thelegendthatis Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) Scotland on Sunday has obtained a copy of the latest proposals by the Professional Game Board of the Scottish Football Association. The plan is to create a league company with 16 £1 A ordinary shares and 30 £1 B ordinary shares. The new SPFL would have a Premier League and three lower divisions as at present. At present the SPL has 16 shares in its company but only 12 are issued, and in the new league these SPL clubs would have the A shares. The other 30 clubs would get the B shares, with clubs exchanging B for A shares when they are promoted to the Premier League. The document states: "The A ordinary shares and B ordinary shares would have different class voting rights. As at present, proposals for Amendments to the Articles of Association and to section C of the rules (financial and commercial matters) as well as other strategic matters, which are defined as Qualified Resolutions, would require to be supported by not less than 11 clubs holding A ordinary shares." Didn't notice any mention of this on the forum yesterday (might have missed it) but I thought that the "proposal" to allow Newco FC into SFL1 came with new voting and financial distribution rules. From the above article it would seem that Reagan is not only trying to safeguard the "Oldco" he also wants to ensure they, and their partners, still have a block on any real changes. From the article Ross Caven, President of Queen's Park FC has written to all SFL clubs urging support for league reconstruction with a blueprint of one league comprising four divisions. He adds, however, that there should be "one club, one share, one vote" and a revision of the financial distribution in the new set-up. Totally correct[ Controversially, Caven also says the proposed introduction of the pyramid structure for bringing new clubs into the league should be scrapped, as there is "no sense" in expansion while the Scottish game is in trouble. Totally correct. We are all Ross Caven Edited July 9, 2012 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 But there is no route for SFL Chairmen to do that. That option is not on the table to be voted upon. They are being asked to accept Sevco into the fold, then remit it to the Board to decide if sufficient sweeteners have been offered to bump Sevco to Division 1. And the thing is, the package of sweeteners is being finalised as we speak. As soon as Friday's meeting closes with the remit to the Board, they can announce the bump from 3rd to 1st there and then. ...or, they can throw all this out, bump Sevco, and then invite them to apply for the division 3 vacancy (which they will win, assuming Hughie Green has the money and the will to see it through). If the SFL vote against this (and so far only two clubs are confirmed as voting YES) then SPL2 is a non-starter and the SFA have run out of room. Their complicated gerrymander has confused the picture administratively, but essentially it is stil the same- just taking a different route thanks to the SFA's roadblock and SWAT team waiting on the normal route. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WILLIEA Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Well, IF they get a lot of "helpful" referees, dodgy penalties, opposition goals dubiously disallowed, late "gift" goals, there shouldn't be any issue re. non-promotion, but that would never happen in Scottish football, would it. No...., wait..... . There have been some views that even in present form, thye'll struggle to get automatic promotion, so mibbe that's why play-offs are being mentioned, you can fiddle the result of a knockout series easier than in a league situation, if they were to finish 2nd or 3rd. If they finish below that, there will be a pre-pared league reconstruction document waiting in the background ready to be unfurled as soon as it becomes obvious that even the play-offs are beyond them. This is so true. Years ago I attended a Hibs v Rangers cup semi and the replay. Over both games Hibs were by far the better team bur ultimately lost the replay. It wasn't until years later, and more worldly wise that I realised that Hibs were never going to be allowed to win that tie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alimci Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 There's stuff going round Twitter that they are looking to resign Aluko if they get into the first. If they get guys in like that then the chances are that they will win promotion at the first attempt. Did they not get van Persie then? I actually think it would be fantastic if there was a secret meeting of the other clubs, and given the circumstances, they selected one club to win the league and the others deliberately threw all matches against them. If they did this year on year, Sevco could be trapped in division 1 forever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Something just struck me today, cockwomble and Ronnie Regan are chief executives of their respective cartels, Longmuir as well therefore I would think they get some kind of performance related bonus or pay structure. At least this goes somewhere to understanding their stance. Not that I agree with their shennanigans. On the cynical front if the Spl and sfl struggle they will have an audit of accounts, just saying like.......... Anyone know what these guys get paid for their sterlinh service to the scottish game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Tourette Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Perhaps I'm a bit rusty after a heavy weekend, but am I alone in being slightly confused by the fact that there are to be 16 category A shares but only 12 SPL clubs? Who gets the remaining 4 shares in the event of a vote? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdrockfromtheSon Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 To be fair is there much difference to Dumbarton fans giving a show of hands to Sevco in D1 when the majority of our fans did the same at the meeting with Gilmour? Not quite how it panned out.....it was a ballot box, similar to what you get at elections. To be crystal clear - there was no show of hands. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 What happens if the vote to allow the SFL board to decide is defeated ? Can a motion to a SFL meeting be amended and still legally stand without a new meeting having to be called. So an amendment to the motion removing Part 2 could be carried by a majority of clubs before a final vote takes place. I hope HJ or someone might be able to answer it There are suggestions from some quarters that the decision on where newco will end up will be taken by SFL members and not the SFL board. I really can't see the SFL clubs allowing themselves to be bullied in this way; the only ones that will be bullied are those who want to sell out for short-term gain or who believe the doomsday scenario. I am hoping they will be in the minority. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Once the staff are TUPE'd over then Sevco would have to consult on changing their T&Cs, if the staff don't agree then they are made redundant on their original terms and conditions. By the looks of things Yorkie Chuck doesn't have the cash to make those kind of payments either. This is what I was thinking of. Whether or not Green has the money, paying redundancy packages to back office staff is likely to be cheaper than keeping them Such as being corrupt, not caring about playing by the rules, morally bankrupt, no sporting integrity, don't give a crap about fans opinions and a bunch of sychophants. Yes, all of those things and more My understanding of tupe is precisely that they cannot make them redundant...that's the whole point of the legislation. Its either six or twelve month commitment i belive though disciplinary procedures can be used to dismiss someone but redundancy is not an option and industrial tribunals will go through such disciplinaries within a tupe. With a fine tooth comb. This is aside from fact these staff will for the most part be essential to running and operating ibrox and mp...outwith bellends like jardine of course. I suspect that when Lloyd's were running oldco they would have dumped them if they were surplus to requirements Ive never heard of any time limit on redundancies after TUPE and I cant find anything online. As far as I know, all TUPE means is that all of your rights, salary etc and employment service transfer over. If you are then made redundant and the new company pays you whatever redundancy payments you are due then I dont think TUPE prevents this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 ...or, they can throw all this out, bump Sevco, and then invite them to apply for the division 3 vacancy (which they will win, assuming Hughie Green has the money and the will to see it through). If the SFL vote against this (and so far only two clubs are confirmed as voting YES) then SPL2 is a non-starter and the SFA have run out of room. Their complicated gerrymander has confused the picture administratively, but essentially it is stil the same- just taking a different route thanks to the SFA's roadblock and SWAT team waiting on the normal route. Why, out of interest? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Not quite how it panned out.....it was a ballot box, similar to what you get at elections. To be crystal clear - there was no show of hands. Ballot box at our meeting also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieholt Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 From the article Ross Caven, President of Queen's Park FC has written to all SFL clubs urging support for league reconstruction with a blueprint of one league comprising four divisions. He adds, however, that there should be "one club, one share, one vote" and a revision of the financial distribution in the new set-up. Totally correct[ Controversially, Caven also says the proposed introduction of the pyramid structure for bringing new clubs into the league should be scrapped, as there is "no sense" in expansion while the Scottish game is in trouble. Totally correct. We are all Ross Craven Disagree about the second point, The pyramid structure ensures that clubs finishing at the bottom of the 4 league structure are replaced by new clubs from other leagues.It's not expansion. Ross is advocating protectionism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) This is so true. Years ago I attended a Hibs v Rangers cup semi and the replay. Over both games Hibs were by far the better team bur ultimately lost the replay. It wasn't until years later, and more worldly wise that I realised that Hibs were never going to be allowed to win that tie. From only three years ago; Rangers win that day put them only one point behind Celtic. It is the first time ever I thought a referee was corrupt rather than just incompetent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCJUzPGjiao&noredirect=1 Later that year he was filmed leading his congretation in a wee sing song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxwWwjXAASk Edited July 9, 2012 by Granny Danger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 It's not a punishment. It's a new team with no league to play in applying for a place in the SFL. I agree. They can't have it both ways and neither can we. New club, clean slate. However, if they INSIST on keeping their old name and that they are the same club, then it's a different story. Old club , old sanctions, old punishment. More punishment, flog 'em! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTaxMan Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Ballot box at our meeting also. Think you are both talking about the same meeting, Dumbarton 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amjam Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 From only three years ago; Rangers win that day put them only one point behind Celtic. It is the first time ever I thought a referee was corrupt rather than just incompetent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCJUzPGjiao&noredirect=1 I remember that. An absolute shocker. It was like the Clyde/Celtic cup came in 2006 I think. Not even trying to hide the fact that the Old Firm were going to win, no matter what. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) Something just struck me today, cockwomble and Ronnie Regan are chief executives of their respective cartels, Longmuir as well therefore I would think they get some kind of performance related bonus or pay structure. At least this goes somewhere to understanding their stance. Not that I agree with their shennanigans. On the cynical front if the Spl and sfl struggle they will have an audit of accounts, just saying like.......... Anyone know what these guys get paid for their sterlinh service to the scottish game? http://www.bris.ac.u.../doncaster.html He will have supplied the description. Neil is focused on improving the league 1. for the benefit of Scotland's premier 12 clubs, 2. increasing attendances across the league and 3. creating commercial partnerships that will drive more money into Scottish football. And his pay/bonus will not doubt be based on these. With Rangers/Sevco going from the SPL even for one year, he believes these personal targets will be more difficult to achieve So we are reorganising Scottish football not for the good of the game but on the basis of what pays Doncaster best. Edited July 9, 2012 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghead ranter Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Cheers, I was also led to believe that on a matchday the Trust are responsible for most things that go on at the club. If it is a 'Yes' vote from Sons I , and I'm pretty sure many others, will never set foot in the ground again. You've got plenty of good guys over there, it's never too late to change your vote. Yeah, that's nearer what the state of play is. The Trust do all the low influence/high effort & time consuming stuff, like youth development, producing and selling matchday programmes etc, while the high influence/club direction business is barely influencable (a new word by me) by the trust & their rep. There's even rumours of 'a board within a board', depending on what's to be discussed. You're also right, there are plenty good guys around the Rock, hopefully like in the cowboy movies, good prevails in the end (especially after a mid-film event looking like the baddies are going to win). Why are the SFA and SPL trying so hard to accomodate a team that is either a) brand new, or b) an extension of a club that has systematically shafted everyone in the game AND the public purse over the last 20 years? When Aridrie died, they reapplied as a Newco and were told to f*ck off. When Gretna died and reapplied as a Newco, they were told to f*ck off. These are PRECEDENTS, Regan and Cockwomble!!!! See, I'm now beginning to wonder if this is their strategy - If they went straight to 'we want Sevco in D3 rather than out the game altogether', ie the vote options were a) D3 or b) out, there's a fair chance that they wouldn't even get that voted through. However, if they fly the kite that they are at the moment, then the D3 option suddenly seems a far more palatable option, therefore it gets voted for, and not in the league at all gets forgotten about, therefore they get what was wanted in the first place. Could this be the reason why the option being put flies so much in the face of majority opinion? From the article Ross Caven, President of Queen's Park FC has written to all SFL clubs urging support for league reconstruction with a blueprint of one league comprising four divisions. He adds, however, that there should be "one club, one share, one vote" and a revision of the financial distribution in the new set-up. Totally correct[ Controversially, Caven also says the proposed introduction of the pyramid structure for bringing new clubs into the league should be scrapped, as there is "no sense" in expansion while the Scottish game is in trouble. Totally correct. We are all Ross Craven except the guy called Ross Caven, obviously 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I'm even more astonished that anyone actually believes that the SPL chairmen don't know exactly how this was going to end up. I said it over a week ago and got pelters here - this has been on the cards for the past month. It's a total carve up - and YOUR board is also responsible. I will say it again, but only Aberdeen and Hearts (and possibly Dun Utd and Hibs) boards are truly against Newco being updrafted to division 1. The rest are very dubious or just fucking lying through their teeth. While I'm not sure I agree with the teams you mention, the point is spot on. It's why I've not rushed to congratulate any SPL clubs yet after voting no to Sevco in the SPL. If any of them are proven to be complicit in the First Division plan, they're worse than Kilmarnock frankly. At least Johnston admitted he didn't want to vote no rather than lying through his teeth about supporting sporting integrity while trying to blackmail the SFL into ignoring it. Do we have any official confirmation that Petrie was involved in the document sent to SFL clubs or was it just rumours? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Dogma Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 This is what I was thinking of. Whether or not Green has the money, paying redundancy packages to back office j staff is likely to be cheaper than keeping them Yes, all of those things and more Ive never heard of any time limit on redundancies after TUPE and I cant find anything online. As far as I know, all TUPE means is that all of your rights, salary etc and employment service transfer over. If you are then made redundant and the new company pays you whatever redundancy payments you are due then I dont think TUPE prevents this Going back bout ten years to last time I was involved with a tupe but the guidance we had from hr was that we had to keep staff for min six months apart from disciplinary action .maybe that legislation has changed but point of tupe is to protect employees not employers. Either way I doubt if they would be able to cut costs via redundancies and essentially sfl three kills newco fiscally very quickly 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.