Jump to content

Court It Is Then


Bobbyhouston
 Share

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It probably didn't help that we just launched a legal challenge against the governing body, and asked in effect that each of the other clubs pays Hearts over £200k each and Thistle over £50k each as compensation for us being shite.

Now now WJ, you are going over old ground here. Yes we were shite but not quite shite enough that we deserved to be relegated - regurgitate game in hand argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets remember Mr Anderson acted generously - which we as a club have benefitted from.

Donations of this type are often given with restriction. Apparently he chose not to make such a restriction on his gifting (unless it was that all clubs be eligible to £50,000). His money, his choice.

Once it landed with SPFL, the distribution was up to them if there were no restrictions on his gift. I am quite sure in normal times, never mind the current atmosphere of mistrust, that whatever distribution method had been chosen, the SPFL would have been criticised by someone somewhere. Perhaps they viewed this as the path of least resistance?  It does seem a missed opportunity to me however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Because Anderson was making the money available very specifically to every club and Celtic thought the available money would do some good for its partner charities, and that was allowable under the terms of the gift.

It isn’t complicated.

Let’s be honest Celtic don’t need £50k for anything. But Anderson went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL clubs and did not say he wanted it targeted at specific groups of clubs in greater need. Why he did that is a matter for him. It’s not for you or anyone else to criticise how he wants his money to be spent.

Not sure that is correct.

Anderson said initially he was willing to donate money to Scottish football to help given the current situation. The SPFL  then got involved as is right and proper. It was decided that the money would be channelled therough the SPFL Trust( a seperate charitable entity) and all Clubs in the SPFL could apply to the Trust for a £50,000 grant which they would get provided they demonstrated that the money would be used to alleviate issues caused by the Covid crisis or some other use approved by the SPFL Trust.

To me it is clear that when the SPFL got involved it was they who advised/ decided that to simplify the process and avoid the inevitable accusations of bias and favouritism,  the money should be available to all Clubs. A decision I understand and agree with. But I do not think it was Mr Anderson who " went out of his way " to make this pronouncemnt.

 

yp

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Emsca said:

Now now WJ, you are going over old ground here. Yes we were shite but not quite shite enough that we deserved to be relegated - regurgitate game in hand argument.

It's not about what the reality is. It's about how it's perceived by the other Clubs. Whether you like it or not, quite a few of them think we are whingy losers. And those who don't already think that are probably being nudged that way by the court case.

21 minutes ago, jaf said:

Lets remember Mr Anderson acted generously - which we as a club have benefitted from.

Donations of this type are often given with restriction. Apparently he chose not to make such a restriction on his gifting (unless it was that all clubs be eligible to £50,000). His money, his choice.

Once it landed with SPFL, the distribution was up to them if there were no restrictions on his gift. I am quite sure in normal times, never mind the current atmosphere of mistrust, that whatever distribution method had been chosen, the SPFL would have been criticised by someone somewhere. Perhaps they viewed this as the path of least resistance?  It does seem a missed opportunity to me however.

Yep. If it were me in Anderson's position I'd probably have wanted to focus support on needy clubs.

But it's not me. It's Anderson. And he has several million pounds to drop on Scottish football. I don't.

9 minutes ago, Emsca said:

Not sure that is correct.

Anderson said initially he was willing to donate money to Scottish football to help given the current situation. The SPFL  then got involved as is right and proper. It was decided that the money would be channelled through the SPFL Trust( a separate charitable entity) and all Clubs in the SPFL could apply to the Trust for a £50,000 grant which they would get provided they demonstrated that the money would be used to alleviate issues caused by the Covid crisis or some other use approved by the SPFL Trust.

To me it is clear that when the SPFL got involved it was they who advised/ decided that to simplify the process and avoid the inevitable accusations of bias and favouritism,  the money should be available to all Clubs. A decision I understand and agree with. But I do not think it was Mr Anderson who " went out of his way " to make this pronouncemnt.

Whether or not he went out of his way to say something because of discussions with the SPFL, he still went out of his way to say it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaf said:

Lets remember Mr Anderson acted generously - which we as a club have benefitted from.

Donations of this type are often given with restriction. Apparently he chose not to make such a restriction on his gifting (unless it was that all clubs be eligible to £50,000). His money, his choice.

Once it landed with SPFL, the distribution was up to them if there were no restrictions on his gift. I am quite sure in normal times, never mind the current atmosphere of mistrust, that whatever distribution method had been chosen, the SPFL would have been criticised by someone somewhere. Perhaps they viewed this as the path of least resistance?  It does seem a missed opportunity to me however.

Credit to James Anderson but he forgot he was dealing with Scottish Football

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Emsca said:

Not sure that is correct.

Anderson said initially he was willing to donate money to Scottish football to help given the current situation. The SPFL  then got involved as is right and proper. It was decided that the money would be channelled therough the SPFL Trust( a seperate charitable entity) and all Clubs in the SPFL could apply to the Trust for a £50,000 grant which they would get provided they demonstrated that the money would be used to alleviate issues caused by the Covid crisis or some other use approved by the SPFL Trust.

To me it is clear that when the SPFL got involved it was they who advised/ decided that to simplify the process and avoid the inevitable accusations of bias and favouritism,  the money should be available to all Clubs. A decision I understand and agree with. But I do not think it was Mr Anderson who " went out of his way " to make this pronouncemnt.

 

yp

 

Clearly not all clubs are in as much financial as was first presented if they can take £50k and simply give it away.....the original point of helping clubs get back to playing football has clearly been lost in all of this but what do you expect from Scottish football 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

It's not about what the reality is. It's about how it's perceived by the other Clubs. Whether you like it or not, quite a few of them think we are whingy losers. And those who don't already think that are probably being nudged that way by the court case.

Yep. If it were me in Anderson's position I'd probably have wanted to focus support on needy clubs.

But it's not me. It's Anderson. And he has several million pounds to drop on Scottish football. I don't.

Whether or not he went out of his way to say something because of discussions with the SPFL, he still went out of his way to say it.

I honestly do not give a monkeys  how we are perceived by other Clubs, their supporters or the Press.

I have no recollection of James Anderson saying the money had to be distributed to all clubs in the SPFL- can you point me to where this is quoted/reported?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPFL seek new powers.  From BBC website:-

The Scottish Professional Football League has issued a resolution to clubs asking them to cede Covid-19-related decisions to its board for next season.

The resolution only relates to disruption caused by coronavirus and is limited to season 2020-21, with the ability to change the start date for the following campaign.

There would be an express requirement to consult with clubs over decisions.

The organisation is keen to avoid a repeat of the recent in-fighting.

At present, major decisions taken by the SPFL must be ratified by the 42 member clubs.

A majority voted to curtail the leagues after coronavirus had caused the suspension of football in March.

The SPFL then held an indicative vote for clubs to adopt a 14-10-10-10 league structure, which was rejected, and Hearts and Partick Thistle began legal action to try to overturn their respective relegations from the Premiership and Championship.

he letter sent with the resolution to clubs warns that failure to approve it would mean the SPFL placing the onus on Covid-19 decision making with the member clubs once again "with all of the rancour and division that we saw in season 2019-20".

The letter also states that it was "apparent earlier this year, SPFL rules do not adequately cover the situation where a season has to be curtailed, with a number of games remaining to be played".

A series of divisional meetings will take place over the next few weeks to discuss the resolution.

It requires the backing of nine of the 12 Premiership clubs, eight out of 10 in the Championship, and 15 from 20 in Leagues One and Two combined.

Clubs have 28 days to respond and have been informed if their voting return backs the resolution they cannot later change their decision.

If the board receives enough support prior to the 28-day period the resolution will pass.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the SPFL admit the rules aren't fit for purpose so are asking the clubs to let them decide what's best (and no changing yer vote Nelms.)

Maybe come up with amendments to the rules would be a better idea. Otherwise we get to the end of next season and they say it doesn't count cos you only played 27 games....or am I being paranoid?

Edited by fifexile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:

SPFL seek new powers.  From BBC website:-

The Scottish Professional Football League has issued a resolution to clubs asking them to cede Covid-19-related decisions to its board for next season.

The resolution only relates to disruption caused by coronavirus and is limited to season 2020-21, with the ability to change the start date for the following campaign.

There would be an express requirement to consult with clubs over decisions.

The organisation is keen to avoid a repeat of the recent in-fighting.

At present, major decisions taken by the SPFL must be ratified by the 42 member clubs.

A majority voted to curtail the leagues after coronavirus had caused the suspension of football in March.

The SPFL then held an indicative vote for clubs to adopt a 14-10-10-10 league structure, which was rejected, and Hearts and Partick Thistle began legal action to try to overturn their respective relegations from the Premiership and Championship.

he letter sent with the resolution to clubs warns that failure to approve it would mean the SPFL placing the onus on Covid-19 decision making with the member clubs once again "with all of the rancour and division that we saw in season 2019-20".

The letter also states that it was "apparent earlier this year, SPFL rules do not adequately cover the situation where a season has to be curtailed, with a number of games remaining to be played".

A series of divisional meetings will take place over the next few weeks to discuss the resolution.

It requires the backing of nine of the 12 Premiership clubs, eight out of 10 in the Championship, and 15 from 20 in Leagues One and Two combined.

Clubs have 28 days to respond and have been informed if their voting return backs the resolution they cannot later change their decision.

If the board receives enough support prior to the 28-day period the resolution will pass.

 

 

Effectively, they are saying it wasnae me gov. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Emsca said:

I honestly do not give a monkeys  how we are perceived by other Clubs, their supporters or the Press.

But it's probably relevant if you're asking how come they didn't gift their share to Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer, don't you think?

58 minutes ago, Emsca said:

I have no recollection of James Anderson saying the money had to be distributed to all clubs in the SPFL- can you point me to where this is quoted/reported?

If he hadn't have said it, and he had instead wanted it not to go to some clubs, that would have been a condition of the gift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:

SPFL seek new powers.  From BBC website:-

The Scottish Professional Football League has issued a resolution to clubs asking them to cede Covid-19-related decisions to its board for next season.

The resolution only relates to disruption caused by coronavirus and is limited to season 2020-21, with the ability to change the start date for the following campaign.

There would be an express requirement to consult with clubs over decisions.

The organisation is keen to avoid a repeat of the recent in-fighting.

At present, major decisions taken by the SPFL must be ratified by the 42 member clubs.

A majority voted to curtail the leagues after coronavirus had caused the suspension of football in March.

The SPFL then held an indicative vote for clubs to adopt a 14-10-10-10 league structure, which was rejected, and Hearts and Partick Thistle began legal action to try to overturn their respective relegations from the Premiership and Championship.

he letter sent with the resolution to clubs warns that failure to approve it would mean the SPFL placing the onus on Covid-19 decision making with the member clubs once again "with all of the rancour and division that we saw in season 2019-20".

The letter also states that it was "apparent earlier this year, SPFL rules do not adequately cover the situation where a season has to be curtailed, with a number of games remaining to be played".

A series of divisional meetings will take place over the next few weeks to discuss the resolution.

It requires the backing of nine of the 12 Premiership clubs, eight out of 10 in the Championship, and 15 from 20 in Leagues One and Two combined.

Clubs have 28 days to respond and have been informed if their voting return backs the resolution they cannot later change their decision.

If the board receives enough support prior to the 28-day period the resolution will pass.

 

 

This is completely reasonable.

There is no realistic prospect of the Clubs agreeing a permanent criteria to deal with seasons that cannot be completed because of emergencies. In times of pandemics or similar, you need coherent and decisive leadership rather than to have the Clubs squabbling among themselves.

It is sensible, in those circumstances, to give the SPFL Board actual power, but very clearly to limit it to the current pandemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This is completely reasonable.

There is no realistic prospect of the Clubs agreeing a permanent criteria to deal with seasons that cannot be completed because of emergencies. In times of pandemics or similar, you need coherent and decisive leadership rather than to have the Clubs squabbling among themselves.

It is sensible, in those circumstances, to give the SPFL Board actual power, but very clearly to limit it to the current pandemic.

In your opinion.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, javeajag said:

SPFL response - 

 

Should you find in our favour, we shall reciprocate as follows:

1. A 25 year executive box at Hampden exclusively for members of the judiciary and their families for all major events - with complimentary food, drinks and chauffeured transport to the venue. 

2. Backstage passes for all members of thd judiciary and family members for all music events at Hampden (and selected member clubs in Glasgow) for a period of 25 years. 

3. Free conference facilities for all members of the bench at Hampden with fake receipts to allow you to scam expenses for up to 25 years. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This is completely reasonable.

There is no realistic prospect of the Clubs agreeing a permanent criteria to deal with seasons that cannot be completed because of emergencies. In times of pandemics or similar, you need coherent and decisive leadership rather than to have the Clubs squabbling among themselves.

It is sensible, in those circumstances, to give the SPFL Board actual power, but very clearly to limit it to the current pandemic.

While I generally agree do you not feel that if the SPFL had shown “coherent and decisive leadership” then we would not be in this mess now.  Good leadership would have cajoled the clubs into 14-10-10-10 at the very outset.

what makes you think that the current setup are capable of “coherent and decisive leadership” now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, a f kincaid said:

SPFL seek new powers.  From BBC website:-

The Scottish Professional Football League has issued a resolution to clubs asking them to cede Covid-19-related decisions to its board for next season.

The resolution only relates to disruption caused by coronavirus and is limited to season 2020-21, with the ability to change the start date for the following campaign.

There would be an express requirement to consult with clubs over decisions.

The organisation is keen to avoid a repeat of the recent in-fighting.

At present, major decisions taken by the SPFL must be ratified by the 42 member clubs.

A majority voted to curtail the leagues after coronavirus had caused the suspension of football in March.

The SPFL then held an indicative vote for clubs to adopt a 14-10-10-10 league structure, which was rejected, and Hearts and Partick Thistle began legal action to try to overturn their respective relegations from the Premiership and Championship.

he letter sent with the resolution to clubs warns that failure to approve it would mean the SPFL placing the onus on Covid-19 decision making with the member clubs once again "with all of the rancour and division that we saw in season 2019-20".

The letter also states that it was "apparent earlier this year, SPFL rules do not adequately cover the situation where a season has to be curtailed, with a number of games remaining to be played".

A series of divisional meetings will take place over the next few weeks to discuss the resolution.

It requires the backing of nine of the 12 Premiership clubs, eight out of 10 in the Championship, and 15 from 20 in Leagues One and Two combined.

Clubs have 28 days to respond and have been informed if their voting return backs the resolution they cannot later change their decision.

If the board receives enough support prior to the 28-day period the resolution will pass.

 

 

In footballing terms, its an own goal !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

This is completely reasonable.

There is no realistic prospect of the Clubs agreeing a permanent criteria to deal with seasons that cannot be completed because of emergencies. In times of pandemics or similar, you need coherent and decisive leadership rather than to have the Clubs squabbling among themselves.

It is sensible, in those circumstances, to give the SPFL Board actual power, but very clearly to limit it to the current pandemic.

Only if we have ' conflict of interest ' applying to decision makers on the board i.e.: no directors of football clubs allowed to make decisions.

And, a truly democratic voting criteria i.e.: 51% - 22 votes win. Not the loaded, and corrupt, 77% - 32 votes win!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, michael m said:

While I generally agree do you not feel that if the SPFL had shown “coherent and decisive leadership” then we would not be in this mess now.  Good leadership would have cajoled the clubs into 14-10-10-10 at the very outset.

what makes you think that the current setup are capable of “coherent and decisive leadership” now?

My gut instinct? I don't think it especially mattered how good or bad Doncaster and his associates were at their jobs. The predicament we find ourselves in was a result of the attitudes and approaches of the other member clubs, not really the SPFL itself.

If you gave the Board sweeping powers to adjust and amend this coming season if required, I think they'd do a better job of it than the Clubs in arriving at an equitable solution second time round.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thru thin and thin said:

Only if we have ' conflict of interest ' applying to decision makers on the board i.e.: no directors of football clubs allowed to make decisions.

And, a truly democratic voting criteria i.e.: 51% - 22 votes win. Not the loaded, and corrupt, 77% - 32 votes win!

You do realise that if the voting criteria for an ordinary resolution were 51% Thistle would have been relegated even if two and half times as many clubs voted against the SPFL Board's resolution as actually did?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

You do realise that if the voting criteria for an ordinary resolution were 51% Thistle would have been relegated even if two and half times as many clubs voted against the SPFL Board's resolution as actually did?

I do!

My point is, Neil Doncaster has often been quoted as stating that the resolutions passed because of a democratic vote!

95% of clubs can vote for a resolution, and it could still lose!

The dice are always loaded, and, IMO are corrupt!

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...