This, however, is different. Whilst Caley Thistle don't meet the 10,000 seater rule, they at least have some seats and a relatively safe ground. But that's not my main point of annoyance. What annoys me is that back in March, it was agreed that Hearts could use Murrayfield, the two Dundee clubs share Tannadice and Clyde, if they were promoted, could share Kilmarnock's ground. So why can't Caley Thistle share Aberdeen's? Whats the difference? Ok, so they might not have had the bid in by the end of March, but why the hell not tell them this was the end of it then, and they had no chance in being promoted?
You can bet your bottom dollar that if an SPL member club wanted to arrange a groundshare for next season now, they'd be allowed to. The SPL will do anything to protect it's members. Thats why they introduced the undersoil heating rule, so that even less SFL clubs could win promotion. This was such a great idea, as three member SPL clubs didn't have undersoil heating! The even funnier thing I've heard is that there's no penalty for clubs who don't have undersoil heating!
Still, one good thing has come of today's news. The 10,000 seater rule is no more, instead it's 6,000 which is much more sensible. However, that's not coming in until next season at the earliest.
Saints could have done with Caley Thistle up and Partick Thistle down. We'r rubbish against Caley, and it's a long journey. Partick is closer and we'd have got more money from hospitality. What a shame that the SPL has failed to use it's common sense yet again. Five clubs voted against the proposal. Partick Thistle (obviously) is one. The Old Firm are thought to make up another two, whilst Motherwell probably voted in Partick's favour after being kept up in similar circumstances last year. As for the fifth? No idea, but whoever they are should be ashamed of themselves. Had they voted for Caley Thistle, the Highlanders would be up.