Jump to content

Spiderpig

Season suspended till further notice

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, dennyc said:

 

And if that reeks of self interest. Sorry. 


 

 

 

 

Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Accies are all putting themselves first and we have to as well.

I've no idea what is expected of Burrows as a SPFL board member but he doesn't personally decide for MFC so it's irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Andy_P said:

If....

And that's why I think you are unlikely to get the statement you appear to crave .  The club are surely better to make no comment on it publicly until the group tasked with coming up proposals actually provide them with proposals to consider and vote on.

We are not included in the Working Group, although I would expect we will be asked for input. But is there any harm in declaring our preferences if reconstruction is to move ahead? I am pretty sure our Chairman will have already discussed such things with his counterparts at the likes of Killie and Ross County. Why not give the fans some initial thoughts? No harm in that.

Then again, perhaps the silence from the a Club is more to do with the position Alan Burrows finds himself in rather than a wish to limit information to fans. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, steelboy said:

Celtic, Rangers, Hearts, Accies are all putting themselves first and we have to as well.

Don’t forget Brechin City. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, middleeastdave said:

Do you think we would be going through all this problem with SPFL if Hamilton or St Mirren were bottom of the league....I have my doubts.

 

I couldn't give a shite if it was Albion Rovers.... To be relegated without the stipulated amount of games played is fucking nonsense 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, steelboy said:

We know that a short term increase in the league numbers means increased relegation places and less income for the duration.

We know that a permanent increase means less income over the full new TV deal and likely beyond. 

The working group aren't going to propose something we can't assess already. 

 

 

3 hours ago, dennyc said:

We are not included in the Working Group, although I would expect we will be asked for input. But is there any harm in declaring our preferences if reconstruction is to move ahead? I am pretty sure our Chairman will have already discussed such things with his counterparts at the likes of Killie and Ross County. Why not give the fans some initial thoughts? No harm in that.

Then again, perhaps the silence from the a Club is more to do with the position Alan Burrows finds himself in rather than a wish to limit information to fans. 

 

I have no qualms whatsoever about us voting for what is in our best interests, nor that in the background we seek to use what influence we do have to steer the conversations within the  working group in the direction we might like best.  Indeed I would expect that as a given. 

But a few things spring to mind.

As it stands there are a number of teams who are not looking in a particularly good light currently through actions and statements made. Through our “silence“, and you could argue our stance on furloughing staff and Covid—19 fundraising, our reputation has remained in tact and arguably improved if anything.  Which as an aside is no bad thing when you are looking to sell season tickets. I don't see that us adding to that list of clubs publicly demonstrating their self interest gains us all that much in the grand scheme. 

Sure we could offer a preference but again I don't see the need to become publicly embroiled on what is going to be a very toxic debate when the proposals come out. Yeah we come out and say we want the utopia of an 18 team league that should ensure we never get relegated, have the freedom to play however many young players we like without the same risk or whatever. But there is more chance of Brian Martin waking up  tomorrow morning with a full head of hair than than that proposal being on the table. In reality rather than some considered approach that is going to be the best long term approach for Scottish football it's going to a fudge to get us through a season or two and kick it into the long grass for a bit. I mean Budge is already talking about a six week period of debate, when they can't knock heads together in the same room, to be condensed to three. So if we are going to say something let's wait until we see what evils are put up for us to vote on. 

Then you have Lawwell. 

For a good while before this particular arose steelboy has inferred that  Peter Lawwell “runs“ Scottish football and the inference has been on more than one occasion that Alan Burrows operates at his behest. Indeed you only need look back at some of the posts alluding to that over the past week. 

What difference then is a public view from Fir Park going to make if it is indeed the case that this all powerful influencer will largely get what he wants anyway?

Is steelboys keenness to see a position stated from Motherwell stemming from a genuine desire to know our position or simply to confirm the preconceptions that Burrows is in Lawwell`s pocket? 

Personally I maintain the position that I'm not sure I see much benefit of us saying anything publicly until we are commenting on some concrete proposals. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12-12-10-10,  Hearts down, Partick saved, suit everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sportsound at 12 today will have an SPFL board member on. Canny mind who. 

Probably worth tuning in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Andy_P said:

 

I have no qualms whatsoever about us voting for what is in our best interests, nor that in the background we seek to use what influence we do have to steer the conversations within the  working group in the direction we might like best.  Indeed I would expect that as a given. 

But a few things spring to mind.

As it stands there are a number of teams who are not looking in a particularly good light currently through actions and statements made. Through our “silence“, and you could argue our stance on furloughing staff and Covid—19 fundraising, our reputation has remained in tact and arguably improved if anything.  Which as an aside is no bad thing when you are looking to sell season tickets. I don't see that us adding to that list of clubs publicly demonstrating their self interest gains us all that much in the grand scheme. 

Sure we could offer a preference but again I don't see the need to become publicly embroiled on what is going to be a very toxic debate when the proposals come out. Yeah we come out and say we want the utopia of an 18 team league that should ensure we never get relegated, have the freedom to play however many young players we like without the same risk or whatever. But there is more chance of Brian Martin waking up  tomorrow morning with a full head of hair than than that proposal being on the table. In reality rather than some considered approach that is going to be the best long term approach for Scottish football it's going to a fudge to get us through a season or two and kick it into the long grass for a bit. I mean Budge is already talking about a six week period of debate, when they can't knock heads together in the same room, to be condensed to three. So if we are going to say something let's wait until we see what evils are put up for us to vote on. 

Then you have Lawwell. 

For a good while before this particular arose steelboy has inferred that  Peter Lawwell “runs“ Scottish football and the inference has been on more than one occasion that Alan Burrows operates at his behest. Indeed you only need look back at some of the posts alluding to that over the past week. 

What difference then is a public view from Fir Park going to make if it is indeed the case that this all powerful influencer will largely get what he wants anyway?

Is steelboys keenness to see a position stated from Motherwell stemming from a genuine desire to know our position or simply to confirm the preconceptions that Burrows is in Lawwell`s pocket? 

Personally I maintain the position that I'm not sure I see much benefit of us saying anything publicly until we are commenting on some concrete proposals. 

None of the SPFL board come out of this situation In a good light and I include Alan Burrows in that. Alan is not on the SPFL board to promote Motherwell’s agenda he’s there to represent the SPLs interest. Having said that he’s not on the Motherwell board to promote the SPFLs boards agenda.

Motherwells board of directors Jim McMahon, Douglas Dickie, Alan Burrows, Tom Feely and Andrew Wilson are there to represent the interest of OUR football club going forward. 
In fact Douglas Dickie and Tom Feely are there to represent the views aims of the Well Society 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Well Society owns the club now so at the end of the day all the directors are legally meant to be representing it's interest. 

Andy an 18 team league is fantasy stuff. I've liked what Burrows and Robinson have said about improving infrastructure long term but it we take financial hit to go to 14 teams that will take a hit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, steelboy said:

The Well Society owns the club now so at the end of the day all the directors are legally meant to be representing it's interest. 

Andy an 18 team league is fantasy stuff. I've liked what Burrows and Robinson have said about improving infrastructure long term but it we take financial hit to go to 14 teams that will take a hit. 

I agree with you on all of that, including the 18 team league.  The 18 team league wasn't a serious proposition on my part, simply there to illustrate that whilst there might be all sorts of potential options for reconstruction, including the 18 team league, in reality the options we vote on are likely to be limited to shite, a bit less shite, a bit more shite, or we agree nothing and stay as we are.  Which, and I appreciate I'll be beginning to sound like a broken record, is why I think it's best to say nothing for the moment and let those coming up with the suggestions draw the inevitable heat that'll come with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need to become embroiled in any toxic debate. Just communicate to the fans what current thoughts are on reconstruction. That position may change over time through rational discussion or perhaps some other club, on the working party or not, may come up with a proposal which is attractive to us. What do our Board consider best for us? I haven’t a clue. But I do know what Livi, Aberdeen and several others think.
And Jim McMahon, quite correctly in his position as a Chairman in my opinion,  was quick enough to declare the Clubs position and priorities when all this Co Vid situation kicked off.

Why not give the our fans, many of whom commit funds on a monthly basis and are reportedly taking up season tickets at a record pace, a feeling for what our Board would prefer the way ahead to look like?

And I read elsewhere of talk of getting next season sorted by way of reconstruction and then see how things are placed in a year or two’s time. Whilst the situation should constantly be under review I hope that any proposal includes a clear timeline for when and how it is intended to get back to the current set up. An exit strategy to quote current speak. Otherwise there could well be a sting in the tail nobody desires.

As for the Furloughing of staff and players, if this shutdown continues for some time as looks likely, then our Board must take whatever action is needed to protect our financial position. Moral high ground is all well and good but not if it puts our entire future at increased risk. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennyc, I understand your point but as no formal proposal’s have been put forward then I don’t think the club should make any statement. I’d like to think that as potential solutions are being muted by others the board will be having informal talks on what the club’s potential views are on each of them but I don’t see the need - or the advantage - of making those views public. 
we would all love to know the clubs views & stance on many things instantly but we vote the board members in and trust they will do what’s best for the club. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sportsound has been excellent the last couple of weeks. Today though they have a leading SPFL Board member on, Les Gray, and they have Chic Young and Paddy Bonner asking the questions...

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stuwell2 said:

Dennyc, I understand your point but as no formal proposal’s have been put forward then I don’t think the club should make any statement. I’d like to think that as potential solutions are being muted by others the board will be having informal talks on what the club’s potential views are on each of them but I don’t see the need - or the advantage - of making those views public. 
we would all love to know the clubs views & stance on many things instantly but we vote the board members in and trust they will do what’s best for the club. 

They could tell their fans what their initial thought are,  even if it is only in a general sense....Permanent or Temporary, Financial implications. Give the fans a sense of where we are at. Les Gray just told us Hamilton Board want a permanent structural change. Budge told us yesterday Hearts were looking at temporary change. Livi prefer an 18 team permanent change. Those teams’ fans at least have a heads up as to what their Club is currently thinking.  Nothing wrong with that.
 

Les Gray also said any solution they put forward as a working group must halt relegations. That will be the exact same relegations that the exact same Les Gray supported in the option the SPFL Board put forward last week. How contradictory is that? So why include them in the SPFL proposal in the first place if the intention was always to cancel them by way of reconstruction (which he said was also part of the proposal put to the Clubs)? Suggests to me it was more about establishing a precedent for declaring Champions. We may well see after next weeks UEFA meeting. If the argument is that you cannot relegate teams because the fixtures were not completed, how the hell can you declare Champions? Or do we just pick and choose. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Les Grey is lobbying for his club as they benefit greatly from reconstruction so needs to get out and bang the drum for that. We don’t need to do that so should keep our own council until we see all the options and can then pick the most advantageous to Motherwell FC. Giving an opinion now and then changing it if a better option comes along make the club look bad so best to say nothing at the moment. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Stuwell2 said:

Les Grey is lobbying for his club as they benefit greatly from reconstruction so needs to get out and bang the drum for that. We don’t need to do that so should keep our own council until we see all the options and can then pick the most advantageous to Motherwell FC. Giving an opinion now and then changing it if a better option comes along make the club look bad so best to say nothing at the moment. 

Setting out what MFC see as the essentials of any proposal is not declaring a fixed intention. But it gives us fans an indication of what our Board see as priorities. Just like many other Clubs are doing. There might be movement further down the line but at least we would know what we are looking to achieve.

And, again from what Les Gray said, the Working Group is not going to provide a set of options for Clubs to consider. Like the proposal last week, the options will be reduced down to the preferred choice of the working group . He was quite clear on that point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we not organise a Well Society vote on whether Hearts go down, I thoroughly enjoyed the last vote we got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought on the whole, Les Gray came across well there and shed some much needed light on the role the SPFL board played in the Friday vote. Unless Rangers or any other club (or anyone on this forum for that matter) puts forward some actual evidence of bullying or undue pressure I think that can be put to rest. 

As an aside - If managers can be charged with bringing the game into disrepute for criticising referees, then I hope Rangers get absolutely hammered if they don't take things further.

 

What I think was overlooked, and this sits entirely with the BBC (Chick Young and Pat Bonner), was that he wasn't pressed on why an amendment to the rules couldn't have been voted on to release prize money. His response was that amendments are notoriously hard and then gave the example of this recent vote. Totally bizarre logic to cite this mess to explain why they didn't vote on a less complex amendment which would have been universally welcomed. Total lack of scrutiny from the presenters on the most fundamental of questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair any time he tried to explain an answer someone cut across and went off on a tangent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Bonner and Young asked some fairly direct questions in an attempt to clarify matters, but were often side tracked into areas Les Gray was more happy to address. Two that stood out for me.

Why was Anne Budge chosen to lead the Working Group rather than somebody with a more neutral stance?

 Who can Rangers take their evidence to, if it involves those Officials to whom it would normally be passed?   

 

Much of Les Grays comments contradicted what others have told us. A few examples..........

 

 Les Gray insisted that only a 24 Page Proposal Document was sent to every  Club. The full document contained confidential information relating to TV contracts and the like so could not be shared.  Nelms of Dundee, Gardiner of ICT and Cormack of Aberdeen openly stated on Sportsound that they got only 48 hours to study the  full 108 page Document.

Les Gray, in defending the cash allocation stance, said the last Loan the SPL made to a club was in  2010. It is that difficult to arrange.  Anne Budge said yesterday that the SPFL Board she was on made a loan to assist a Club. Anne Budge only only became involved with Hearts in 2014.

Les Gray said they cannot pay out monies early. They did in March, three games before the split that was the agreed time for payments.

Les Gray confirmed that last week's vote gave the SPFL Board a mandate to call the SPL over and done. Cormack of Aberdeen believes that no decision can be made without referral to all SPL Clubs, following his Friday discussion with Neil Doncaster.

Les Gray said it was too complicated to amend the Articles to enable cash payments prior to making a decision regarding the way ahead.. But he supported a proposal to amend those same Articles to shut down the lower Leagues immediately and SPL if deemed appropriate.

Les Gray said the reconstruction is about ensuring no Clubs are relegated. Why then was the SPFL Board resolution offering only that outcome?

Les Gray said there is no evidence of bullying. Therefore no grounds for an Independent Enquiry.  Setting aside the leaked Whatsapp discussions claiming threats made by a Dunfermline Board Member, we have several Chairmen saying they felt a gun was being held to their heads and Tom English says he has spoken to 3 clubs who back that allegation.

Les Gray states the SPFL Board did not exert undue pressure for a Yes vote. But Les Gray agrees he and fellow Board Members (including our man) made numerous calls to clubs in an effort to get them to support the proposal. 

Les Gray thought Dundee's vote did not get through because the.pdf came from an "unrecognised" home address which was rejected by the Server. However dozens of other.pdf submission sent from "unrecognised" home addresses due to home working were accepted without question. In fact, the Dundee vote was the only one rejected.

 

Les Gray's appearance on Sportsound today was a damage limitation exercise. And he did eventually agree that matters could have been dealt with better. He did share his thoughts and his  frustration with some aspects. But he did not clarify that much and he did not answer several of the more delicate questions that were put to him. Sometimes due in part to the person hosting the programme. Jonathan Sutherland??

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ropy said:

Can we not organise a Well Society vote on whether Hearts go down, I thoroughly enjoyed the last vote we got.

To exact revenge for Hearts voting against us in 2003 you mean? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Denny's point about clubs voting for relegation then immediately saying that relegation is untenable is the biggest absurdity. It highlights that the process of Harper MacLeod choosing a single outcome and the SPFL board forcing it on the clubs by withholding money they need was all about giving the title to Celtic. 

  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, steelboy said:

the SPFL board forcing it on the clubs by withholding money they need was all about giving the title to Celtic. 

And there lies the root of of all the problems facing Scottish football,  the SPFL / SFA lackeys and amateurs giving themselves up as the ugly sisters bitches, no desicion taken unless it suits Celtic or Rangers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×