Yep and a few other interesting things came out of it too

1. The 2 Dundee Clubs CAN share Tannadice.

2. Falkirk and Clyde are allowed to share with SPL clubs if they come up. Clyde are already deep in talks with Kilmarnock about sharing Rugby Park

3. SPL mouthpiece Lex Gold says they will "look into" scrapping the 10000 seat rule for SPL entry. No such worries for Hearts of course. They will have 67 thousand seats next season.

:( Looks like it's up to us now to buy out the SMG.

Originally posted by jackie4

2. Falkirk and Clyde are allowed to share with SPL clubs if they come up. Clyde are already deep in talks with Kilmarnock about sharing Rugby Park


I cannot not f'ing believe that Clyde will have to play at Kilmarnock should they go up... average attendances of 1,000 and they've got an 8,000+ seater stadium. Falkirk only seemed to announce plans to groundshare with Dunfermline as they dropped out the title race. The cynic in me thinks this is to look like the Falkirk board had a backup plan should we win the league, knowing the new stadium wouldn't be ready for SPL use next season.

The cynic (and conspiracy theorist) in me also think that the SPL did the only thing to save their asses. They didn't want another season without relegation, so they've told the teams they can groundshare which also allows Hearts to go to Murrayfield and Scumdee to play at Scumdee United. But they did it in a way that didn't really relax the 10,000 seater rule so there could be no court action from Partick Thistle and St. Mirren. Now, obviously that comes from a Falkirk fan with a massive chip on his shoulder but I wouldn't put anything pass the SPL.

BTW could I just point out that is a LEGAL Requirement to have 10 thousand seats in a top flight stadium in both Scotland and England.

So the SPL can't just vote to abolish the rule. There would have to be legislation.

What happens to Dens Park, Tynecastle, and the other grounds?

Dens Park gets sold off. Tynecastle gets sold off. Broadwood(Clyde's home) gets upgraded and Falkirk are already building a new stadium.

Originally posted by jackie4
BTW could I just point out that is a LEGAL Requirement to have 10 thousand seats in a top flight stadium in both Scotland and England.

So the SPL can't just vote to abolish the rule. There would have to be legislation.

Okay, let me just say I've had a few beers watching the Scotland-Romania game (thats my disclaimer by the way).

a) I have never, ever heard the SPL or anyone else for that matter mention the fact that 10,000 seats was a legal requirement. And the fact that if it was, that would be the main reason for keeping a rule that, to me, is absolutly f'in rediculous. I could be horribly wrong but I'm sure that the Taylor Report which investigated the Hillsborough Disastor gave RECOMMENDATIONS about stadiums rather than giving direct rules over it.

b) English and Welsh legal systems are the same, but having studied law (briefly) the Scottish law is completly different. Now as far as I'm aware, the Welsh Premier League doesn't have a 10,000 seater rule which surely if it was law in England would be law in Wales too. PLUS, when Fulham came up to the EPL, they didn't play in a 10,000 seater satdium their first season up.

I'm not denying for 1 second I could be wrong but I'm fairly sure you're speaking bollocks when you say its a legal requirement.:D

Yep it's a requirement under the Sports Grounds Act (1975) which was brought in by Parliament to improve safety for fans after the 1971 Ibrox disaster. And YES it was adopted under Scots Law too, just like the recommendations of the Taylor report were in the early 1990's.

So no bollocks there I'm afraid.

Originally posted by jackie4
Yep it's a requirement under the Sports Grounds Act (1975) which was brought in by Parliament to improve safety for fans after the 1971 Ibrox disaster. And YES it was adopted under Scots Law too, just like the recommendations of the Taylor report were in the early 1990's.

So no bollocks there I'm afraid.

Mmmmm. I still have my reservations about this, but you seem to know what you're talking about... if you've got some links I'd like to see them.

Brockville was still hosting games in the top division in the 95/96 season.

Double post... sorry.

I'll just point out that I've got no problems the SPL not allowing games to be played at grounds like Brockville but to expect teams like ICT, Ross County and Queen of the South to have 10,000 all seater stadiums is rediculous.

Yeah, but I read somewhere teams had a grace period until 2000 to get their stadiums in check, hence why Dens Park was still allowed to be used during the 98/99 season.

Whatever pen-pushers dreamt this keek up eh?

If ICT get promoted this year it's going to be crap.

Just like Falkirk last year, ICT are more than able to play in the SPL...the stadium shouldn't stop that.

Going to watch the tic this summer v Chelsea...summer tour thing here in the states...would have prefered one of the bigger clubs like AS Roma, but oh well better than nowt.

Originally posted by Hearts_FC
Going to watch the tic this summer v Chelsea...summer tour thing here in the states...would have prefered one of the bigger clubs like AS Roma, but oh well better than nowt.

OH Come On!!!! Chelsea ARE quite a big club and as big as Roma surely don't u think??

dont matter we will win both games anyway:p :rockman:

spl and sfa have killed our game. BRING BACK JIM FARRY:rockman:

Originally posted by jackie4
OH Come On!!!! Chelsea ARE quite a big club and as big as Roma surely don't u think??

Yes but Celtic arent.

what a heap of ****e, why didnt they introduce this rule last year? falkirk must be ****in fuming that they didnt get to groundshare with airdrie or go to murrayfield. now that they can be promoted they've lost all there players!! :kader: im glad there will be relegation this season though, same teams in the SPL for 3 years is just >> :|

Originally posted by Hearts_FC
Yes but Celtic arent.

I knew that was the point u were making I was just being funny.

Try it, you'll like it.:crazyboy:

Originally posted by jackie4
I knew that was the point u were making I was just being funny.

Try it, you'll like it.:crazyboy:

I knew you knew I knew...I was trying to get a rise out of you :crazyboy:

Originally posted by AberdeenFC
what a heap of ****e, why didnt they introduce this rule last year? falkirk must be ****in fuming that they didnt get to groundshare with airdrie or go to murrayfield. now that they can be promoted they've lost all there players!! :kader: im glad there will be relegation this season though, same teams in the SPL for 3 years is just >> :|

Clyde are bottling it though, and if Inverness Caly Thistle win the league there will be no promotion.

Falkirk are (at the present time) the only team to be affected by the SPL's criteria in terms of being allowed promotion. In 97/98 Falkirk finished 2nd in the 1st division which, under the rules at the start of the 97/98 seasion, would have given Falkirk a playoff with the 2nd bottom team in the top division. In 2000/01 (or thereabouts) when the SPL increased in size to 12 teams, Falkirk, Aberdeen, and Dunfermline should have had a playoff. 2002/03 Falkirk win the league, but the SPL vote to keep Falkirk out.

Its a conspiracy I tells you
:f***: :f***: :f***: :f***:

why did they ditch the play offs anyway? they were class! we were in them one and the stadium was packed to see us beat dunfermline 3-1 at home and again away, there was a lot of exitement for the games. but oh well :( SPL is SO shíte :f***: