Gnash Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 1 hour ago, Poet of the Macabre said: What if they offered £500,000? What if they offered £1 million? What if they offered £40 billion? The figures are absolutely fucking irrelevant. If a club is willing to sell its soul for a bit of extra cash then they might as well not exist. If they offered enough to guarantee both of them went bankrupt, having to sell all assets to repay the debt, I'd accept that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 £500k or £1m or £40m what do you think a club's fans would vote for in each of those circumstances? What do you think a responsible director would vote for then - bear in mind that level of funding would likely mean those clubs could readily sweep the colts teams aside whilst building a solid base for the future. One of a directors key duties is to do what is right for his club - might they not think 10 clubs with significantly enhanced economic power would be good for Scottish football? See if you can reply without raving and shouting and just think about it? Or you can pretend you are a paragon of Corinthian values and sporting integrity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notsofedupendie Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 The size of the bribe is irrelevant .. as everyone in the league will get the same. All that happens is whoever is currently advantaged will still be advantaged .. normal rules apply and we end up back where we started. A responsible director would vote for what is sustainable for his/her club and this nonsensical idea is clearly not sustainable in any shape or form. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 4 minutes ago, notsofedupendie said: The size of the bribe is irrelevant .. as everyone in the league will get the same. All that happens is whoever is currently advantaged will still be advantaged .. normal rules apply and we end up back where we started. A responsible director would vote for what is sustainable for his/her club and this nonsensical idea is clearly not sustainable in any shape or form. A responsible director would vote for what is correct for his club including greatly strengthening its financial base. Sustainability is only a single aspect to be considered. It would not have a neutral effect - firstly the enhanced quality of player in the league would produce some increase in crowds, secondly said clubs would likely enjoy increased cup success and thus more money and crowds from that route, thirdly it makes it much more likely that clubs in the play off places at each end of the division would enjoy success in those competitions and the attendant benefits. They would also be more economically sound and have a stronger base to build on and take forward rather than say constant pressure on cashflow which may detract from longer term planning - that is at £500k - surely you aren't extending your argument to £40m level. Wouldn't Scottish football benefit from having more clubs who have a strong financial and cash base isn't that part of the argument against the big clubs getting so much of the League monies distributed each season? Clubs can readily understand that it will be a 1 or 2 year boost perhaps but with sound planning can use it to invest and fund the future. Its not just about the respective league positions at the end of that one season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Cowden Cowboy is not in favour of the colt proposal, folks. It's worth repeating, considering that he keeps coming across as though all he's waiting for is a fatter slice of cash to help wave it through. An unfortunate affliction. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 2 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said: Cowden Cowboy is not in favour of the colt proposal, folks. It's worth repeating, considering that he keeps coming across as though all he's waiting for is a fatter slice of cash to help wave it through. An unfortunate affliction. Sorry - if you don't want a debate or any thought then just sit as nodding 'yes men' agreeing with each other and shouting about the Old Firm. I am afraid I have become bored with the kneejerk knockers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notsofedupendie Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 A responsible director would vote for what is correct for his club including greatly strengthening its financial base. Sustainability is only a single aspect to be considered. It would not have a neutral effect - firstly the enhanced quality of player in the league would produce some increase in crowds, secondly said clubs would likely enjoy increased cup success and thus more money and crowds from that route, thirdly it makes it much more likely that clubs in the play off places at each end of the division would enjoy success in those competitions and the attendant benefits. They would also be more economically sound and have a stronger base to build on and take forward rather than say constant pressure on cashflow which may detract from longer term planning - that is at £500k - surely you aren't extending your argument to £40m level. Wouldn't Scottish football benefit from having more clubs who have a strong financial and cash base isn't that part of the argument against the big clubs getting so much of the League monies distributed each season? Clubs can readily understand that it will be a 1 or 2 year boost perhaps but with sound planning can use it to invest and fund the future. Its not just about the respective league positions at the end of that one season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeSAFC Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Sorry - if you don't want a debate or any thought then just sit as nodding 'yes men' agreeing with each other and shouting about the Old Firm. I am afraid I have become bored with the kneejerk knockers Debate? All you've done is make up scenarios and claim we're all against it because we hate the old firm. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFTD Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 1 minute ago, Cowden Cowboy said: Sorry - if you don't want a debate or any thought then just sit as nodding 'yes men' agreeing with each other and shouting about the Old Firm. I am afraid I have become bored with the kneejerk knockers You really seem to be having difficulty with this concept, so let's spell it out as simply as possible; Celtic and Rangers are getting pelters for this because they're the ones who proposed it. Beeling about your poor Old Firm experiencing prejudice doesn't change the fact that this would be getting the same treatment if it had been put forward by Aberdeen, Hibernian, or Glenbuck Cherrypickers. You've been handed a variety of reasons why this is a terrible idea that won't achieve what it's been proposed to, alternative ideas that might have a chance of being helpful, and examples of the lack of restriction that might lead a reasonable person to believe that there are ulterior motives at play. You've addressed none of them; your only contribution has been to repeat that *some* directors might be willing to let this go if their club is handed an extra amount of money, as if this is a revelation that we need to be constantly reminded of. And you've the cheek to accuse other posters of stifling debate, lack of thought, kneejerk objections, and prejudice? You'd be on everyone's ignore list for tone trolling by now if it wasn't for the fact that you might apparently have some kind of influence on whether Cowdenbeath votes in favour of this. 18 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spider Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 37 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said: I am afraid I have become bored with the kneejerk knockers Excellent. About time. Good job lads, that's one less to worry about preaching this gospel of evil debating this topical issue in a wholehearted and constructive manner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Starko Rover Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Even more striking was Rangers were in League Two at the time when Robertson was on top form for Queen’s Park and they still didn’t notice him. For the amount of money the Old Firm invest in their youth set up’s, their return of national team standard of players is appalling and should be looked at before any proposals of shafting the league set up. It sounds like both would be better scrapping their youth academy’s and use the money to buy the players the other teams successfully produce. Seems to be what they do anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notsofedupendie Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Ok .. so what you’re saying is it’s all about the size of the bribe. If it’s big enough to secure a clubs future for the short term then all is good? My team has been around since 1879 and with a bit of luck it will be around for a long time to come. Accepting a bribe to get some unsustainable short term benefit which will inevitably end in tears (see Gretna) is insane. Every club has a level of financial sustainability driven by how many folk it can get through the door. Yes a winning team will attract more but at the end of the day a bigger (ie more financial clout) team will come along and pinch our better players. Such is life and you know what .. I’m ok with that. My team competes on a reasonably level playing field. Yes I’d like us to climb the leagues but not if that threatens the very existence of the club. Realistically, there’s only so far a team like Montrose can progress without financial doping. But hang on this isn’t about us diddy teams. Seemingly, it’s meant to be about improving the Scottish game and international team. Precisely how does creating a model which allows Celtic and Rangers stockpile even more young talent do that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doonhamer doon south Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Cowden Cowboy said: A responsible director would vote for what is correct for his club including greatly strengthening its financial base. Sustainability is only a single aspect to be considered. It would not have a neutral effect - firstly the enhanced quality of player in the league would produce some increase in crowds, secondly said clubs would likely enjoy increased cup success and thus more money and crowds from that route, thirdly it makes it much more likely that clubs in the play off places at each end of the division would enjoy success in those competitions and the attendant benefits. They would also be more economically sound and have a stronger base to build on and take forward rather than say constant pressure on cashflow which may detract from longer term planning - that is at £500k - surely you aren't extending your argument to £40m level. Wouldn't Scottish football benefit from having more clubs who have a strong financial and cash base isn't that part of the argument against the big clubs getting so much of the League monies distributed each season? Clubs can readily understand that it will be a 1 or 2 year boost perhaps but with sound planning can use it to invest and fund the future. Its not just about the respective league positions at the end of that one season. Scottish football would benefit from more clubs yes but clubs like ķelty hearts, linlithgow etc and those junior clubs with excellent community ties and youth programs. The future is the security of the pyramid and improvement of it which includes a West league, an improved pathway for the junior clubs to join and a better allocation of money to lower league clubs. Selling our game as a quality product in a positive manner is a must and goes hand in hand with protecting our game. Colts threatens to do more long term damage than short term gain. Would a draft system for premiership colts players be a better system? Edited January 29, 2018 by Doonhamer doon south 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Starko Rover Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 Ok .. so what you’re saying is it’s all about the size of the bribe. If it’s big enough to secure a clubs future for the short term then all is good? My team has been around since 1879 and with a bit of luck it will be around for a long time to come. Accepting a bribe to get some unsustainable short term benefit which will inevitably end in tears (see Gretna) is insane. Every club has a level of financial sustainability driven by how many folk it can get through the door. Yes a winning team will attract more but at the end of the day a bigger (ie more financial clout) team will come along and pinch our better players. Such is life and you know what .. I’m ok with that. My team competes on a reasonably level playing field. Yes I’d like us to climb the leagues but not if that threatens the very existence of the club. Realistically, there’s only so far a team like Montrose can progress without financial doping. But hang on this isn’t about us diddy teams. Seemingly, it’s meant to be about improving the Scottish game and international team. Precisely how does creating a model which allows Celtic and Rangers stockpile even more young talent do that? Stage 1 - Stockpile youth. Stage 2- Colt Teams. Stage 3 - ?????????? Stage 4 - World class players. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merkie84 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, notsofedupendie said: so what you’re saying is it’s all about the size of the bribe. If it’s big enough to secure a clubs future for the short term then all is good? Exactly this. Its like someone offering you money to sleep with your wife/ girlfriend. Most of us have an amount of money that if offered we couldn't turn down and wiuld be lifechanging and secure financial stability in the future etc. That amount of money offered doesn't change the fact that it is a grubby, immoral and thoroughly unpleasant thing to propose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 careful with that kind of talk. you'll upset Cowden Cowboy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Burton Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 A responsible director would vote for what is correct for his club including greatly strengthening its financial base. Sustainability is only a single aspect to be considered. It would not have a neutral effect - firstly the enhanced quality of player in the league would produce some increase in crowds, secondly said clubs would likely enjoy increased cup success and thus more money and crowds from that route, thirdly it makes it much more likely that clubs in the play off places at each end of the division would enjoy success in those competitions and the attendant benefits. They would also be more economically sound and have a stronger base to build on and take forward rather than say constant pressure on cashflow which may detract from longer term planning - that is at £500k - surely you aren't extending your argument to £40m level. Wouldn't Scottish football benefit from having more clubs who have a strong financial and cash base isn't that part of the argument against the big clubs getting so much of the League monies distributed each season? Clubs can readily understand that it will be a 1 or 2 year boost perhaps but with sound planning can use it to invest and fund the future. Its not just about the respective league positions at the end of that one season. It is an extra 15k a season! It would help a bit but even at this level it's hardly an earth shattering amount of money.Cowdenbeath would have received a lot more for the few seasons they were in the Championship playing the likes of Hearts, Rangers etc. Yet a few seasons later you are bottom of league two staring into the Lowland league abyss again.Based on your posts you should be in a very healthy position so what went wrong? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karpaty Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 minute ago, Jack Burton said: It is an extra 15k a season! It would help a bit but even at this level it's hardly an earth shattering amount of money. Cowdenbeath would have received a lot more for the few seasons they were in the Championship playing the likes of Hearts, Rangers etc. Yet a few seasons later you are bottom of league two staring into the Lowland league abyss again. Based on your posts you should be in a very healthy position so what went wrong? Cowdenbeath paid us £6k for Liam Cusack! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haufdaft Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Stage 1 - Stockpile youth. Stage 2- Colt Teams. Stage 3 - ?????????? Stage 4 - World class players. Stage 3 - invite teams from Northern Ireland, the Republic and Wales. [emoji57] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyde_r_us Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 On 21/01/2018 at 20:24, shawfield shed boy said: Nicoll does his job. As a support we can be very critical and negative. Get KN a playmaker. Defence splitter what ever you want to call it. He always does the job of breaking up play and never shy with a tackle. Likeable Anyone that's been involved in any negotiations knows that you don't accept the firstl offer so give us an idea how much rantic really want this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.