Jump to content

What if they shut down the season?


West Ender
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, allyo said:

If you were neutral in this how do you think you'd vote?

For sporting integrity.

However there is no neutrality in this scenario - not only are people's livelihoods at stake, the existence of numerous clubs are at stake. Those are considerations which ultimately sway a decision to vote one way or the other. I've no problem with clubs voting to secure their existence given the Hobson's choice they have been given by the SPFL. Any port in a storm, after all.

Having said that, the SPFL should not have called this vote under the current circumstances and are clearly trying to influence the outcome. 

Which on its own should be enough to render it null and void in the interests of voting integrity.

Edited by Barney Rubble
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, allyo said:

If you were neutral in this how do you think you'd vote?

I'd vote no. 

The SPFL are doing the same thing as they did when they tried to shoehorn Sevco into the SPL and then the championship i.e. money matters more than football.

I've read comments sayings its not the SPFL proposing this its the clubs as they just represent the clubs. Thats nonsense. We have in Doncaster et al a SPFL interested in the pursuit of money at all costs. They didn't have to table the proposal and could have easily tabled several proposals and let the clubs choose which on they favoured.

If we had a SPFL leadership that ensured football was the main priority monetary success would follow. Instead we're making decisions to keep TV companies and the old firm happy again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Barney Rubble said:

For sporting integrity.

However there is no neutrality in this scenario - not only are people's livelihoods at stake, the existence of numerous clubs are at stake. Those are considerations which ultimately sway a decision to vote one way or the other. I've no problem with clubs voting to secure their existence given the choice they have been given by the SPFL.

Having said that, the SPFL should not have called this vote under the current circumstances and are clearly trying to influence the outcome. 

Which on its own should be enough to render it null and void in the interests of voting integrity.

Not sure Integrity is part of the remit of the SPFL 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jlsarmy said:

Not true Aberdeen and Hibs aren’t doing it for their own good , think they’ve looking at the big big picture and I’m sure Anne Budge etc are meaning they will take it as far as they can legally whether that’s FIFA etc or the Court of Sporting Arbitration and you would be suing the governing bodies who run the Associations 

 

You are a member - the governing body works for you - therefore you cant sue yourself 

if the majority vote in favour you have no appeal as its within the rules of your governing body 

so talk of suing etc is nonsense 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, laukat said:

If ICT are indeed holding the deciding vote you have to say they have played their cards very well. Either they get a 14 team spl or they get a bing to vote no.

Most likely some sort of bung and we go down.

If we do go down I'll only be going to Falkirk away. I have no desire left to help other scottish football clubs it is most definetly the Self Preservation Football League.

Dont ever want see Doncaster anywhere near firhill.

Didn’t Montrose also vote no as well as Falkirk?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jlsarmy said:

Not sure Integrity is part of the remit of the SPFL 

My point exactly - thanks for underlining it.

It's one thing finding ourselves in the relegation places due to our own incompetence, but with a reasonable opportunity to play ourselves out of it.

It is another thing entirely for the ruling body to attempt to impose an adjudication that disposes of us and others in similar positions unilaterally and in an inconsistent manner (see Brechin).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Barney Rubble said:

For sporting integrity.

However there is no neutrality in this scenario - not only are people's livelihoods at stake, the existence of numerous clubs are at stake. Those are considerations which ultimately sway a decision to vote one way or the other. I've no problem with clubs voting to secure their existence given the Hobson's choice they have been given by the SPFL. Any port in a storm, after all.

Having said that, the SPFL should not have called this vote under the current circumstances and are clearly trying to influence the outcome. 

Which on its own should be enough to render it null and void in the interests of voting integrity.

Agree after this comlete shambles/farce this thing should be null and void. Start discussions next week on league reconstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

You are a member - the governing body works for you - therefore you cant sue yourself 

if the majority vote in favour you have no appeal as its within the rules of your governing body 

so talk of suing etc is nonsense 

I’m not sure that logic holds 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

You can only appeal on grounds of rules not being followed - its within the rules using a 75% vote 

I’m not a lawyer but I’m not sure what rules or procedures have or have nit been followed correctly but you could test that in court 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no neutrals - everyone votes in their own self-interest.  As I posted earlier in this thread, this "solution" would not be applied and the Leagues called if Rangers had been two points behind Celtic with a game in hand...incidentally Rangers would be Champions in that scenario.

Edited by Winter of '63
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, allyo said:

Doesn't the spfl just represent the clubs?

In theory yes but in practice they have a board that makes decisions and in this case put a proposal to all clubs when in effect it requires a rule change.

The SPFL could have put forward mutiple proposals and asked the clubs to choose so why did the board choose only to present this one?

Perhaps the answer to that lies in the make up of the board which is as follows:

Neil Doncaster (CEO), Murdoch MacLennan (Chairman), Karyn McCluskey (non-executive), Alan Burrows (Motherwell), Les Gray (Hamilton Academical), Stewart Robertson (Rangers), Ross McArthur (Dunfermline Athletic), Ewen Cameron (Alloa Athletic), Ken Ferguson (Brechin City) and Peter Davidson (Montrose).

As I've said before Sevco might publically moan about this proposal but they privately need it to pass.

Looking at the rest of the board is it not suprising that the propsoal dindn't relegate Brechin when they have a rep on that board? Hamilton will be quite happy to get another season in the SPL and the rest would just be happy to get access to the prize money.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...