ranger_syntax

It seems to me that the club would still need to 'strike a balance' wherever it played.

That was an interesting read. I'm not so sure about the idea of holding on to IPO cash for too long though. Shouldn't it be invested quickly?

It's an interesting point. Issuing rebuttals of what various journalists say probably leaves us open to more attacks. By noting that we are actually in competition with the media, and then acting accordingly, we probably do more to undermine them.

This is the most important point for me. The only reason, in the past, that the manager and players needed to talk to the press was to get information out to fans. We don't need that now. The club has an effective means of distributing information itself.

Do you think it will be difficult to get tickets?

For me the interview is a mixed bag. Some of it was pretty transparent and for show. I have no idea what to make of 'a day of reckoning'. Also McCoist seems to trip himself up a lot and have to correct himself. Then again he is not working as our lawyer so perhaps we can forgive him for talking rubbish like one or two other managers out there. I felt positive about a few of the things that McCoist said about the team though. He appears to be focussing on two things: fitness and competition for places. Last season I scorned the notion that the pre-season problems and a lack of players were to blame for poor performances. I thought that these were only excuses. McCoist has clearly made both a priority. I think that having his, admittedly modest, vision put into practice should result in a noticeable improvement. He also pointed to the fact that youth development can be difficult in SFL2. It's a fair point for a number of reasons. He suggested that it is difficult to attract the best young players to SFL2 and that seems plausible to me. I also think that it is a rubbish place to develop young players, especially if you expect to win every game. Finally he mentions that it is more complicated than just turning up. If it was as simple as turning up then I doubt any of us would. For some reason though much criticism seems to assume that we should just be able to turn up and win. Many also assume that McCoist is a cheque book manager and nothing more. The fact that he acknowledges the complexity involved suggests that there might be more going on than people think. So I'm optimistic about this season.

Yes, maybe not. My first impression is that he hasn't got much coaching experience but is this more or less than the typical holder of such a position?

This is the important question for me. What would McCoist point to in support of Durie's appointment? He might be good or bad but what it McCoist's supporting rationale?

I think that supporters often underestimate the importance of attitude. It is a team game and personality is important when trying to turn a group of individuals into a team. Ally McCoist knows Foster personally. How many of Foster's critics can say the same?

I'm not sure what the problem with Foster signing is. I seem to remember that he played left and right back for us before. This may be further indication that McCoist will try to move Lee Wallace on.

We really are better off keeping out of this altogether.

I don't think that it does. Going to the last day at either end of the table isn't really a measure of competitiveness for a division. In larger divisions more teams are at neither end. It probably means that the contest for a particular spot is more competitive though.

Is there any chance that we could keep the money and use it to pay our own club's wages?

If you think it through further you will find other teams in a situation where motivation is diminished. Larger divisions lead to more meaningless matches, more teams in a division means less chance of winning it et cetera.

Who would such a match really help? Hearts (the club and supporters) or Romanov?

I'm afraid I don't agree with either point. There is no reason to expect these fans to support other senior clubs rather than a local team. Even if they did the effect would be insignificant. Neither would fewer divisions make the remaining ones more competitive.

People often bring this up but I almost never see anyone attempt to qualify it. Too many senior clubs for what?

I take it that this is designed to tease any lurking Hearts fans. If senior football clubs start to merge I think that people will turn away from the game altogether. I would if it happened to my team.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens here. Will Hearts still be playing at Tynecastle next season? Will they still be in the top division if they opt for a Newco?

With all other things being equal I'd say that's true.

Longmuir, and someone earlier in this thread, mentioned a 3-2-1 system of governance. Does anyone know if this is the proportion of board members or something else? Either way I suspect this means that the top 22 teams (3 + 2 = 5) will be in control and the bottom 20 (1) will be left to hope and pray. I think that we would be all best to expect the top 22 to do what is in their own self interest and that any benefit for the wider game is likely to be a welcome side effect.

I'm not so sure about that. I'd like to see how democratic it is. I expect that a couple of SPL teams will be able to block anything that doesn't suit them.

The truly terrifying aspect of this episode is the way that the press continue to act as cheerleaders for people like the SFA. I've not yet heard any of the press coverage that Regan has received today but I have noticed Jane Lewis arguing in favour of further rules to tackle sectarianism. I'll make the effort to try to listen to some of it but I'd probably fall off of my chair in surprise if Regan was asked any difficult questions. This is a great opportunity for journalists to be critical. The SFA proposes to punish member clubs for the behaviour of individual supporters. This is obviously unjust. I had hoped that even a sports journalist could see that. Clubs can take reasonable measures to discourage sectarian/racist behaviour but they can't prevent it. Again the problem is obvious. It's impossible to control the consciences of other individuals. This is before we even begin to approach the problems of deciding which behaviour is unacceptable, and just implementation. But it really is naive to think that the sports press would criticise the SFA, or any other sporting body, for this. As Chris Graham correctly points out there is an anti-sectarian industry. This issue provides endless column inches for Scottish sports journalists. It allows politicians to appear as if they are doing something. It allows someone like Regan to deflect attention from his failure to address core issues in the game. All of these people benefit from gradually increasing legislation to deal with sectarianism/racism. Meanwhile supporters will enjoy the football less and less as they come under increased pressure and surveillance from the authorities and continue to be demonised by the press. It is little wonder that crowds are dwindling. They claim their labours are to build a heaven, yet their heaven is populated by horrors.

I've only recently started using this forum. One of the things that I like is that it has far less hysteria than some others. Perhaps this is why the subject was never posted. I'm not sure what the problem is anyway. If that's what it takes for Lee McCulloch to attend NARSA then fair enough. By the same token NARSA are equally entitled to decline the request. The support don't own him.

If this was not football, but some other business, would the larger company (EPL) have acquired the smaller one (SPL)?