loan than we would as a permanent 4th choice signing. The other advantage of an emergency loan is that we only need to pay the wages if and when we bring him in.
The reason for needing 4 central defenders at the start of the season was that Davis had a long term injury. So we effectively went into the season with 3 fit central defenders. When we had a crisis then Eckersley went into central defence and when that situation worsened we signed McCart.
The difference now is that we have 3 fit central defenders.
As for the striker situation, this is different IMO. Strikers are regularly utilised from the bench, central defenders aren’t. Strikers from the bench can be game changers. A new striker could challenge Reilly and Smith for a starting position. If Morgan is injured then Smith can move wide and a new striker provides additional cover. A big striker in particular provides a game changing option.
Managers generally do not change or alter central defensive partnerships if they are working, particularly during a game.
If the choice is between a new striker or a new central defender then it’s obvious that a new striker is the best option.Still more people that will not rest until I change my opinion
No reason apart from competition, injuries and suspensions you mean?
Said several times I would not want to move Eck from LB because he's much more effective there.
A new striker would be 4th choice also or Mullan would be moving down the pecking order so yet again that is not an argument for not bringing in a CB. I fully appreciate that a different forward player off the bench can change a game but there is also times when a CB or defensive player is a necessity. It's happened a good few times this season where we've had to bring on a CB.
Also said several times that emergency loan could be an option but it's my own personal opinion that I would rather have a permanent option training with the team. Why do people feel the need to try and change this? Or not see how a CB training regularly with Davis, Mac and Baird would be better than someone in the door on a Thursday and playing Saturday?
I don't understand the 4 CB point at start of season? JR brought them all in on at least one year contracts so he clearly seen some benefit then in having four CB options for the full season (Davis wasn't going to be out the full year)? If anything I think that's more important now we're chasing a title. Especially if Davis can't play on certain parks, Mac has had very little game time, Eck is injured and one of the back-up options is Irvine who also has played very little.
Three fit defenders, two of which have had more than one long-term injury in the last two years. Yet you can't see why I might have a point about another CB option? I don't want to change anyone's opinion but people completely dismissing it is pretty crazy to me.
I'm for the striker option, they're not related IMO. I think it would be good to have another option but there has been several games this season where we've had to bring on a CB. Imagine the situation where someone gets injured then Baird, Davis or Mac get a red card, injury or really under perform. We would be reliant on moving a player out of position (If Eck is back fit) or Gary Irvine.
If the choice is between a new striker and a CB it's not obvious. It's a matter of opinion. My opinion is based on the fact we have three of the top 10 top scorers in the league on our books and the goals against stats when Davis isn't fit. Bottom line is there's an argument both ways.
-
Apparently the deal for King Kenny is close to completion. Would be pretty fitting if his last game in Scotland was tomorrow.
-
43 minutes ago, shull said:
Could someone please shut this particular window please ?
Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Come on Baz, you have wiped the floor with allcomers.
Put them out their misery.
I feel like Thor... You know but more handsome.
Colts in bottom league
in Other Football
Posted
A lot of fans on P&B and social media saying they wouldn't be back, wouldn't attend colt games etc.
Do you genuinely not think the fan opinion on this subject is conclusive?