Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bobbyhouston

Court It Is Then

Recommended Posts

45 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.

An excellent point and more than enough reason to bin it. I'm sure the Div 2 board members would love to scrap the pyramid play offs ad infinitum.

Edited by One t in Scotland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

No way i'd trust them with that sort of power after the mess they have made of this. Clear leadership- you must be joking and don't tell me its been the clubs and they haven't had enough control.. with their 'limited' powers they managed to totally divide scottish football- not a chance.. scrap the current SPFL board set up as it is..and start again.

Edited by Jag36

Share this post


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

In your opinion.....

Forums are about opinions. What’s yours? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone detect just the faint whif of contrition here? An olive branch perhaps, recognising that they made a dog's dinner of the vote etc? What chances of this being voted through do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:

Anyone detect just the faint whif of contrition here? An olive branch perhaps, recognising that they made a dog's dinner of the vote etc? What chances of this being voted through do you think?

It will get rejected and the SPFL will turn up at the court and shrug their shoulders in a 'see how hard our job is' kind of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Above is also a quote from the BBC website. Seems that if a club votes against the resolution they can change their mind so that the SPFL can get their way!

You couldn’t make it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

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?

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.

I'm not asking that - never have.

So he never said it- you were wrong.

Share this post


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

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

Above is also a quote from the BBC website. Seems that if a club votes against the resolution they can change their mind so that the SPFL can get their way!

You couldn’t make it up!

We’ve been over this before. The reason for this is perfectly sound from a corporate governance perspective. If clubs could revoke a Yes vote it would make it corporately impossible for the SPFL to adopt an ordinary resolution in fewer than 28 days. The whole point is to make quicker decisions possible where there is a business justification for it (which will be a lot of the time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Emsca said:

I'm not asking that - never have.

That’s probably why my original comment, which you chose to reply to, wasn’t directed at you?

36 minutes ago, Emsca said:

So he never said it- you were wrong.

He clearly did say it to the SPFL, otherwise that wouldn’t have been the donation structure he agreed to when donating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

That’s probably why my original comment, which you chose to reply to, wasn’t directed at you?

He clearly did say it to the SPFL, otherwise that wouldn’t have been the donation structure he agreed to when donating.

Probably didn't think he had to put such specific restrictions in place..forgeting it was Scottish football he was dealing with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

That’s probably why my original comment, which you chose to reply to, wasn’t directed at you?

He clearly did say it to the SPFL, otherwise that wouldn’t have been the donation structure he agreed to when donating.

Possibly- but more likely it was the SPFL who said thats the way it has to be done to avoid in-fighting, accusations of bias  etc.

That is a totally different scenario to a "But Anderson went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL clubs" 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, scotty said:

Can anyone point to where James Anderson said what he wanted done with this money?  All I can find is the statements from the SPFL Trust saying what he said. The distribution of the monies equally amongst all the clubs seems to have come about after the SPFL became involved and it is them who are laying out the conditions.

Exactly.

No, no-one can point to where James Anderson said what he wanted done with the money - because he did not make such a  public statement . He may have said such things privately to the SPFL - we do not know ( apart from Woodstock Jag of course !!) 

Share this post


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

Exactly.

No, no-one can point to where James Anderson said what he wanted done with the money - because he did not make such a  public statement . He may have said such things privately to the SPFL - we do not know ( apart from Woodstock Jag of course !!) 

And even if he did say something, he is allowed to change his mind. I can't believe I'm defending WJ (I'll wash my hands after) but this was Anderson's money to do with as he likes. If he wasn't happy with the distribution then he wouldn't have handed it over.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

And even if he did say something, he is allowed to change his mind. I can't believe I'm defending WJ (I'll wash my hands after) but this was Anderson's money to do with as he likes. If he wasn't happy with the distribution then he wouldn't have handed it over.

Agreed.

That is not the point.

WJ stated on this forum that Anderson "went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL clubs"  He did not. !!

Yes he may have been perfectly accepting or even happy that is what ended up happening, but to say that at the outset be made a pronouncement stating that was what he wanted to happen with his money, is just not correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, a f kincaid said:

Anyone detect just the faint whif of contrition here? An olive branch perhaps, recognising that they made a dog's dinner of the vote etc? What chances of this being voted through do you think?

It could be a way to avoid litigation if the proposal is accepted. I think with the last proposal that Doncaster talked of using emergency powers available to the SPFL even with a slight majority of clubs agreeing to that proposal.

Again the big IF is getting the resolution passed, which is easier said than done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC the Anderson funding came to light on Sportsound. The one where the panel were rendered nearly speechless by the generosity. The rep from the SPFL Trust said the money was to go to lower league clubs and was to be used to mitigate the impact of Covid-19.  One of the panel asked  why and the answer was that these were Mr Anderson's only stipulations.  Someone can play back the podcast and see if I've got this right.  If not I stand corrected. Either the BBC or a newspaper then ran with the notion that the SPFL had said all funding had to be given out on the basis of current arrangements ie, 80-odd% to the Premiership.  A short time later this seemed to have changed to equal funding to all 42 clubs but that if some clubs didn't bid, the unusued money would be added to the pot. It's possible Mr Anderson changed his mind between these two announcements but it's hard to believe that the allocations have been made other than in accordance with his wishes - irrespective of when they were finalised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, a f kincaid said:

IIRC the Anderson funding came to light on Sportsound. The one where the panel were rendered nearly speechless by the generosity. The rep from the SPFL Trust said the money was to go to lower league clubs and was to be used to mitigate the impact of Covid-19.  One of the panel asked  why and the answer was that these were Mr Anderson's only stipulations.  Someone can play back the podcast and see if I've got this right.  If not I stand corrected. Either the BBC or a newspaper then ran with the notion that the SPFL had said all funding had to be given out on the basis of current arrangements ie, 80-odd% to the Premiership.  A short time later this seemed to have changed to equal funding to all 42 clubs but that if some clubs didn't bid, the unusued money would be added to the pot. It's possible Mr Anderson changed his mind between these two announcements but it's hard to believe that the allocations have been made other than in accordance with his wishes - irrespective of when they were finalised.

Again - agreed totally.

But not wishing to push the ooint any further, at no time did Mr Anderson "2 state 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Emsca said:

Again - agreed totally.

But not wishing to push the ooint any further, at no time did Mr Anderson "2 state 

 

 

 

Made an arse of that!!

But not wishing to push the point any further, at no time did Mr Anderson 

 "went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL clubs" 

That just did not happen and in that respect our esteemed friend WJ is wrong.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Agreed.

That is not the point.

WJ stated on this forum that Anderson "went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL clubs"  He did not. !!

Yes he may have been perfectly accepting or even happy that is what ended up happening, but to say that at the outset be made a pronouncement stating that was what he wanted to happen with his money, is just not correct.

I didn't say he said it "from the outset". I said he said he went out of his way to say it. And since it became a condition of his donation that means he went out of his way to say it. In his discussions with the SPFL. Even if it wasn't what he had originally planned, it was what he (subsequently and publicly) agreed to before putting his money in the hands of the SPFL Trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on b.b.c. teletex.

                                   Tuesday hearing for spfl court case 30th june hearing will take place over video conference presided over by lord clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I didn't say he said it "from the outset". I said he said he went out of his way to say it. And since it became a condition of his donation that means he went out of his way to say it. In his discussions with the SPFL. Even if it wasn't what he had originally planned, it was what he (subsequently and publicly) agreed to before putting his money in the hands of the SPFL Trust.

Sorry WJ you are clutching at straws here. Why don't you just admit you got it wrong. It happens to the best of us. 

You said that Mr Anderson "went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL clubs "

When did he say that publicly?

I fully accept he must be satisfied ( or not dis-satisfied) that  it is happening otherwise he would have withdrawn his money , but that is a long way from him  going out of his way to say thats what he wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, harrywrag said:

on b.b.c. teletex.

                                   Tuesday hearing for spfl court case 30th june hearing will take place over video conference presided over by lord clark

Wonder what team he supports?:head_ball:

Share this post


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

Sorry WJ you are clutching at straws here. Why don't you just admit you got it wrong. It happens to the best of us. 

You said that Mr Anderson "went out of his way to say that his money should be available to all SPFL clubs "

When did he say that publicly?

I fully accept he must be satisfied ( or not dis-satisfied) that  it is happening otherwise he would have withdrawn his money , but that is a long way from him  going out of his way to say thats what he wanted.

At absolutely no point did I claim he said it publicly.

I said he went out of his way to say it. If he did not say it to the SPFL and its Trust then the £50k condition would not apply. It would not exist. That is how a conditional gift works.

Share this post


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

At absolutely no point did I claim he said it publicly.

I said he went out of his way to say it. If he did not say it to the SPFL and its Trust then the £50k condition would not apply. It would not exist. That is how a conditional gift works.

Ok.....so who did he say it to in private ? And were you there ? 

Edited by javeajag

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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×