What if they shut down the season?

[allyo]

19 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

It isn’t decided yet, but I think that is really a separate issue from the original vote. There was only a proposal to look at restructuring - that wasn’t a foregone conclusion. 

 

I agree with this. I don't think anyone voted in the knowledge that we would be saved from relegation. Or even on the assumption. They knew that it was a possibility, maybe a probability, and the likelihood is that they weren't too concerned. However (and I may be being pedantic), I think it's a step further to say that they "voted to relegate Thistle".

[scotty]

1 hour ago, allyo said:

I agree with this. I don't think anyone voted in the knowledge that we would be saved from relegation. Or even on the assumption. They knew that it was a possibility, maybe a probability, and the likelihood is that they weren't too concerned. However (and I may be being pedantic), I think it's a step further to say that they "voted to relegate Thistle".

There was at least one division one chairman who said that having both Thistle and Falkirk in the 1st would bring an increased income from away fans. Yes he did back-pedal very quickly but you can't honestly think that wasn't on his mind when voting.

[scotty]

There seems to be a sustained rear-guard fight from Doncaster and the SPFL board. Makes you wonder if they are worried about an investigation.

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, allyo said:

I agree with this. I don't think anyone voted in the knowledge that we would be saved from relegation. Or even on the assumption. They knew that it was a possibility, maybe a probability, and the likelihood is that they weren't too concerned. However (and I may be being pedantic), I think it's a step further to say that they "voted to relegate Thistle".

I was trying to show the parallel between Clyde saying they shouldn’t be penalised by a reorganisation, but they were quite happy to allow a couple of clubs to be penalised with the vote to end the season. That is complete hypocrisy. 

[allyo]

52 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I was trying to show the parallel between Clyde saying they shouldn’t be penalised by a reorganisation, but they were quite happy to allow a couple of clubs to be penalised with the vote to end the season. That is complete hypocrisy. 

But it isn't, if they subsequently vote for a proposal which ensures that no one is relegated. And that is yet to be seen.

We'll probably never agree here. 

1 hour ago, scotty said:

There was at least one division one chairman who said that having both Thistle and Falkirk in the 1st would bring an increased income from away fans. Yes he did back-pedal very quickly but you can't honestly think that wasn't on his mind when voting.

This is where the fantasy of a solution that penalises no one falls down. The Forfar chairman was hammered for the view he expressed but the fact is that Forfar currently operate in a division that contains clubs 23 to 32 in Scotland. Generally speaking that usually, based on recent years, includes a couple of full-time well supported clubs at the upper end. A 14-10-10-10 structure would leave Forfar in a league containing clubs 25 to 34. It seems like a minor change, but it leaves that league without its biggest clubs. It changes Forfar's economic reality.

Maybe in a more subtle way than relegation, and a way that shares the burden, which is why I do want reconstruction. But significant reconstruction such as 14-14-14 moves back towards loading the burden in an unfair and uneven way, which is why I totally see why Clyde would be justifiably upset.

I'm telling you, 13-10-10-9 is the way to go. 

Edited April 29, 2020 by allyo

[Lenziejag]

21 minutes ago, allyo said:

But it isn't, if they subsequently vote for a proposal which ensures that no one is relegated. And that is yet to be seen.

We'll probably never agree here. 

This is where the fantasy of a solution that penalises no one falls down. The Forfar chairman was hammered for the view he expressed but the fact is that Forfar currently operate in a division that contains clubs 23 to 32 in Scotland. Generally speaking that usually, based on recent years, includes a couple of full-time well supported clubs at the upper end. A 14-10-10-10 structure would leave Forfar in a league containing clubs 25 to 34. It seems like a minor change, but it leaves that league without its biggest clubs. It changes Forfar's economic reality.

Maybe in a more subtle way than relegation, and a way that shares the burden, which is why I do want reconstruction. But significant reconstruction such as 14-14-14 moves back towards loading the burden in an unfair and uneven way, which is why I totally see why Clyde would be justifiably upset.

I'm telling you, 13-10-10-9 is the way to go. 

There has been quite a lot of discussion about whether prize fund or attendance is more important to clubs. In all these discussions no one expects the top league teams to give up anything. That surely has to change even if just for 1 season.

[Tob Jag]

1 hour ago, scotty said:

There seems to be a sustained rear-guard fight from Doncaster and the SPFL board. Makes you wonder if they are worried about an investigation.

QUOTE:  . . . . . "the bickering is doing reputational damage!" . . . . .  stinks of POT calling KETTLE.

What does the arrogance emoji look like???

 

[Auld Jag]

8 hours ago, allyo said:

No one has actually voted to relegate Thistle. They voted to end the season with Thistle in bottom place in the league. There are now discussions which may or may not result in Thistle being relegated (and the default is that we will be) but until we know the outcome I think we are jumping ahead. 

Listening to sportsound the Saturday after everybody should've voted it sounded as if they voted for relegation as well as end of season payments. The person from ICT (sorry but i have forgotten his name) said he could not vote to relegate another championship club. The Forfar chairman said the final payment of £3,700 was not the main reason for his vote. He wanted to know who would be in the same league as them and having Thistle and Falkirk in the same league could be worth £75,000-£100,000 to them. Although circumstances could now stop us being relegated, imo when the vote came out clubs knew they could be relegating Thistle, Stranraer and Hearts.

[Big Col]

Of course they knew and they went ahead and did it. And for that reason, I still couldn’t care less if any of them went bust. Karma is a wonderful thing. 
Doncaster’s statement and the other recent SPFL statements absolute reek of desperation and cover up. Trying to get people to move along and simply accept what happened. They don’t want any stones being upturned for fear of what’s below them. 

[Emsca]

11 minutes ago, Big Col said:

Of course they knew and they went ahead and did it. And for that reason, I still couldn’t care less if any of them went bust. Karma is a wonderful thing. 
Doncaster’s statement and the other recent SPFL statements absolute reek of desperation and cover up. Trying to get people to move along and simply accept what happened. They don’t want any stones being upturned for fear of what’s below them. 

I would love lots of stones to be upturned and loads of wrongdoings and shenanigans to be exposed . I suspect however there will be a bit of outrage, accusations, denials ; a lot a discussions and then  everyone will carry on as before.

 

[JeanieD]

Perhaps the problem for the SPFL is that it appears that they have ceded the moral high ground to Rangers -; a concept so utterly inconceivable that the SPFL is desperately trying to back pedal in order to try to regain a shred of credibility but that ship has sailed.

[allyo]

51 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

Listening to sportsound the Saturday after everybody should've voted it sounded as if they voted for relegation as well as end of season payments. The person from ICT (sorry but i have forgotten his name) said he could not vote to relegate another championship club. The Forfar chairman said the final payment of £3,700 was not the main reason for his vote. He wanted to know who would be in the same league as them and having Thistle and Falkirk in the same league could be worth £75,000-£100,000 to them. Although circumstances could now stop us being relegated, imo when the vote came out clubs knew they could be relegating Thistle, Stranraer and Hearts.

Quote below is from Brian McLaughlin at BBC on the day of the vote.

As I say, I don't suggest that anyone actually cared too much about relegating us, and they all knew it was a likely outcome. I just think it is a misrepresentation to say that anyone actually voted to relegate Thistle.

"This has all the drama of a penalty shoot-out for a place in the top flight!

The outcome of this vote, however, may well have consequences for a huge number of clubs. My understanding is that during the lobbying by SPFL officials, assurances [were given] that "serious" talks regarding league reconstruction would take place with three tiers of 14 clubs, at the top of the list of possibilities.

However, no guarantees were given as the threshold for pushing this through would be very high."

[Auld Jag]

11 minutes ago, allyo said:

Quote below is from Brian McLaughlin at BBC on the day of the vote.

As I say, I don't suggest that anyone actually cared too much about relegating us, and they all knew it was a likely outcome. I just think it is a misrepresentation to say that anyone actually voted to relegate Thistle.

"This has all the drama of a penalty shoot-out for a place in the top flight!

The outcome of this vote, however, may well have consequences for a huge number of clubs. My understanding is that during the lobbying by SPFL officials, assurances [were given] that "serious" talks regarding league reconstruction would take place with three tiers of 14 clubs, at the top of the list of possibilities.

However, no guarantees were given as the threshold for pushing this through would be very high."

I remember there was something about  there being a chance of talks about league reconstruction if the vote was passed. I dont think many of us expected much to come of it though. Lets hope for a good outcome of the current talks and we don't go down. All the best to you and your's allyo at this very difficult time. I hope when this is over we are all able to return to Firhill fit and healthy.

[jaf]

If you are a director of a football club you have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of that company/club.  It’s no surprise to me that everyone voted in what they perceived to be the best interests of their club. We did. And  in. a different situation we may have voted differently.  Rightly, if people are discharging their duties properly.  But equally we cannot realist criticise directors of other clubs for doing what company law required of them. The problem is having a system which makes no effort to recognise that. 

[allyo]

8 hours ago, Auld Jag said:

I remember there was something about  there being a chance of talks about league reconstruction if the vote was passed. I dont think many of us expected much to come of it though. Lets hope for a good outcome of the current talks and we don't go down. All the best to you and your's allyo at this very difficult time. I hope when this is over we are all able to return to Firhill fit and healthy.

Cheers Auld Jag.  And same to you. I'm doing okay thanks. Best wishes. 

[Emsca]

8 hours ago, allyo said:

Quote below is from Brian McLaughlin at BBC on the day of the vote.

As I say, I don't suggest that anyone actually cared too much about relegating us, and they all knew it was a likely outcome. I just think it is a misrepresentation to say that anyone actually voted to relegate Thistle.

"This has all the drama of a penalty shoot-out for a place in the top flight!

The outcome of this vote, however, may well have consequences for a huge number of clubs. My understanding is that during the lobbying by SPFL officials, assurances [were given] that "serious" talks regarding league reconstruction would take place with three tiers of 14 clubs, at the top of the list of possibilities.

However, no guarantees were given as the threshold for pushing this through would be very high."

You are of course correct in that no Club explicitly voted to relegate Thistle, because that was not a choice on the voting slip. The point is they all knew the collateral damage a Yes vote would have for our Club , and most of them were prepared to let that happen. I accept Jaf's point about Directors having a fiduciary duty ect to do whats right for their Club , but the fact is most Clubs voted in the knowlege that their vote would likely result in Thistle being relegated.   

[Emsca]

8 hours ago, jaf said:

If you are a director of a football club you have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of that company/club.  It’s no surprise to me that everyone voted in what they perceived to be the best interests of their club. We did. And  in. a different situation we may have voted differently.  Rightly, if people are discharging their duties properly.  But equally we cannot realist criticise directors of other clubs for doing what company law required of them. The problem is having a system which makes no effort to recognise that. 

So who regulates this and who takes action if Directors fail in that fiduciary duty?

Can we expect action to be taken against the Directors of ICT and East Fife? 

[Jaggernaut]

What I don't get is how Doncaster & Co. can come out with statements such as "The proposals are in the best interests of all our members", when that is blatantly not true.

[Dick Dastardly]

1 hour ago, Emsca said:

So who regulates this and who takes action if Directors fail in that fiduciary duty?

Can we expect action to be taken against the Directors of ICT and East Fife? 

Fiduciary duty means that they have to work in the best interests of the organisation that they manage. So, for ICT, the directors might have considered that the best interest was to play the remainder of the games, including a cup final and any play offs. I think that East Fife might also be in line for play-offs, so that could be argued to be in their best interest.

[jaggy]

17 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Fiduciary duty means that they have to work in the best interests of the organisation that they manage. So, for ICT, the directors might have considered that the best interest was to play the remainder of the games, including a cup final and any play offs. I think that East Fife might also be in line for play-offs, so that could be argued to be in their best interest.

and therein lies the whole problem with the vote. We voted no so that we could try to avoid relegation, Alloa & QOS voted yes so they would avoid relegation & Raith to win League 1. The vote should have been about a payout of prize money, not about clubs voting for their final position in the league table.

[lady-isobel-barnett]

I don't know if this comes under fiduciary duties or not, but if I was a director of  an SPFL club I'd be questioning the financial wisdom of forking out £388K to hire a ******* clown.

[jlsarmy]

2 hours ago, jaggy said:

and therein lies the whole problem with the vote. We voted no so that we could try to avoid relegation, Alloa & QOS voted yes so they would avoid relegation & Raith to win League 1. The vote should have been about a payout of prize money, not about clubs voting for their final position in the league table.

You’re right , it was financial blackmail and it looks like they’re going down that route again telling Clubs about the cost of an independent inquiry if Clubs decide that is the way to go .

Think they’re probably protesting too much 

[Emsca]

2 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said:

Fiduciary duty means that they have to work in the best interests of the organisation that they manage. So, for ICT, the directors might have considered that the best interest was to play the remainder of the games, including a cup final and any play offs. I think that East Fife might also be in line for play-offs, so that could be argued to be in their best interest.

Yes but who regulates this?

Who is going to come along and say that vote you made was not in the best interests of your organisation? Answer : No-one , because it will always be a subjective judgement.

Accordingly this argument that the Directors had no choice but to vote Yes because they had a fiduciarty duty to do so, is flawed.

 

[Dick Dastardly]

It would be the shareholders of the club who would deselect members of the board at an AGM (or EGM if it was serious) if they were not working in the best interests of the organisation they have invested in. Effectively what Rangers, Hearts and Stranraer are doing to the SPFL. 

[javeajag]

training with masks in England ....

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11981088/premier-league-players-will-have-to-cover-faces-in-full-training