Scotland's Game Scottish Football Documentary

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Nah that never happened. The club never owed the bank more than a few hundred thousand. The big debt was to Barr Construction. The Clydesdale just wanted to overdraft brought under control.

If that's the case, it's even more ridiculous.

[Gordon Urquhart]

Best one of the series tonight. Brookmyre, Cosgrove and co made for entertaning and informative viewing on a subject we all have a big interest in.

[Drew]

2 minutes ago, Gordon Urquhart said:

Best one of the series tonight. Brookmyre, Cosgrove and co made for entertaning and informative viewing on a subject we all have a big interest in.

Might watch it on catch up.

I lost interest after the very uninspiring first instalment.

[Eric Arthur Blair]

6 minutes ago, Gordon Urquhart said:

Best one of the series tonight. Brookmyre, Cosgrove and co made for entertaning and informative viewing on a subject we all have a big interest in.

Could not disagree more. Comparing the Scottish game to England, Germany, France's U21 policy, USA and their wifi enabled stadium...all drivel.

Falsehoods like "crowds are in decline", "42 clubs is too many", the often cited nonsense that the four Angus clubs should amalgamate (AFAIK, none of them have ever entered administration).

A total mish-mash of ideas but no answers.

[Stu]

Highlight of the whole series was the footage of Newton's goal on last night's episode. Not quite sure why it was there but wasn't complaining.

[Bud the Baker]

On ‎02‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 11:14 AM, Stuart Dickson said:

 

 

 

 

Of course it's comparable. You talk about those cheats signing players and not paying their wages, but St Mirren did exactly the same thing with young Kieran and with others. Several ex players told me they also had a win bonus withdrawn after the start of the season in 2001-2. They were signed or resigned with one bonus in place and the Chairman removed that and replaced it with a bonus that only paid out if the club won the league after the season started.

There's all sorts that have gone on at St Mirren over recent years, most of it hushed up by confidentiality contracts that the club made ex employees sign as part of their compensation agreements. Like Kendo says be careful where you are throwing your stones, because when you are picking them up you might not like what you uncover

 

 

We've been down this road before, it was widely reported at the time that it was the players who requested a larger bonus mid-season which was agreed but conditional on us finishing in the top three. The only difference from the last time you made this allegation is that then it was only one ex-player that told you.

I'm sure if there was any substance to your version of the story the players would have taken it up with their union.

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bud the Baker

[Stuart Dickson]

11 hours ago, Eric Arthur Blair said:

Could not disagree more. Comparing the Scottish game to England, Germany, France's U21 policy, USA and their wifi enabled stadium...all drivel.

Falsehoods like "crowds are in decline", "42 clubs is too many", the often cited nonsense that the four Angus clubs should amalgamate (AFAIK, none of them have ever entered administration).

A total mish-mash of ideas but no answers.

Yeah, I never get this idea that the "big" clubs like to foster that 42 senior clubs is too many when they are bent over backwards to ensure that an insolvent "Rangers" were allowed re-admission. The talk always seems to be about how to get rid of the so called "diddy" teams who are completely solvent and living within their means despite crowds of less than 500. 

The one thing that does seem obvious though is that there has to be change in the way the game is run and in how the sport is managed in Scotland. Craig Brown talked about trying to copy the French system of having just 20 senior players at a club and filling the squad out with kids. I wouldn't have thought that would have been a major hardship for anyone in Scotland, but there was no surprise when he revealed it was blocked by the same two clubs that have been intent on leaving Scottish Football for decades now. 

[Stuart Dickson]

18 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

We've been down this road before, it was widely reported at the time that it was the players who requested a larger bonus mid-season which was agreed but conditional on us finishing in the top three. The only difference from the last time you made this allegation is that then it was only one ex-player that told you.

I'm sure if there was any substance to your version of the story the players would have taken it up with their union.

 

Obviously there was substance to it, cause you've come on and agreed that there was a substantive change to the bonus mid season.

 

[Bud the Baker]

7 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Obviously there was substance to it, cause you've come on and agreed that there was a substantive change to the bonus mid season.

 

I suggest you read more carefully, I said "substance to your version of the story". I'm saying your version of events is not what was reported in the press at the time and that I don't give any credence to your "told by an ex-player", originally one but now several , allegation.

[Stuart Dickson]

49 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

I suggest you read more carefully, I said "substance to your version of the story". I'm saying your version of events is not what was reported in the press at the time and that I don't give any credence to your "told by an ex-player", originally one but now several , allegation.

Whatever version you want to believe of what happened, it is clear it split the dressing room. 

[Bud the Baker]

2 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Whatever version you want to believe of what happened, it is clear it split the dressing room. 

Like I said I choose to believe the version that was reported in the press at the time - that it was done at the players' request.

Now you're saying "it is clear it split the dressing room", on the evidence you've given so far it isn't - the only thing that's clear to me is that, as usual, you're making it up as you go along. Even assuming it is true this latest version of events does nothing to strengthen your original allegation that the change was forced on the players against their will - perhaps your moles' grievance (and for the purposes of this post let's say it's singular ) should be aimed at the players who coerced him into making the request or with himself for going long with them rather than the ex-Chairman.

Unless you can produce something more substantial then I'd suggest that this storm-in-a-teacup is just the latest instalment in your grievance against SG.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bud the Baker

[salmonbuddie]

Careful, he'll have his English lawyers onto you for slander if you keep that up. Not racist, or anti-English, just there's no such thing as slander in this country's legal system...

[Stu]

Funny how in the first episode merging clubs was bad but by last night it was a good thing. I'm totally against it, however I do wonder if there is some merit to the argument that we have too many clubs in the league set up.

The argument is often put out that Scotland has the best attendance figures to population ratio in Europe. I'd be interested to see a ratio of league clubs to population. For example, England has 10 times the population of Scotland yet has a fraction more than twice as many clubs in the league.

Not suggesting the clubs in the bottom two divisions should be told to piss off (especially as we could be one of them next season) but I do think a change is needed.

[Stuart Dickson]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

Like I said I choose to believe the version that was reported in the press at the time - that it was done at the players' request.

Now you're saying "it is clear it split the dressing room", on the evidence you've given so far it isn't - the only thing that's clear to me is that, as usual, you're making it up as you go along. Even assuming it is true this latest version of events does nothing to strengthen your original allegation that the change was forced on the players against their will - perhaps your moles' grievance (and for the purposes of this post let's say it's singular ) should be aimed at the players who coerced him into making the request or with himself for going long with them rather than the ex-Chairman.

Unless you can produce something more substantial then I'd suggest that this storm-in-a-teacup is just the latest instalment in your grievance against SG.

My last word on this. Tell me - if the change in terms and conditions was universally accepted by the players as Gilmour claimed in the press, what the f**k was it doing in the press in the first place? Do they normally report on the terms of bonuses at football clubs? And if there was no split why was a senior footballer on live TV a few months later criticising the board for a number of policies that they had imposed on some of the players within the club? 

 

 

[Stuart Dickson]

6 minutes ago, Stu said:

Funny how in the first episode merging clubs was bad but by last night it was a good thing. I'm totally against it, however I do wonder if there is some merit to the argument that we have too many clubs in the league set up.

The argument is often put out that Scotland has the best attendance figures to population ratio in Europe. I'd be interested to see a ratio of league clubs to population. For example, England has 10 times the population of Scotland yet has a fraction more than twice as many clubs in the league.

Not suggesting the clubs in the bottom two divisions should be told to piss off (especially as we could be one of them next season) but I do think a change is needed.

There are several divisions below the English League Two that are professional though Stu. Some of the Conference League clubs pay more than some of our top flight clubs in terms of wages, and I suspect you could be in the pub leagues in England before you get down to the kind of wage levels paid out by some of our League Two clubs. More than that though - with the clamour for fewer senior clubs from the clubs at the top of Scottish Footballs pyramid, isn't it weird that given the opportunity to get impose change what they instead did was extend the pyramid further to include two more leagues and 34 more clubs. 

[Bud the Baker]

37 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

My last word on this. Tell me - if the change in terms and conditions was universally accepted by the players as Gilmour claimed in the press, what the f**k was it doing in the press in the first place? Do they normally report on the terms of bonuses at football clubs? And if there was no split why was a senior footballer on live TV a few months later criticising the board for a number of policies that they had imposed on some of the players within the club? 

 

 

The shifting sands of your arguments are bewildering, as I've said it was reported in the press at the time as being the players idea. A quick internet search will tell you that reporting of bonus issues are a fairly common press occurrence, certainly not unique to St. Mirren. As for the last sentence it's so vague that it's meaningless. Nothing in the above post validates your initial statement.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bud the Baker

[Stuart Dickson]

1 hour ago, Bud the Baker said:

The shifting sands of your arguments are bewildering, as I've said it was reported in the press at the time as being the players idea. A quick internet search will tell you that reporting of bonus issues are a fairly common press occurrence, certainly not unique to St. Mirren. As for the last sentence it's so vague that it's meaningless. Nothing in the above post validates your initial statement.

It's a fairly common occurrence when there is a dispute, a row or some sort of fall out over the bonus - or if the bonus value is so high as to be eye watering. Which of those reasons do you think is the one that led to the report of the change in St Mirren bonus being in the press. 

It also was not the players idea. Not at all. It came from the board. You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe. I believe the ex players that I spoke to. If you want to lap up what Gilmour said at the time feel free to. I just think it makes you look gullible. 

[Bud the Baker]

1 minute ago, Stuart Dickson said:

It's a fairly common occurrence when there is a dispute, a row or some sort of fall out over the bonus - or if the bonus value is so high as to be eye watering. Which of those reasons do you think is the one that led to the report of the change in St Mirren bonus being in the press. 

It also was not the players idea. Not at all. It came from the board. You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe. I believe the ex players that I spoke to. If you want to lap up what Gilmour said at the time feel free to. I just think it makes you look gullible. 

I thought you said you were finished with the matter.

I'll believe what I read in the press before I believe a proven fantasist like yourself.

[Stuart Dickson]

1 minute ago, Bud the Baker said:

I thought you said you were finished with the matter.

I'll believe what I read in the press before I believe a proven fantasist like yourself.

And there you become abusive   

It's OK. I know you are wrong again

[Bud the Baker]

16 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

And there you become abusive   

It's OK. I know you are wrong again

Prove your allegation or shut up.

It's barely three hours since you claimed on the Question Time thread that the SNP representative claiming Scotland's education strategy was successful as bizarre and that it only went unchallenged because the other panellists were ignorant of events in Scotland, yet a 2014 report by the Office for National Statistics found that Scotland was the best educated country in Europe - that's just your latest fantasy.

The truth is not abuse, you make things up, you're a liar and not even a particularly good one.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bud the Baker

[Stuart Dickson]

8 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

Prove your allegation or shut up.

It's barely three hours since you claimed on the Question Time thread that the SNP representative claiming Scotland's education strategy was successful as bizarre, yet a 2014 report by the Office for National Statistics report in 2014 found that Scotland was the best educated country in Europe - that's just your latest fantasy.

The truth is not abuse, you're a liar and not even a particularly good one.

f**king hell, really.... Shifting sands and all that. Now we've gone from Scottish Football to Scottish Education....  

You're quoting a 2 year old ONS report which based its figures purely on the percentage of people who have a qualification at NVQ4 or above. That means we're counting car mechanics, painters and decorators and bricklayers amongst those we class as successes of the Scottish Education System. The fact that you've chosen to take this as evidence that the Scottish Governments education strategy is successful proves my point on just how gullible you are.  

 

[Bud the Baker]

15 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

f**king hell, really.... Shifting sands and all that. Now we've gone from Scottish Football to Scottish Education....  

You're quoting a 2 year old ONS report which based its figures purely on the percentage of people who have a qualification at NVQ4 or above. That means we're counting car mechanics, painters and decorators and bricklayers amongst those we class as successes of the Scottish Education System. The fact that you've chosen to take this as evidence that the Scottish Governments education strategy is successful proves my point on just how gullible you are.  

 

How many posts is it now since you said you were finished with this argument?

Not shifting sands, just proving that you misrepresent affairs as a matter of routine and I only had to go back a couple of hours to do so, like I said the truth ain't no abuse.

Now who am I gonna believe an ONS report and every analysis of it or you? Press reports we both clearly remember or some ex-pro you claim to have shared sweet nothings with?

One things for sure I'm not gullible enough to take anything you say at face value..

Called your bluff and you've got no proof, have you?

Edited September 16, 2016 by Bud the Baker

[Stuart Dickson]

8 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

How many posts is it now since you said you were finished with this argument?

Not shifting sands, just proving that you misrepresent affairs as a matter of routine and I only had to go back a couple of hours to do so, like I said the truth ain't no abuse.

Now who am I gonna believe an ONS report and every analysis of it or you? Press reports we both clearly remember or some ex-pro you claim to have shared sweet nothings with?

One things for sure I'm not gullible enough to take anything you say at face value..

Called your bluff and you've got no proof, have you?

I said it was the last word on the St Mirren bonus issue. I did follow it up with one subsequent post on the topic, but I am now done with it.

I do like how you are now accepting an ONS report as fact though, unlike Alex Salmond who claimed ONS figures on UK Growth were being manipulated to include spending on illegal activities like drug abuse or prostitution. Perhaps we'll now see a general acceptance of ONS figures from Nationalists like yourself.....or more likely you'll continue to selectively quote them when prompted by the party propaganda machine as they manipulate gullible followers like you....  

 

[Bud the Baker]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

I said it was the last word on the St Mirren bonus issue. I did follow it up with one subsequent post on the topic, but I am now done with it.

I do like how you are now accepting an ONS report as fact though, unlike Alex Salmond who claimed ONS figures on UK Growth were being manipulated to include spending on illegal activities like drug abuse or prostitution. Perhaps we'll now see a general acceptance of ONS figures from Nationalists like yourself.....or more likely you'll continue to selectively quote them when prompted by the party propaganda machine as they manipulate gullible followers like you....  

 

I take it that's an admission you've got no proof, never had any proof, and were just trying to bluff your way through the issue.

I never take one person or organizations view as Gospel but other than yourself has anyone else challenged this 2014 Educational report?

 

[Stuart Dickson]

2 minutes ago, Bud the Baker said:

I take it that's an admission you've got no proof, never had any proof, and were just trying to bluff your way through the issue.

I never take one person or organizations view as Gospel but other than yourself has anyone else challenged this 2014 Educational report?

 

Proof of what? 

As far as I can see no-one challenged the 2014 ONS report. Why would they? However I can see subsequent, what looks like more serious reports, which shows Finland, Estonia, Switzerland and the Netherlands all out performing Scotland when it comes to Maths and Science. I couldn't find a subsequent report that measured the number of people each country has with City and Guilds qualifications.