1929–30 Scottish Division Two
The 1929–30 Scottish Second Division was won by Leith Athletic who, along with second placed East Fife, were promoted to the First Division. Brechin City finished bottom.
Season | 1929–30 |
---|---|
Champions | Leith Athletic |
Promoted | Leith Athletic East Fife |
← 1928–29 1930–31 → |
Table
Pos | Team | Pld | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts | Promotion or relegation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Leith Athletic | 38 | 23 | 11 | 4 | 92 | 42 | +50 | 57 | Promotion to the 1930–31 First Division |
2 | East Fife | 38 | 26 | 5 | 7 | 114 | 58 | +56 | 57 | |
3 | Albion Rovers | 38 | 24 | 6 | 8 | 101 | 60 | +41 | 54 | |
4 | Third Lanark | 38 | 23 | 6 | 9 | 92 | 53 | +39 | 52 | |
5 | Raith Rovers | 38 | 18 | 8 | 12 | 94 | 67 | +27 | 44 | |
6 | King's Park | 38 | 17 | 8 | 13 | 109 | 80 | +29 | 42 | |
7 | Queen of the South | 38 | 18 | 6 | 14 | 65 | 63 | +2 | 42 | |
8 | Forfar Athletic | 38 | 18 | 5 | 15 | 98 | 95 | +3 | 41 | |
9 | Arbroath | 38 | 16 | 7 | 15 | 83 | 87 | −4 | 39 | |
10 | Dunfermline Athletic | 38 | 16 | 6 | 16 | 99 | 85 | +14 | 38 | |
11 | Montrose | 38 | 14 | 10 | 14 | 79 | 87 | −8 | 38 | |
12 | East Stirlingshire | 38 | 16 | 4 | 18 | 83 | 75 | +8 | 36 | |
13 | Bo'ness | 38 | 15 | 4 | 19 | 67 | 95 | −28 | 34 | |
14 | St Bernard's | 38 | 13 | 6 | 19 | 65 | 65 | 0 | 32 | |
15 | Armadale | 38 | 13 | 5 | 20 | 56 | 91 | −35 | 31 | |
16 | Dumbarton | 38 | 14 | 2 | 22 | 77 | 95 | −18 | 30 | |
17 | Stenhousemuir | 38 | 11 | 5 | 22 | 75 | 108 | −33 | 27 | |
18 | Clydebank | 38 | 7 | 10 | 21 | 66 | 92 | −26 | 24 | |
19 | Alloa Athletic | 38 | 9 | 6 | 23 | 55 | 104 | −49 | 24 | |
20 | Brechin City | 38 | 7 | 4 | 27 | 57 | 125 | −68 | 18 |
Source:
gollark: I think Discord actually caches images you see on its end, even ones linked from external sites, and the HTTP requests to it are distinguishable from normal browser ones..
gollark: I don't think it's a property of the image as much as some webserver config.
gollark: You can also do WHOIS queries on a domain.
gollark: I don't think email routing works that way.
gollark: Clearly the solution is to devise a way to *automatically* report anything which looks like it might be a problem.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.