Methven Hornet
-
Posts
2,268 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Methven Hornet
-
-
*throws fag packet in bin*
I do hope these were electronic cigarettes (à la Merthyr Town FC)!
-
Was there talk of Dublin having a team in the EPL a few year's back.
Wasn't it Wimbledon? I think that was to pressurise the local authority into assisting in the building of a new stadium.
-
Anyway, enough of Celtic.
Tonight, Methven's greatest ever footballer scored her first goal for Scotland when she equalised in the last minute against Serbia.
I say Methven's greatest ever player...
We noticed that there had been a bereavement on Tuesday at our next door neighbour but one, and as we suspected it was the man of the house who had passed away. To us he had just been Fred, the friendly guy who was always in his garden in the summer, always ready for a chat. It turns out he made over 200 appearances for Aberdeen, was part of the team that in 1995 won the championship for the first time, and was Scotland goalie in the 1954 world cup (6 appearances in total).
Although born in Carnoustie, the family had lived in Methven for a few decades, his wife was teacher at the village school and one of his daughters taught both my children at nursery.
I wish I'd have known, reminiscing about his career would have made a change from chatting about the weather, his garden, my dog...
-
Anyway, enough of Celtic.
Tonight, Methven's greatest ever footballer scored her first goal for Scotland when she equalised in the last minute against Serbia. -
I don't realistically think that, but if he is bagging a team, at least choose one that hasn't won the thing
I'm taking GJ's advice about feeding-time but bagging Celtic, of all the clubs that have ever entered the Champions League (or qualifying rounds) seems strange. Given the handicap they have by not being part of one of Europes wealthier leagues, Celtic are credible performers.
-
1. I think it's £60million, which is a big rise apparently.
2. I think, at that money, no English Premier League team outside Man U would vote to allow Celtic or Rangers in. The cost of joining the Championship (if it was offered) might still be worth it if they expected to be promoted within a couple of years.
I think their best chance is a European Super League. With the government making Sky share coverage with other broadcasters, it might suit Sky and the big clubs to break away. I bet UEFA would love to stick one on the English FA by supporting the idea.
1. I think it's £60million, which is a big rise apparently.
2. I think, at that money, no English Premier League team outside Man U would vote to allow Celtic or Rangers in. The cost of joining the Championship (if it was offered) might still be worth it if they expected to be promoted within a couple of years.
I think their best chance is a European Super League. With the government making Sky share coverage with other broadcasters, it might suit Sky and the big clubs to break away. I bet UEFA would love to stick one on the English FA by supporting the idea.
I don't think there's any chance they'd be voted in. With the support they have they'd be candidates to expand the 'big four' (or is it five these days) but would that be in the interests of the current top-dogs?
Some sort of elite European league would be interesting, but they've been talking about it for years and I'm not sure it would be possible with the politics inherent in UEFA. From a footballing point of view I always fancied the Atlantic League, which would have brought together clubs from Scotland, Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal and, possibly, Scandinavia. The idea was that the clubs that had outgrown those leagues could come together and attract the type of revenues associated with the big leagues of England, Spain, Italy, etc.
-
Rangers and Celtic (until Rangers' financial implosion) were to all intents and purposes guaranteed participation in European competition every year. This earned big bucks.
To join the English League would be financial foolishness ...
- both sell their grounds out every week so there would be no gate receipt rise.
- they would not be guaranteed to be offered a place in the Premiership
- they would win fewer trophies
- they might well not get back into Europe for at least 3 years.
I read somewhere that top clubs, from this season, receive close to £100 million by competing in the English Premier League.
Celtic, more than capable of being the second best supported club in the English competition were they to be admitted, received about £2.5 million for being in (and winning) the SPL. If they fail to overcome last night's 2-0 defeat then they stand to lose £20 million by missing out on the Champions League group stages.
Even without European football they would benefit massively in financial terms by being part of the English Premier League, and I'm sure Celtic would be confident of qualifying even against the usual English qualifiers.
There are reasons, however, why the English football authorities would be crazy to admit either of the Old Firm.
-
And still lose
Narrowly, away from home and against a team 14th in the FIFA rankings (I'm sure England were higher than that, they must have slipped recently). My point is that if they play like that more often they'll have a lot more success against most European teams than in recent years.
-
can there be any more pointless thing- year in year out than Celtics inclusion in the champions league?
Where on earth has that come from?
-
You are NOT Scottish !
Shush, you!
(And I'm a damn sight more Scottish than most of our RLWC team will be.)I'm quite happy with dual nationality, but not when it comes to the beautiful game (and rugby union).
-
With regards to England I have been on about home nations over a two year period for "friendlies" for some time. To give us that bit of competitve practise as opposed to playing Hungary, Slovenia etc. Litter that with games against the continents best, Germany, France, Ghana, Brazil.
That isn't a bad idea - I feel that every year would be too much but stretching it out could work. I don't know how the game was received in England, but here in Scotland there was a lot of enthusiasm; and pleasant surprise at how Scotland coped! Everyone was up for it but there was a nagging fear that England could run away with it.
Of course, for Scottish supporters the trip to Wembley to play England is akin to a footballing pilgrimage. One member of the Tartan Army, contributing to a radio discussion programme, suggested holding it in London every year as an International Charity Shield (in addition to the club one).
The only problem I can see with reinstating the championship, and one reason why it was scrapped in the first place, is that the home nations will get practice at playing teams that play the 'British' style of football. Not necessarily good preparation for dealing with those nations who successfully play a more patient style.
-
Great win for Norn Ireland vs Russia.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23637292
Good stuff from the Huddersfield Town man, Martin Paterson.
Did notice that. Hopefully they can make Windsor a fortress once more!
-
The good thing was that the ref was far more tolerant than a non-UK ref usually is. He clearly did his research and understood that the game would have more bite than the typical international friendly.
Quite enjoyable for a football match...
It was enjoyable (apart from the obvious
) - now for the eternal problem of getting Scotland to show that much commitment and belief in a world cup or Euro qualification match, in some remote eastern European country, on a wet Wednesday in February! -
Do we know for sure that the points will be carrying over to the play-off league? I know it was discussed before when they said the split would be after 11 games but didn't think it was still the idea now.
In a league system, there will always be some games that are dead rubbers. Unavoidable.
Do we know for sure that the points will be carrying over to the play-off league? I know it was discussed before when they said the split would be after 11 games but didn't think it was still the idea now.
In a league system, there will always be some games that are dead rubbers. Unavoidable.
I've been away for a while, and may have missed some new developments, but surely under the 3x8 system the point won't be carried over to the middle league - ie, the one that will decide promotion and relegation. How can they be, the 4 clubs coming from the bottom 12 are going to have a lot more points than the 4 coming from the top 12. The only way it can work is to start from zero points for the middle 8.
-
-
Yet football is king of viewed sports....and they mainly have p&r.
Yet football, in England anyway, didn't have p&r throughout the game for most of its history.
-
The following were my thoughts on some sort of plausible international structure from the thread about mid-season tours. Based on Adelaide Tiger's idea of mini European league fixtures which could also double up as qualifiers for Autumn competitions. It also includes some GB competition, in the hope that this would encourage the best players eligible to play for Scotland, Ireland and Wales to stick with these countries during non-world cup seasons as they would be in the shop window for GB selection.
Year 1:
Summer - Euro leagues (results count as 1st leg of World Cup qualifiers)
Autumn - X Nations tournament (number of participants can be determined as required, home nations compete separately)
Year 2:
Summer - Euro leagues (results count as 2nd leg of World Cup qualifiers)
Autumn - GB host Aus or NZ
Year 3:
Summer - Euro leagues (results count as 1st leg of X Nations qualifiers)
Autumn - World Cup (home nations compete separately)
Year 4:
Summer - Euro leagues (results count as 2nd leg of X Nations qualifiers)
Autumn - GB tour NZ or Aus
Year 5:
Summer - Euro leagues (results count as 1st leg of World Cup qualifiers)
Autumn - X Nations tournament
And so on...
And any GB (and Ireland) side to be made up of players from the four 'home' nation squads. So, if an Irish, Scottish or Welsh player is better than the English equivalent then they get in the side? Even if their accent, birthplace and residence are, er, somewhat Australian?
-
Agreed..bring it on....striking at the PTB, no gumshields, no interchanges, win money only, cinder terraces and wooden stands, blocked outside WCs, cauliflower ears, refs wearing blazers on-field. Oh how I miss those great days.
WCs? **** behind the stand!
And the old Athletic Grounds could have done with a few cinders in the mud-filled car parks on the approach to the ground.
-
I was reading an article recently that revealed that in one particular week earlier this year there were 31 international rugby union matches across six continents.
I think I like this proposal slightly better than the other one that was discussed on here (was it based upon a Luke Dorn article?) where Super League would close down for the 3 consecutive weekends of a revised SoO. Your suggestion gives a slightly longer window in which the players can become acclimatised and recover from the day-long journey; important if they are going to play up to three tough, evenly-matched test matches.
The couple of matches played without the clubs' international stars could be a problem, but if, as you say, they could be presented slightly differently. Could these fixtures be two of the 'extra' ones if we are to move to a simple 12 club Super League structure (but keep 27 regular season games)? It could complicate matters if we move to the 2x12 - 3x8 structure. To differentiate these games, not disadvantage the teams supplying the most internationals too much, and give a little extra interest, could there be a stipulation that each side has to include a certain number of under 20s/under 21s? Test which club has the best development system?
As for the internationals themselves, I think it has to be England rather than GB as this gives the other nations - Ireland, Scotland, Wales - a run out and would, hopefully, allow them to include their 'heritage' players. This opportunity could help sort out the wheat from the chaff in terms of these heritage players, and find out who wants to genuinely pledge themselves to their chosen nation's cause, eg if a player is not willing to travel from down under to play for one of the European nations in mid-season then they can forget it when world cup comes around.
-
There was some mention of a north south split. I don't think 14 clubs is enough to do this.
However, I agree - One competition with 14 clubs will be a big boost to the division.
The Policy Review Q&A page on the RFL website has the following
What will happen to Championship One?
The Policy Review is recommending that a two-up, two-down system be adopted in Championship One, with the champions automatically promoted and a second promotion spot going to a play-off winners. This competition would feature a league campaign of between 12 and 22 games and could have a regional dimension, should the clubs involved demand it.
It talks of a regional dimension rather than regional divisions.
-
So they won't know what money they're getting until the season is over?
Or after the first stage of the season in the case of 3x8? In which case you won't get the benefit until the next season, which won't help when facing the SL clubs in the middle eight. I'm not sure this is being thought through.
-
How is contracting the game good for it? I aren't talking about the top level either but the mentality that removes development officers and thinks it is worth saving a few quid?
IMO, we are going back to a 'keep it local' way of thinking, which without wanting to be accused of melodrama, I want nothing to do with.
Well, that's a point. We're potentially taking money from the elite competition to subsidise second tier clubs in their attempt to become (unsustainable) full-time clubs. Wouldn't that money be better being diverted towards keeping at least some of the development officers?
-
I've watched Rugby League since the early 1950's, through an era where 36,000 (and more) would watch the game, very often in midweek. I have seen crowds slowly diminish in size over the decades, and the bedrock clubs become almost extinct (some totally). It would seem that every time the RFL makes a change, the game loses more supporters. Without the supporters the game will die. So I would suggest that the BEST change the game should make is the management.
There are a lot more than 36,000 watching the game these days.
-
it's what happens MV: it doesn't make it traditional
we have traditions of progressiveness, sadly they get subverted by the forces of reaction
I think they're different aspects of the same tradition. The periodic realisation that we are not like other sports in that we're largely restricted to a few (very few) northern towns and a limited demographic; radical attempts to try and rectify the situation, usually ad-hoc, badly planned and underfunded; panic when things don't go to plan; the retreat back to what we had (the state of which was the reason to change in the first place).
Football
in Any Other Business / Any Other Sports
Posted
I've lost touch. I had no idea that Rhyl had been out of the top flight. Last time I looked they were doing quite well.