Jump to content

Spiderpig

Season suspended till further notice

Recommended Posts

So, according to the BBC, Aberdeen and Hibs have been contacting clubs to discuss reconstruction and resumption of the season. Why? Isn't that the job of the SPFL and / or SFA? Presumably they aren't objectively contacting clubs to ask their opinions. What a mess. No doubt horse trading going on behind the scenes along the lines of "If you vote this way we'll support a change to rule X when thats next discussed". Prior to the now infamous reconstruction vote, Partick, Inverness, Ayr and Dundee formed a secretive voting pact.  There's obviously too many factions with vested interests all pulling in different directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to see here.  The whole thing is corrupt and dodgy with deals being cut outside of view and self protectionism rife.

This is exactly what we see in politics, basically create enough smoke and mirrors and everyone starts to question everything.  This was said to originate with Vladislav Surkov, once of Putin's top advisors.  You create a swirling vortex of information (true, false, rumours) so that people are constantly on edge and don't know where the real truth is.

We all know there is a con...they know we know too, but they don't care and they will come out it just fine.  Meanwhile Joe Punter will be the last person considered.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone surprised that clubs are approaching re-starting the season and reconstruction talks with self interest in mind. I would expect that and if Motherwell were bottom of the league I would expect us to shout loudly that we want season to continue or reconstruction to save our asses. 

The perplexing and sad thing is Sevco kicking off when the likelihood is they were finishing nowhere else other than 2nd. But clearly pandering to the fans to show they are not capitulating and handing Celtic 9 in a row. Pathetic quite frankly. And if they have little or no evidence to back up their scurrilous claims I would have them reprimanded for bringing the game into disrepute. 

We are in the enviable position that we can watch all this bickering unfold. I do not expect reconstruction to be passed regardless as will not garner enough votes. 

I also would not like to see football restarted without fans. It would be counterproductive and costly with little to be gained in revenue. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Welldaft Mk1 said:

I also would not like to see football restarted without fans. It would be counterproductive and costly with little to be gained in revenue. 

Neither would I. For a start it would be very costly. Matchday expenses would have to be paid but with no income. Covid 19 tests would need to be carried out again at considerable expense, if indeed available at all. Matches would involve upwards of 50 people which runs contrary to current government guidelines. Would all players want to participate? Fraught with problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, dennyc said:

I actually agree with a lot of what you say. And certainly that the evidence Rangers do or do not produce will determine where this is headed. I too very much doubt that an enquiry will take place for the reasons you outline.  Apart from a few Clubs there is little appetite for an Enquiry, notwithstanding the dissatisfaction throughout most of Scottish football with the conduct of some members  of the SPFL Board and the approach taken..... ...release of funds, voting procedures, refusal to answer valid questions  as prime examples. Even John Nelms in his statement tonight to the Daily Record was critical of the way Dundee were dropped in it with regard to the missing vote. That might all change of course if the evidence suggests the Board acted beyond their remit or unlawfully. But there we are, back to that evidence again.

I will always believe though that accusations of bullying within an Organisation should betaken seriously and investigated. And the SPFL is no exception.  Regarding the Deloitte Report, would it have been that difficult to at least address the allegations made in the Twitter story, which was in the public domain with the complainants  readily identifiable.  If, as you indicate, there was more to it that changed the implications of the comments, then a few lines in the Report would have put that issue to bed, publicly. Nobody other than a few Board Members seemed aware that the Report had even been commissioned, so would it have mattered if it had been delayed a couple of days to at least clear up that issue? But to ignore it just added to the situation.

As for English and his insider information, I guess that unless there is an Enquiry we will never know if the Clubs he refers to intend to follow through with their advice to him that they will speak up if it gets to that stage. I do find his persistence convincing though.

However this turns out I think many would agree the Board have handled matters badly with communication and awareness of public perception a major concern. Whether that brings about the change, in my opinion, the Governance of Scottish Football deserves, only time will tell.

And so we await the Dossier. Whistleblower evidence included. 

 

 

Absolutely - this Dossier is going to be interesting regardless. 

I did see The Rangers Twitter and Message boards absolutely outraged last few days about leaked Dundee FC invoices and accounts showing over £50k in payments, the day before they changed their vote, from a company called Scotflow.... who just happen to be owned by ex-celtic Board Member Dominic Keane. 

Turns out it was quite a well put together hoax. Interestingly, the guy made the documents two days before Rangers announced they have a dossier of evidence. 

If Hamilton get can scammed out a million quid, is it possible Rangers have been taken in hook, line and sinker by a hoax? Fucking hell, I hope so. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that we apparently received compensation (from Celtic) in 2017 for having one less match against the OF...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52515604

Neil Doncaster: SPFL chief 'entirely mystified' by Rangers' claims.

Neil Doncaster has denied any allegations of bullying by the SPFL

Chief executive Neil Doncaster is "entirely mystified" by what evidence Rangers have against him and the SPFL, and denies any allegations of bullying.

Rangers have said they can prove a "lack of fair play" in April's SPFL ballot to end the lower leagues and have forced an EGM on 12 May. They also called for Doncaster and SPFL legal adviser Rod McKenzie to be suspended.

"It has been several weeks and we've had absolutely no idea what it was that we were supposed to have done wrong," Doncaster told Sportsound.

"We've had all sorts of rumour and innuendo, vague allegations but nothing specific. It's not even a question of evidence. We don't even know what the charges are.

"I'm hearing that this alleged dossier of evidence is due to be circulated this week. We look forward to seeing what's in it because the sooner we can get this dealt with and move on the better."

Rangers will show evidence next week
'Why is SPFL so worried about inquiry?'
Loans or advances? SPFL accounts 'shed light' on payments
Doncaster said he assumed Rangers had something "pretty powerful" given their actions. However, he insisted that nobody had come to the SPFL with any claims of bullying.

"It's extremely disappointing that these vague allegations are out there with no one actually coming forward and saying 'I was bullied by someone within the SPFL staff'," he said.

"I do not believe for a moment that anyone has been bullied by a member of the SPFL staff. Least of all myself."

In a wide-ranging interview on BBC Radio Scotland's Sportsound, Doncaster also said:

Hearts chair Ann Budge is "mistaken" in saying she approved a loan while on the SPFL board in 2017 and that the league "unequivocally did not" do so that season;
Instead, Motherwell and Partick were each awarded an "advance fee payment" of £150,000 that term as compensation for having one fewer Old Firm home game. Celtic agreed to forgo £300,000 to cover that;
Those were subject to VAT, were invoiced, and did not need to be repaid - so could not be loans;
Around £7m is in the SPFL's accounts and will be released to Premiership clubs when the season is completed;
The SPFL could "in principle" have made "individual loans to individual clubs" but it would have been impossible to do so for all 42. They also could not be satisfied that each club would be a "good credit risk" and that other clubs would have been left liable;
Rangers' resolution was ineffective because you "cannot force" a board to make loans that may not be in the company's best interests;
Conversations were had about voiding the season, which would have left the league "in a right mess";
Two lower-league clubs informally asked for a loan prior to the vote to end the season. Those requests have since been withdrawn;
He is "entirely relaxed" about the fact Premiership clubs met without him on Friday;
All TV money has been received but he wouldn't comment on whether any could be clawed back;
"Frank conversations" are going to be had with broadcasters and sponsors.
Real the full transcript of Doncaster's interview with Richard Gordon here.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Toxteth O'Grady said:

Interesting that we apparently received compensation (from Celtic) in 2017 for having one less match against the OF...

I think you've misunderstood that. Prize money is paid out in instalments throughout the season. An additional advanced payment of £150'000 prize money each was made by the SPFL to us and Partick. To balance the SPFL books at the point, Celtic agreed to forego an instalment that they were due. At the end of the season, us and Partick would have got £150'000 less in the final payment and Celtic would have got £300'000 more. 

 

I thought Neil Doncaster came across pretty well and cleared up the question that many have been asking for a long time - why was it the only option? Loans aren't an option because of the current credit risk. As far as advanced payments go - If my understanding is correct, the prize money is paid in instalments through the season (never exceeding the total they can receive based at the end of the season) which means that the majority of clubs already had the bulk of their prize money. What was left to be paid was an amount so little that some clubs could end up receiving more than they are due should the season reconvene - that would mean clubs receiving excess payments were in debt to the SPFL therefore that excess would be paid as a loan - which we know can't be done. Makes sense. 

Gordon Duncan (who I normally don't mind) and Tom English absolutely embarrassed themselves. Especially Tom English who came across as a paranoid nutter who had no intention of trying to understand the situation. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CoF said:

I think you've misunderstood that. Prize money is paid out in instalments throughout the season. An additional advanced payment of £150'000 prize money each was made by the SPFL to us and Partick. To balance the SPFL books at the point, Celtic agreed to forego an instalment that they were due. At the end of the season, us and Partick would have got £150'000 less in the final payment and Celtic would have got £300'000 more.

Ok, that makes sense. From that article I'd assumed the payout was at the end of the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the split, 6th place  money is paid out to the top six finishers. Well after the conclusion of the season the top 5 clubs receive extra place money and the bottom 6 clubs receive their cash. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been on social media very much of late so haven't been following things as closely, but interested to hear what the Motherwell perspective is after the events of the last few days.

On the surface it looks like Rangers are showing something that in some way suggests SPFL incompetence, but that it's nowhere near as explosive as they'd made it out to be. Not sure it's enough to convince enough clubs to vote for an investigation, and also appears that the SPFL have an answer to most things.

The thing I don't get is how Rangers/Robertson can make such claims without incriminating himself. If the SPFL board are found to have done X, Y and Z then is he not partly culpable? And by the same token, would that not implicate Burrows in wrongdoing also? To me Burrows has always come across as a genuine person and so I've no reason to think he has been involved in some big cover up, but I do wonder if there is a reason other than legal fees that the SPFL don't want an investigation for...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stu92 said:

The thing I don't get is how Rangers/Robertson can make such claims without incriminating himself. If the SPFL board are found to have done X, Y and Z then is he not partly culpable?

Like many on here I know Stewart Robertson from his Fir Park days and always found him to be an approachable decent guy. In this case though you're right and the SPFL, in their rebuttal, did ask why, if Rangers had serious misgivings about SPFL Board goings on, they were not raised some time ago.

With some minor exceptions, its impossible for the ordinary fan to make any sense of these claims and rebuttals as we simply don't know the inner workings of the SPFL Board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

STV reporting no reconstruction. 

The correct verdict but Hearts and Dundee have been played like a fiddle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52592567

SPFL reconstruction talks break down after Premiership meeting
    
By Brian McLauchlin

BBC Scotland

1 hour ago

Daniel Stendel's Hearts were four points adrift in the Premiership when the campaign was halted

Scottish football's reconstruction talks have ended with insufficient support for any plan to reconfigure the leagues.

A 15-strong panel had been set up to look at proposals following the SPFL's ballot to end the season.

But at a meeting of the top-flight sides - plus Dundee United - on Friday, it emerged the majority were against changing the 12-10-10-10 format now.

That means Hearts would face relegation should the SPFL board call the season.

A 14-14-14 structure had seemed the most likely to succeed, given that the backing of nine of the 12 Premiership clubs was needed, along with eight in the Championship and 15 across Leagues One and Two.

The 10 current bottom-tier clubs have already agreed to support that en masse.

However, speaking on behalf of the Premiership clubs, Aberdeen chairman Dave Cormack said: "The strong feeling of the group was that we must focus all of our energies on emerging from the crisis we face, due to the pandemic, on getting back to playing football safely and getting fans back into grounds as soon as practicably possible.

"Whilst the group sympathises with the plight of the situation the relegated teams are faced with, it concluded that this is not the right time to consider immediate reconstruction in the midst of a crisis.

"But the group is willing to engage in and pick up on these discussions once we are through Covid-19."

'Undoubted disenchantment'
The group intends to meet next week to focus on the plan to get through the pandemic.

The other proposal under consideration would have added Kelty Hearts and Brora Rangers to the bottom tier in a 14-14-16 model.

That needed the approval of 11 of the 12 Premiership clubs, 17 in total from the top flight and Championship, and 32 of the current 42 in all divisions.

"[This development] leaves both ourselves and Kelty potentially with the door slammed in our face," said Brora chairman William Powrie.

"I would have thought that reconstruction would be part of the solution and not part of the problem and I think they have missed an opportunity not just for the Premiership but also for the greater good of Scottish football by bypassing the reconstruction options."

In both plans, bottom side Hearts would have remained in the top flight even if it was called off. They would have been joined by second-tier runners-up Inverness Caledonian Thistle.

Similarly, Partick Thistle would have escaped relegation from the Championship, Falkirk would have been promoted to the second tier and Stranraer would have stayed in the third.

The Scottish Highland Football League described the end of talks as "disappointing and frustrating in equal measure".

"This year, albeit in difficult circumstances, the SPFL had its first opportunity since the introduction of the Scottish Football pyramid to meaningfully embrace the spirit of the pyramid," it added in a statement.

"It is a matter of great regret that the SPFL has chosen to turn away from that. All associated with the Highland League share the undoubted disenchantment that will be felt by Brora Rangers and Kelty Hearts."

Who is on the SPFL Reconstruction Group?
Premiership: Les Gray (Hamilton Academical), Ann Budge (Hearts), Gordon Scott (St Mirren)
Championship: Lachlan Cameron (Ayr Utd), John Nelms (Dundee), Dave MacKinnon (Morton), Jacqui Low (Partick Thistle)
League One: Paul Hetherington (Airdrie), Gary Deans (Falkirk), Bill Clark (Raith Rovers)
League Two: John Sheran (Cove Rangers), Jim Brown (Edinburgh City), Gerry Crawley (Queen's Park)
Highland League: Rod Houston Lowland League: George Fraser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It says it all that, in Brian McLauchlin’s article, that Hearts’ relegation, not reconstruction per se,  features so prominently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stu92 said:

I haven't been on social media very much of late so haven't been following things as closely, but interested to hear what the Motherwell perspective is after the events of the last few days.

On the surface it looks like Rangers are showing something that in some way suggests SPFL incompetence, but that it's nowhere near as explosive as they'd made it out to be. Not sure it's enough to convince enough clubs to vote for an investigation, and also appears that the SPFL have an answer to most things.

The thing I don't get is how Rangers/Robertson can make such claims without incriminating himself. If the SPFL board are found to have done X, Y and Z then is he not partly culpable? And by the same token, would that not implicate Burrows in wrongdoing also? To me Burrows has always come across as a genuine person and so I've no reason to think he has been involved in some big cover up, but I do wonder if there is a reason other than legal fees that the SPFL don't want an investigation for...

not much chat about the dossier of allegations, certainly seems much less of a smoking gun  than the much delayed reveal built it up to be, and reads much more like a member of a group that is simply at loggerheads with the majority of the group and has spent a month digging desperatley to share some level of grievance.

bearing in mind Robertson of Rangers is an spfl director , its not really that damning , clearly he represents his club but they arent really putting together a sound case for significant upheaval at any time, let alone during crisis

any how the balance of the SPFL board who weren't being "threatened"? by the allegations have responded as report below , including out own CEO

 

Quote

 

SPFL urges clubs to reject Rangers' resolution in dossier response

  • 9 hours ago 

The SPFL has written to member clubs urging them to vote against Rangers' resolution for an independent inquiry into the process to end the season.

Rangers, Hearts and Stranraer have forced an EGM on Tuesday at which clubs will vote, with 75% support needed.

The league has also moved to rebut several claims made in a dossier released by the Ibrox club on Thursday.

Among those is the assertion that clubs were not told of a potential £10m liability to sponsors and broadcasters.

The letter is signed by seven of the nine SPFL board members - but not chief executive Neil Doncaster or Rangers managing director Stewart Robertson.

Peter Davidson of Montrose - who is a full board member but has no voting rights - is also a signatory.

In the letter, the SPFL says it has a "duty to respond... on behalf of Scottish football".

It also questions why Robertson - having been on the board in season 2017-18 and again since last summer - has not spoken out before.

"Surely if things were so bad, so dysfunctional, he had a clear and compelling duty to speak out before now?" is says.

The letter states that the SPFL has been "asked by a number of clubs" if action will be taken over "gross breaches of confidentiality" in the Rangers dossier. It says the issue will be returned to after the EGM.

image.gif.f4a9404605b0eb68194fabd9f9b77501.gif_112206204_afsdf.jpg
The letter was signed by seven of the nine SPFL board members - but not chief executive Neil Doncaster
What does the SPFL say about the dossier?

On the claim £10m of potential liabilities were not disclosed...

The SPFL says clubs "well understood" that the curtailment of the Scottish Premiership season could lead to claims being made.

It says that detailed legal advice was received and that analysing that and making recommendations to clubs is a "fundamental part" of the board's role, and that it would be "entirely inappropriate" and "against the interest of every club" to make that information public.

"We simply cannot understand why anyone would wish to talk up the possibility of claims and, in doing so, prejudice the position of every single SPFL member club," reads the letter.

The league insists that any potential claim "does not result in any way" from the vote to allow the board to end the Premiership season early and reiterated that no decision on that has yet been taken. Those claims, it says, "can only ever be conjecture at this stage".

Furthermore, it says there is "no question" of the board failing to inform clubs of a potential £10m liability.

"That was not reported to you because it is simply not the case," the letter reads. "The central complaint of Rangers is simply wrong and is based on a complete misunderstanding of the situation."

On the claim clubs were erroneously told they could only receive cash by voting for the SPFL resolution...

The letter repeats the SPFL's claim that the only way of making fee payments to lower-league clubs was to end the Championship, League One and League Two seasons. Again, it references issues with league positions changing and clubs potentially needing to repay prize money.

"Those who continue to suggest that there were other, 'simpler' means are being either economical with the truth or are once again demonstrating a lamentable lack of understanding of the current reality of Scottish football," it adds.

On the claim Aberdeen negotiated a concession - before voting - that top-flight clubs would be consulted before the SPFL board called the Premiership...

The letter says this is "categorically false" and that "no commitment was made to any club" other than those given in a legal briefing note sent to all 42.

The SPFL says Aberdeen were "seeking such a commitment" on 10 April but made it clear, by the time of the league's board meeting later that day, they did not wish for that to be taken to the board.

On the claim SPFL legal advisor Rod McKenzie issued four "cease and desist" requests to Rangers chairman Donald Park on 10 and 11 April, sparking his 'Rangers will not be bullied into silence' statement...

The SPFL says that, in a phone call on 10 April, Park "made a very serious allegation and threat to act in a particular way" to Doncaster - one which has been "entirely unsupported by any evidence, either then or since".

The letter adds: "The allegation was so serious and defamatory that Rod McKenzie immediately sought a commitment from the Rangers company secretary that it would not be repeated. This was a wholly appropriate and proportionate legal response to an entirely unfounded and damaging allegation. On no conceivable basis could this be considered as 'bullying Rangers into silence'."

On the claim McKenzie offered no meaningful assistance in drafting a members' resolution that would be effective...

The SPFL reiterated its stance that it had received "very clear legal advice" that the resolution submitted by Rangers, Hearts and Inverness Caledonian Thistle was not effective.

It says McKenzie "engaged actively" with Rangers' company secretary but that the "essence of the resolution... remained ineffective throughout". The letter adds that Rangers could consult a QC should they disagree, but says they declined to do so.

On the claim the SPFL and Scottish FA wrote to Uefa on 4 April saying "the vast majority" of SPFL clubs are calling for curtailment of the campaign...

The SPFL says this is correct and was "based on feedback from clubs and club representatives on the SPFL board".

It adds: "It was an honest and open assessment of what the vast majority of SPFL clubs were saying at that time. Part of the job of the chief executive is to gauge the views of clubs on important issues."

The SPFL also pointed towards the fact that more than 80% of clubs voted in favour of ending the lower-league season.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what's the likely outcome? The season ending immediately, we get 3rd place, Hearts relegated, Caley vs Accies playoff and no league reconstruction?

 

That seems reasonable to me, and I'm not just saying that coz we're 3rd. You gotta feel if it were Accies & St Mirren in the bottom 2 spots league reconstruction wouldn't even be being talked about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing that 6 clubs voted against the reconstruction, which I suspect means that the reconstruction was only for one season. Most have voiced they'd only back a permanent solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Well-Made said:

Seeing that 6 clubs voted against the reconstruction, which I suspect means that the reconstruction was only for one season. Most have voiced they'd only back a permanent solution.

This is what I'm not sure about Jim. Certainly this is how its being reported in the press. Reading media reports it would appear that 36 clubs voted for reconstruction but 6 top flight clubs did not, thereby sinking the proposal. However, I suspect that some, maybe many, clubs outwith the Premiership also voted it down but thats not being highlighted. I think its a bit rich of Falkirk to publicly slam the 6 clubs for putting self interest before wider concerns. Presumably the likes of Hearts, Falkirk, Partick and Stranraer voted objectively without self interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Toxteth O'Grady said:

But at a meeting of the top-flight sides - plus Dundee United - on Friday, it emerged the majority were against changing the 12-10-10-10 format now.

 

8 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

This is what I'm not sure about Jim. Certainly this is how its being reported in the press. Reading media reports it would appear that 36 clubs voted for reconstruction but 6 top flight clubs did not, thereby sinking the proposal. However, I suspect that some, maybe many, clubs outwith the Premiership also voted it down but thats not being highlighted. I think its a bit rich of Falkirk to publicly slam the 6 clubs for putting self interest before wider concerns. Presumably the likes of Hearts, Falkirk, Partick and Stranraer voted objectively without self interest?

There hasn’t been a spfl vote (42 member) on reconstruction , as I read it Dave.

simply the top flight clubs have indicated they were against any change at present as the majority of them want to focus on getting through the current issues facing football as a sport.

With the voting structure as it is that effectively scuppers reconstruction talks, unless that Reconstruction group wish to continue ploughing resource into making proposals 

I think the panicked lunge towards reconstruction and the farcical leaders of the working group , effectively ruined any chances of  success.

so I am pleased the senior clubs have called it out early enough to get back to focusing on the real issue .

Finishing up this season and  preserving clubs until the phased return of professional football as a business/spectator sport
 

it would be ideal if the situation had progressed enough to allow some play off type games to conclude the more finely contested head to heads but I doubt they can be hosted anytime soon.

UEFA deadline was the 25th for league conclusion plan, now unlikely to be met in Scotland, so most likely outcome is following through on the resolution and calling the 19/20 league as it stood.

But the Dossier! 

I’m a bit surprised at the leverage one point in the dossier , the potential shortfall in any partner sponsors payments, has gained,  
Best scenario is the SPFL brand  is strong enough that the partners don’t want to be seen to be harming it and leave the funds in place

however,  if the partners contracts mean short payments for shortened  league campaign, there is no financial gain to be had for clubs by cancelling the recent resolution and then waiting and playing out this season when public events are safe to host , as that means  , delaying the future payments (reportedly higher) 

hopefully full or near full terms are satisfied 

but it’s not financially sound to then hang on for X months, for any shortfall If it happens as that just delaying future income, best to jump straight into the future income asap 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Brazilian said:

There hasn’t been a spfl vote (42 member) on reconstruction , as I read it Dave.

simply the top flight clubs have indicated they were against any change at present as the majority of them want to focus on getting through the current issues facing football as a sport.

With the voting structure as it is that effectively scuppers reconstruction talks, unless that Reconstruction group wish to continue ploughing resource into making proposals 

I think the panicked lunge towards reconstruction and the farcical leaders of the working group , effectively ruined any chances of  success.

so I am pleased the senior clubs have called it out early enough to get back to focusing on the real issue .

Finishing up this season and  preserving clubs until the phased return of professional football as a business/spectator sport
 

it would be ideal if the situation had progressed enough to allow some play off type games to conclude the more finely contested head to heads but I doubt they can be hosted anytime soon.

UEFA deadline was the 25th for league conclusion plan, now unlikely to be met in Scotland, so most likely outcome is following through on the resolution and calling the 19/20 league as it stood.

On reading through the reports again Ian, you're right. There was no full vote of the 42 clubs, just the top tier. The composition of the working group was farcical and like you I'm glad that this proposal failed. It was a temporary solution to save 2/3 clubs most notably Hearts. Seems to be some confusion as to the actual voting. 6 clubs, including Hearts presumably, voted for it but 6 either voted against it or abstained.   Falkirk have started the recriminations publically. 

Now onto Facebook!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

On reading through the reports again Ian, you're right. There was no full vote of the 42 clubs, just the top tier. The composition of the working group was farcical and like you I'm glad that this proposal failed. It was a temporary solution to save 2/3 clubs most notably Hearts. Seems to be some confusion as to the actual voting. 6 clubs, including Hearts presumably, voted for it but 6 either voted against it or abstained.   Falkirk have started the recriminations publically. 

Now onto Facebook!

There hasn’t been any vote, clubs have stated their point of view which made it clear there wasn’t value in taking it further.  Semantics perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rangers now offering to pay for the investigation should the other clubs vote for it, Doncaster still making noises that a legal claim would damage all clubs.

Despite the apparent lack of explosive content in the dossier, Rangers must feel pretty confident of proving something. To me it still sounds a bit like the SPFL are trying to hide something...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stu92 said:

Rangers now offering to pay for the investigation should the other clubs vote for it, Doncaster still making noises that a legal claim would damage all clubs.

Despite the apparent lack of explosive content in the dossier, Rangers must feel pretty confident of proving something. To me it still sounds a bit like the SPFL are trying to hide something...

I don't think it would surprise anybody if there were shenanigans in the SPFL Board. The Dundee vote debacle is pretty good evidence of, at the very least, a level massive incompetence that would leave most of us looking for a new job.

The irony is, however, that over the decades, every club knows the incompetence/pressuring/influence/corruption or whatever you want to call it has always been to ensure the OF get exactly what they want.  If the SFA and old SPL has applied the correct rules during oldRangers liquidation, they would have been ejected from the league. Instead , the authorities were doing all they could not to just keep them in the league, but find a way to let them stay in the Premier League.

The only reason they are beelin' now is because Celtic are on track for 10-in-a-row. Nothing else.

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

×