Scottish Cup 5th Round: Hamilton Acas v Rangers

[craig 5,195]

31 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

Indeed what do you know? You're bringing nothing but a cliche to support your view.
 

In the case of this particular 'diddy club' I happen to know a lot of their fans personally having grown up with them and lived most of my life with them so I can claim to know something more than most regarding their views. I emailed one earlier today who would be described as one of their 'hard core' to ask him his view which could be condensed down to hell yeah.

Hamilton may be in the top flight but they're by no means a top flight club. They punch above their weight to be where they are but that wont last indefinitely. They have an average attendance around 2,400 which is bloated by OF  games. There were 1,040 in attendance at their last SC tie with Edinburgh City and 1,536 at their last home league game v St Johnstone.

Not their management from board level down or their fans have any expectation whatsoever of winning this cup so the very best thing they can get from it is a tie at Ibrox. They would prefer that even if losing to actually winning the tie in Hamilton then potentially going out in the next round in front of a couple of thousand versus Motherwell.  

I have had conversations and drinks with a number of their managers over my life. The likes of Eric Smith, Bertie Auld, and John Lambie. I can assure you they too would have gone along with my suggestion in a flash. I have never spoken to any chairmen but expect their views would be equally or even more in favour.

So given the recent quotes from Stranraer management I think we can presume there would appear to be a pattern of concensus emerging  there. This is a tweet from Stranraer after the game where they aren't waxing lyrical about any romance of the cup bullshit. They unequivocally state the most important aspect of the tie.
 

This isn't the era of romance in football, that went down the pan decades ago when attendances declined from historic highs and averages plus all gate revenue including league gates was indeed shared. Want to go back to that kind of romance? I don't want that but you can be sure Hamilton would.

 

In this era many are struggling just to survive and that should be the main focus not airy fairy ideas of romance. The struggle was perfectly illustrated a few seasons or so ago when Partick were complaining that some teams which could be relegation rivals of theirs were getting an extra home match with Rangers in comparison to them. 
 
Take note of that. They were complaining about missing out on a single game at home to Rangers and it wasn't about home advantage. It was only gate money in a stadium that only holds 10,000. So what could it mean to them to get an away game in which the gate was shared and there were potentially 4 times as many people as their stadium can hold in attendance?

As for mention of the rules the rules are being changed in football all the time and this wouldn't even be a binding rule. It would be an option if both parties were in agreement which would make both parties happy and that's somehow bad?.

 

But if you think I really need to interview all chairmen and all fans of 'diddy' clubs throughout Scotland to get an accurate view then that's fine. I disagree. And till you go interview them all to discover an unexpected view contrary to mine that's where we stand.  

Not really.  Where we actually stand is hat what you’re looking for isn’t currently in the rules.  1st team out In the raw is the home team.

 

Thats where we stand.

 

And no amount of you chatting to Accies  fans because you know them so well will change any of that.  It’s prevarication,

 

Its a hypothetical suggestion which s hardly worth mentioning, because it isn’t going to happen.  And it would be wrong too.

[JFK-1 1,671]

2 hours ago, craig said:

Not really.  Where we actually stand is hat what you’re looking for isn’t currently in the rules.  1st team out In the raw is the home team.

 

Thats where we stand.

 

And no amount of you chatting to Accies  fans because you know them so well will change any of that.  It’s prevarication,

 

Its a hypothetical suggestion which s hardly worth mentioning, because it isn’t going to happen.  And it would be wrong too.

Yes really. Nowhere did I suggest that any rules currently allow these management and fan preferences. My remark about where we stand was referring to disagreeing about management and fan preferences. And disagreeing on that is where we stood in the post I was replying to despite the fact i'm introducing objective points to support my subjective view. While what you're bringing is entirely subjective.

 

That's where we stand.

 

My purpose in discussing it isn't because I think me discussing it will change anything, it's discussion.

 

If the entire point of discussing any topic at all here was aimed solely at changing anything then vastly more than this is pointless discussing. Yet people keep on discussing topics that wont change anything because that in fact is largely what discussion forums are about.

 

Discussing alternate views while making points for or against or sometimes proving or disproving a  view.

 

What in the world have I said here that could possibly be labelled prevarication? A definition of prevarication.

 

Quote

While the noun prevarication is mostly just a fancy way to say "lie," it can also mean skirting around the truth, being vague about the truth, or even delaying giving someone an answer, especially to avoid telling them the whole truth.

What am I lying about? I'm saying I believe management and fans of small clubs would prefer to play cup games against Rangers at Ibrox for the big pay day. That's not a lie. I do believe that. I'm not lying about it i'm not being vague with any truth nor trying to avoid any truth.

 

I think if anyone is you are by avoiding the truth that what I suggested would be popular with both management and fans of small clubs who may only get that chance once in a generation.

 

A suggestion hardly worth mentioning? Well there's another disagreement.

 

I would disagree that a preference of club management and fans which isn't currently applied is well worthy of mentioning and would also disagree that because you're not in favour of it then merits the tag not worth mentioning.

 

And whether it ever happens or not is an unknown but even if it didn't that still doesn't mean it wasn't worth ever contemplating at all.

 

Rules in football change from season to season so predicting what may change and what may not makes no sense for a game that's in state of constant rule changes. And especially so since the change I mentioned is trivial in comparison to rule changes going on all the time which affect the game dramatically.

 

As for "it would be wrong" how is that even rationally justified? What would applying it actually do? Well if i'm right it would assist the finances of small cash strapped clubs and would actually be beneficial to Rangers finances too and would be giving them their preference. Who is being wronged in giving them that option?

 

If what makes it wrong is nothing but the romance of the cup cliche again then my view is that's airy fairy bullshit that's not worth mentioning because it's a concept that means nothing to these small clubs in comparison to a cash infusion.

 

Get in touch with Stranraer and educate them on this romance of the cup thing being the most important aspect. They appear to be entirely ignorant of that.

[Gonzo79 13,589]

3 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Get in touch with Stranraer and educate them on this romance of the cup thing being the most important aspect. 

Their chairman's tweet, which was clearly intended in humour, does not represent the entire club and fanbase, despite you attempting to suggest otherwise.

 

Your original point about switching venues was in relation to a top flight club, not Stranraer.  

 

Your idea would render the cup even more top heavy, with smaller clubs having far less chance of making it to the latter stages - which would demean the whole thing considerably.   

[craig 5,195]

8 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Yes really. Nowhere did I suggest that any rules currently allow these management and fan preferences. My remark about where we stand was referring to disagreeing about management and fan preferences. And disagreeing on that is where we stood in the post I was replying to despite the fact i'm introducing objective points to support my subjective view. While what you're bringing is entirely subjective.

 

That's where we stand.

 

My purpose in discussing it isn't because I think me discussing it will change anything, it's discussion.

 

If the entire point of discussing any topic at all here was aimed solely at changing anything then vastly more than this is pointless discussing. Yet people keep on discussing topics that wont change anything because that in fact is largely what discussion forums are about.

 

Discussing alternate views while making points for or against or sometimes proving or disproving a  view.

 

What in the world have I said here that could possibly be labelled prevarication? A definition of prevarication.

 

What am I lying about? I'm saying I believe management and fans of small clubs would prefer to play cup games against Rangers at Ibrox for the big pay day. That's not a lie. I do believe that. I'm not lying about it i'm not being vague with any truth nor trying to avoid any truth.

 

I think if anyone is you are by avoiding the truth that what I suggested would be popular with both management and fans of small clubs who may only get that chance once in a generation.

 

A suggestion hardly worth mentioning? Well there's another disagreement.

 

I would disagree that a preference of club management and fans which isn't currently applied is well worthy of mentioning and would also disagree that because you're not in favour of it then merits the tag not worth mentioning.

 

And whether it ever happens or not is an unknown but even if it didn't that still doesn't mean it wasn't worth ever contemplating at all.

 

Rules in football change from season to season so predicting what may change and what may not makes no sense for a game that's in state of constant rule changes. And especially so since the change I mentioned is trivial in comparison to rule changes going on all the time which affect the game dramatically.

 

As for "it would be wrong" how is that even rationally justified? What would applying it actually do? Well if i'm right it would assist the finances of small cash strapped clubs and would actually be beneficial to Rangers finances too and would be giving them their preference. Who is being wronged in giving them that option?

 

If what makes it wrong is nothing but the romance of the cup cliche again then my view is that's airy fairy bullshit that's not worth mentioning because it's a concept that means nothing to these small clubs in comparison to a cash infusion.

 

Get in touch with Stranraer and educate them on this romance of the cup thing being the most important aspect. They appear to be entirely ignorant of that.

Except they actually aren't ignorant of that - why you may ask ?  Quite simple really.... they weren't the first name drawn out of the hat - the romance of the cup is a minnow being drawn at home to a giant - Stranraer weren't drawn at home to us.

 

I'll willingly bet you a cyber pint that if the draw had been made and was Stranraer v Rangers rather than Rangers v Stranraer that the game would have been played at Stair Park and not Ibrox.  Not a chance would Stranraer have even requested to play the game at Ibrox rather than Stair Park.

 

Kind of negates your argument right there, IMHO of course.

 

 

[JFK-1 1,671]

21 hours ago, Gonzo79 said:

Their chairman's tweet, which was clearly intended in humour, does not represent the entire club and fanbase, despite you attempting to suggest otherwise.

 

Your original point about switching venues was in relation to a top flight club, not Stranraer.  

 

Your idea would render the cup even more top heavy, with smaller clubs having far less chance of making it to the latter stages - which would demean the whole thing considerably.   

The Stranraer tweet no doubt had an element of jest to it but that doesn't equate to them wishing they had drawn the tie at Stair park. Nor does it mean they and the bulk of their support were not happier with a tie at Ibrox, despite you attempting to suggest otherwise. Are you also suggesting their managers comments on it were in jest?.

 

Quote

 

We’re massive underdogs. A club like Rangers should be beating us every day of the week, but it’s a game we’re all looking forward to.

 

We’ve probably got the second-lowest budget in the SPFL so to survive, even in League One is massive for us.

 

The sort of money this tie will bring to Stranraer is massive. This will keep us going for four years, just this game alone. Friday night is financially massive for us.

 

Since that wouldn't have been the case if the tie had been at Stair park you're seriously telling me they would have preferred it to be? Would rather be romantically beaten for a relative pittance? 

 

And yes the original point was because we have drawn Accies away. That doesn't mean emphasising that point by drawing comparisons to other small teams detracts from the point in any way. It demonstrates a commonality of thought among small teams.

 

Making the cup top heavy? What are you even talking about when it comes to the preferences of these teams? Are you telling me they give the proverbial flying about anything else in comparison to a cash influx that can support them for years in some cases?

 

I'm to seriously believe they care more about some highly improbable chance to win a cup than they do about the absolute certainty of a big pay day if they can play Rangers at Ibrox? Well frankly I don't believe it and i'm stunned if you seriously do believe it.

 

My idea doesn't reduce any of their chances of winning a cup which are so remote hey're close to zero chance no matter where they are played and doesn't even deny them a home tie if that were truly what they wanted. It simply gives the first team drawn the option of asking the second team if they would be agreeable to playing the tie at that seconds teams ground.

 

And if you think that "would render the cup even more top heavy" then you're agreeing with me that they would take that option in a heartbeat. And that's all I suggest. Give them the option. 

 

Accies have two chances to win this cup, slim and no chance. And that's even if they pulled off an unlikely shock and beat Rangers. Their greatest interest is the financial benefit of the cup not an unrealistic fantasy of winning it.

If they had drawn Rangers at Ibrox a big pay day was a 100% certainty win or lose. That's absolute fact. Not subjective romantic supposition.

 

I have known for decades that these smaller teams watching the draw were wishing for a tie at Ibrox and presumed everybody knew that. I'm stunned anybody at all is now disputing that.

[JFK-1 1,671]

16 hours ago, craig said:

Except they actually aren't ignorant of that - why you may ask ?  Quite simple really.... they weren't the first name drawn out of the hat - the romance of the cup is a minnow being drawn at home to a giant - Stranraer weren't drawn at home to us.

 

I'll willingly bet you a cyber pint that if the draw had been made and was Stranraer v Rangers rather than Rangers v Stranraer that the game would have been played at Stair Park and not Ibrox.  Not a chance would Stranraer have even requested to play the game at Ibrox rather than Stair Park.

 

Kind of negates your argument right there, IMHO of course.

 

 

What are you even talking about?
 

Quote

I'll willingly bet you a cyber pint that if the draw had been made and was Stranraer v Rangers rather than Rangers v Stranraer that the game would have been played at Stair Park and not Ibrox.

I dion't know where you're getting this idea from. Where did anybody say that wouldn't be the case. Go find it then get back to me when you don't. 

[Gonzo79 13,589]

2 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

Making the cup top heavy? What are you even talking about when it comes to the preferences of these teams? Are you telling me they give the proverbial flying about anything else in comparison to a cash influx that can support them for years in some cases?

You can write endless paragraphs trying to justify it but it's just plain wrong.  

 

Football has been ruined enough by money men without supporters backing their nonsense.

 

 

[JFK-1 1,671]

10 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

You can write endless paragraphs trying to justify it but it's just plain wrong.  

 

Football has been ruined enough by money men without supporters backing their nonsense.

 

 

And I can write a single sentence saying you're plain wrong since you think that's enough to prove it. 

[Gonzo79 13,589]

6 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

And I can write a single sentence saying you're plain wrong since you think that's enough to prove it. 

There's little to prove.  I believe in the spirit of football and sporting tradition.

[JFK-1 1,671]

11 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

There's little to prove.  I believe in the spirit of football and sporting tradition.

There's little to prove. I believe in the welfare of football clubs and I was capable of going over my thoughts in some detail. I'm guessing you have never written a position paper of any kind.  You're on the level of the creationists in this instance. They believe God dunnit so that makes it real. Little to prove.