Fixtures 2016/17

middleeastdave · June 17, 2016

Have we officially complained about the fixture lists, as I see that tosser Ewan Murray concerned on Twitter about Partick, Motherwell and Hamilton bleating about not getting enough money out of the old firm fans, he should stick to golf, even that he talks a load of s@@t

siebsbarmyarmy · June 17, 2016

Thistle have just posted a statement on the matter: http://ptfc.co.uk/news/2016-2017/june_2016/club_statement_about_fixture_list

Fair Play to them. although plays a bit into the old firm fans thinking we can't survive without them.

Lobey_Dosser · June 17, 2016

Like Burrows initial reaction, I'm not in favour of the Partick Thistle statement at all.

In the interest of sporting integrity we ensured that the newly formed Rangers club startedin the lowest division and rightly so. Now that they have arrived in the league, they shouldn't be treated in anyway different to the other 11 teams in the league. Unfortunately there is the odd negativity to such parity but it's hypocritical to complain and we are playing right into the 'blue pound' argument.

Budgeting for 3 'old firm' homes games without consulting with the spfl is utterly incompetent on the part of Partick Thistle and by the sounds of it, Motherwell.

mjw · June 17, 2016

The fixtures sending Motherwell to Inverness, Hamilton to Aberdeen and Ross county to celtic for a match between Christmas and new year should be the main complaint today.

If we are relying on that gang from Govan to balance the books then there have been no lessons learned in the last four years.

Yoshi-1991 · June 17, 2016

The fixtures sending Motherwell to Inverness, Hamilton to Aberdeen and Ross county to celtic for a match between Christmas and new year should be the main complaint today.

If we are relying on that gang from Govan to balance the books then there have been no lessons learned in the last four years.

Spot on.

Only reason I'm peeved at the old firms fixtures is that we would have more chance of beating them at home.

ropy · June 17, 2016

Hope MFC delegates are all over the fixture rigging!

As well as losing one premium game pre-split, it's likely MFC lose an opportunity for a live TV game.

Add in only 1 visit from Aberdeen, then by the end of game 33 we are likely to have one of the lowest average away attendance. Commercially unfair.

Surely the loss of a TV game is a good thing. You get no compensation for being on telly and the crowd is likely to be reduced.

superward · June 17, 2016

Like Burrows initial reaction, I'm not in favour of the Partick Thistle statement at all.

In the interest of sporting integrity we ensured that the newly formed Rangers club startedin the lowest division and rightly so. Now that they have arrived in the league, they shouldn't be treated in anyway different to the other 11 teams in the league. Unfortunately there is the odd negativity to such parity but it's hypocritical to complain and we are playing right into the 'blue pound' argument.

Budgeting for 3 'old firm' homes games without consulting with the spfl is utterly incompetent on the part of Partick Thistle and by the sounds of it, Motherwell.

I think it's a fair budgeting assumption to make (if we did that) given how Rangers and Celtic games were treated in all SPL fixture scheduling in previous years before Rangers disappeared.

It definitely does sound like we are chasing the pound but Burrows does also point about and competitive advantage. It's a fact we, and others, take more points off the old firm at home. So it's a big factor given we only have them twice and others 4 times.

Sad thing is all this could have been resolved had the SPFL communicated they were not going to follow the same fixture planning that was previously followed in the SPL. You could also argue of course they are just following what they did last year without Rangers in it.

But I do think there is an argument on both sides here. Again...SPFL manipulate the fixtures currently to fit so it's left so open to question.

Good thing is, from a budget perspective, we have the Rangers League Cup game. So even if we recently plugged that ino a budget as extra it shouldn't be too much a jump to effectively use that to plug any gap we may have.

Lobey_Dosser · June 17, 2016

There's no competitive advantage, we are talking about a team just promoted. Ross County should be viewed no differently to Rangers.

The Leagur cup game will help financially but bearing it mind gate receipts are split, it won't come close to covering a league game at £25 a head.

superward · June 17, 2016

There's no competitive advantage, we are talking about a team just promoted. Ross County should be viewed no differently to Rangers.

The Leagur cup game will help financially but bearing it mind gate receipts are split, it won't come close to covering a league game at £25 a head.

Not having Celtic at home twice? It's not just about Rangers games which a lot of people seem to be getting focused on elsewhere too. I do think they will be a sterner task than Ross County come end of the August transfer window, however, no matter what anyone says. Incidentally I'd rather have Ross County twice at home as well. Any team at home is better than any team away.

League cup game will include home gate as well remember, rather than those all being season tickets so will help a bit.

ropy · June 17, 2016

I am uncomfortable that we are chasing the blue/green pound. It is pandering to every stereotype that is charged against us.

Ya Bezzer! · June 17, 2016

Classic sour grapes from us. We knew the system and presumably voted for it but when we are disadvantaged instead of someone else we cry foul.

There is no symmetry in the fixtures and we've known that for about 15 years now, it's hardly news. Our wounded yelping is actually a little bit embarrassing.

I thought we were actually moving towards a sustainable financial model and here we are banking on the horde-in-blue turning up.

Toxteth O'Grady · June 17, 2016

http://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2016/06/17/club-statement-premiership-fixtures/

capt_oats · June 17, 2016

To be honest, as much as I understand the club/board's point of view they're on to plums with this one and quite frankly the tone of the latest statement is pretty desperate and unedifying. It's difficult to read their position in the way it's presented (and that of Thistle's) as anything other than a misjudgement on their part. I'll admit I've not really looked into sequences of fixtures but going by last season we played Celtic at home twice (having played them away twice the season before) and United at home twice. Rangers replaced United so that's been reversed. We play Celtic away twice and United's replacement away twice.

If it is the case (as it seems to be) that Rangers have simply replaced United in the same relegation/promotion sequence that has been ongoing in years prior then why would anyone expect the SPFL to mind-read some clubs deciding that they'd revert to "how it used to be"? It's a pretty massive leap to take and in truth if any club (not just MFC) is making an assumption for £120k+ worth of income then they should have made the relevant enquiries and sought confirmation (which going by their statements it seems clear they didn't). As much as I'd like to have sympathy for the position, it's difficult if their argument is simply "aye but we thought it'd be the same as it was before. it's no' fair." That, I'm afraid is just fucking weak.

Stamping your feet, shouting and chucking your toys out the pram because you made an assumption that proved to be incorrect and by extension has had a negative impact on your budget, sorry but that's on the person making the assumption. Unless of course they did ask for clarification from the SPFL however the fact that the club have explicitly said there was no communication from the SPFL would suggest they didn't, that's not the SPFL's fault.

superward · June 17, 2016

Take the Rangers name out of it.

If something was always done in a certain way to 2 people for the benefit of 10 other people, then it stopped but only because 1 of the 2 involved dropped out then I would assume it would kick in again most definitely when they came back unless told otherwise.

Why would you assume any different? You could argue if you assume it is changing you are basing that on the fact that it has been done that way for the last few years..which is pretty much the same argument as saying 'you can't assume just because it's always been done that way'

There is definitely a reason for the 'never assume anyting' saying. So we will have to question every single SPFL decision I guess...being dramatic but there has to be a line of assumption somewhere.

There is definitely 2 sides to the argument and I am probably 60/40 on the club side. I do however see the negative and chasing the blue/green pound connotation.

capt_oats · June 17, 2016

If something was always done in a certain way, then it stopped but only because a team involved dropped out then I would assume it would kick in again most definitely when they came back. Why wouldn't you?

If you did then you are assuming something is changing without being told it is!

I wouldn't assume. I'd ask for clarification. "Hi lads, I see that's The Rangers back in the top division. what's the script with the fixtures? Same as last time or nah? K thx."

2/6 tae get in · June 17, 2016

We should be standing with the club on this one.If it's a choice between an unfair advantage or fair advantage I'd be looking for as equal as possible same home as away games. Don't people on here realise that we should be looking for as much income as we can generate.Very negative posts on this thread.Some folks needin there holidays.

Lobey_Dosser · June 17, 2016

I wouldn't assume. I'd ask for clarification. "Hi lads, I see that's The Rangers back in the top division. what's the script with the fixtures? Same as last time or nah? K thx."

Precisely. Highly unprofessional and misguided to assume anything, particularly in our current financial predicament.

superward · June 17, 2016

Precisely. Highly unprofessional and misguided to assume anything, particularly in our current financial predicament.

So we question every single process and decision made by the SPFL then?

I guess we might have to if they are changing previously understood agreements on process.

Busta Nut · June 17, 2016

What does our Statement say? the page wouldn't load. please don't let it be as pathetic as PTFC's

Lobey_Dosser · June 17, 2016

So we question every single process and decision made by the SPFL then?

I guess we might have to if they are changing previously understood agreements on process.

If there is a £100k at stake, most definitely.

Given the complications of the Rangers saga, it was incompetent not to check.

Toxteth O'Grady · June 17, 2016

Club Statement: Premiership fixtures

Friday, June 17, 2016

Club Statement: Premiership fixtures

The Board of Motherwell FC wishes to express its extreme anger following the publication of the SPFL Premiership fixtures earlier this morning.

Motherwell, along with Partick Thistle and Hamilton Academical, have two home Old Firm games pre-split, whereas some of our closest rivals have four, something that has never happened in the history of the SPL / SPFL, as far as we know.

This has a serious financial impact on our club, and we cannot and will not accept it.

It creates a significant financial advantage for some clubs over others and in our view, just as important, compromises the integrity of the competition, both in terms of the potential/need for adjusting respective player budgets up or down and the amount of games teams have to play at what has historically been the most challenging venues.

In previous seasons since the split, there has always been parity where clubs had the same amount of home games against both Old Firm sides (almost always three) and were expected to travel to both Celtic Park and Ibrox the same amount as every other team in the division prior to the split.

There was no hint of this fundamental change until we received the fixtures at 8.02am today and, therefore, like the other clubs in our position, now find ourselves significantly worse off than we were on Thursday night and with insufficient time to make appropriate adjustments.

We expect this unacceptable position to be reversed immediately.

In addition, whilst having sympathy around the difficulty of selecting games for certain times of the year, Motherwell FC believes having two midweek matches away at both Inverness CT and Ross County (the Inverness trip being three days after Christmas) sends out the wrong message.

Where possible, consideration should be given, particularly around the festive period, to the needs of all supporters given we now have two fixtures that will be largely inaccessible for a significant portion of our fan base.

Busta Nut · June 17, 2016

It loaded there, I think this is just the luck of the draw. I would only be angry if this was set up in Rangers favour. Which don't seem to think it is, yet.

ropy · June 17, 2016

Haven't read it but would be disappointed if it was holding Rangers and Celtic up as golden geese that we should get our fair share of. If our season is based on two home games against Celtic then get to the top Six and there is a good chance we will get our wish.

mjw · June 17, 2016