DeeGeeOneHamer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The cringeworthy 'blog' on the OS has been quiet of late, hasn't it...? Even if we did come out and say 'No' now, we'd be late to the dance as 17 others have had the balls and integrity to say 'No'. It's fookin shameful, it really really is. And yes that 'blog' is cringe-worthy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
castilla Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Why are they very confident? By all accounts the vote is going to go massively against them. Could it possibly be that the outcome has already been decided DESPITE the vote. TBH I firmly believe that the decision for Div 1 (and much more besides) has already been made. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but the entire tactic so far by the SFA has been to drive a Chieftan Tank the wrong way up a one way street. Yes, the vote is going massively against them. BUT, is it a secret ballot ? OR, is the ultimate decision to be made by the clubs, or by the board ? I remember from my Trades Union days, going into meetings and securing the full and unequivocal support of the members. But in private they voted the other way. I also remember when that support materialised, how the management moved the goalposts to get their way. I have similar feelings about this vote. Edited July 12, 2012 by castilla 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthBank Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Is this correct? From memory tbf. Revised List No the Newco Cowdenbeath Dunfermline Livingston Morton Raith Rovers East Fife Ayr United Arbroath Stranraer Stirling Albion Queen's Park Peterhead Elgin City Clyde Berwick Rangers Annan Sold their souls Dumbarton Stenhousemuir Brechin City Albion Rovers Da ken yet Hamilton Forfar QoS Falkirk Partick Thistle Alloa Montrose East Stirling Nae allowed to vote Dundee Airdrie Dumarton are a Dont Know 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty 218 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) The cringeworthy 'blog' on the OS has been quiet of late, hasn't it...? To be fair I emailed this to Mark Robertson a couple of weeks ago : "As a long-term supporter (now expat, so don't get to many games!) I am dismayed at the current shennanigans surrounding the 'accomodation' of the Newco formed out of the demise of Rangers FC. It is my understanding following press reports, that there is a 'proposal' of reforming the SPL/SFL solely in order to accommodate the Newco FC in an SPL2. I sincerely hope that this proposal is not supported by Queen of the South FC. It is an obvious point that we were defeated in the Scottish Cup Final by a team which has been found to be living beyond their means, utilizing EBTs, and not paying appropriate levels of Tax. These issues surrounding Rangers FC are now well documented and Rangers FC are now undergoing liquidation. The Newco (which to be honest will have exactly the same identity as Rangers FC!) seem to be treated with kid gloves. This is a New Company and no more entitled to a place in the 'new' league set up than any other new company or ambitious junior team. Why should they get into a league, just for asking, when many teams have struggled within their means to achieve such a status? League reformation does need to occur most supporters know this but surely it should occur independently of pandering to Rangers FC? By all means restructure, adopt a pyramid system, have play-offs but this should not be to accommodate Rangers FC (Newco FC)!!! The Newco if admitted anywhere should be admitted at the bottom of SFL3. End of story. I hope that I'm not the only voice that is objecting to this proposal. I am sure that many fans would just give up if the SFA/SPL/SFA 'accomodated' these cheats. It will NOT benefit Scottish Football it will make it a laughing stock. I sincerely hope that Queen of the South FC do the right thing." The response I got (and at least I got one was :- Nice to hear from you. You can rest assured that if and when the Board of QOS asked for their opinion, they will do so with the best interests of QOS and Scottish football at heart. Mark R Edited July 12, 2012 by Rusty 218 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The way the original resolution was worded meant they were effectively only voting on Division 1 or nothing. Although it referred to the Third Division, it was not a genuine alternative. The resolution may have been changed since it was published but I haven't seen it if it has. The way I read it was that it was 1) to vote NewCo into the SFL structure and, simultaneously, 2) if the SFL board were 'satisfied' with other proposals from the SFA and SFL the bribes then it would mean Div 1 else Div 3 - no other vote required 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Don't think Billy Hewitson is (I stand to be corrected) but the Commercial Director, Mark Robertson, is one of 'the peepul'. I am truly dismayed and embarrassed that Stranraer and Annan have made their stances clear (in the right camp as well) and we are shuffling in the background hoping beyond hope they don't make public who surrendered. I contacted Mr Robertson and laying out my concerns, and I have received nothing in return, not an acknowledgement receipt nothing. Well nothing is what they will get from me if they go with Regan et al. It is a secret ballot, but hoping the Yes voters won't be outed is a waste of time. All the No voters will make themselves known, therefore the Yes voters will be the others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The way the original resolution was worded meant they were effectively only voting on Division 1 or nothing. Although it referred to the Third Division, it was not a genuine alternative. The resolution may have been changed since it was published but I haven't seen it if it has. There is still uncertainty over the wording, clearly, and this has only been heightened by the relevation that Clyde submitted an amendment and it was "dismissed". Longmuir promised yesterday there would be clarify. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastermind Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Rumours on HP that Ayr United are another to vote 'Yes' to Division One Edited July 12, 2012 by Mastermind -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeGeeOneHamer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The response I got (and at least I got one was :- Nice to hear from you. You can rest assured that if and when the Board of QOS asked for their opinion, they will do so with the best interests of QOS and Scottish football at heart. Mark R Messers Regan and Doncaster have told everyone what that answer is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Rumours on HP that Ayr United are another to vote 'Yes' to Division One Ayr and Killie newco lapdogs:-( 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Even if we did come out and say 'No' now, we'd be late to the dance as 17 others have had the balls and integrity to say 'No'. It's fookin shameful, it really really is. And yes that 'blog' is cringe-worthy. Genuine question - what would you rather see instead? Mark is on holiday and has been for two weeks, which is why there has been no blog posts and, presumably, why you havent had a reply to your email. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 There is still uncertainty over the wording, clearly, and this has only been heightened by the relevation that Clyde submitted an amendment and it was "dismissed". Longmuir promised yesterday there would be clarify. Longmuir has also been quoted in the papers in the last few days that clubs would have the option of voting newco into Div 1 or Div 3, obviously as more clubs are showing their hands he is backtracking like hell. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I think thats the key point. Whatever the outcome, there will be a shift of power away from Glasgow. The other clubs will be more than happy to dump MK Rangers into the third division in order to have more time to enact the changes in the Scottish game. I don't think so, I think that putting Sevco into division 1 is a desperate attempt to keep the footballing power base firmly in the west. Sevco need to be in the SPL as quickly as possible for that to happen. We may see a few concessions thrown about in order to disguise the fact that this is the intention or to draw attention away from the real goal of keeping the old firm in power but we can all see what is happening and as a collective the diddies are far greater a force than the two top Glasgow clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Rumours on HP that Ayr United are another to vote 'Yes' to Division One What, after Lachlan Cameron's moralist statements? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The 3 tadger spineliss monkeys - Stenni, Albion, Brechin are dead to me from Div 2 - HOPE THEY DIE 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 There is still uncertainty over the wording, clearly, and this has only been heightened by the relevation that Clyde submitted an amendment and it was "dismissed". Longmuir promised yesterday there would be clarify. Surely, one thing is clear - the SFL don't need to do anything. At present they have a full complement of clubs and a fixture list to suit. Whilst there would be the usual FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) from the usual suspects, actually starting the season as they stand would be a nice 'f**k you' to the rest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Have they launched a new glossy proposal document? They were also confident of avoiding liquidation, the cva, the players staying and spl entry amongst other things. They're clearly not thinking things through. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) The way I read it was that it was 1) to vote NewCo into the SFL structure and, simultaneously, 2) if the SFL board were 'satisfied' with other proposals from the SFA and SFL the bribes then it would mean Div 1 else Div 3 - no other vote required Yes, that's right. I'm assuming that the SFL will be satisfied with the bribes or else they wouldn't have inserted that section into the resolution. As I said in the Second Divsion Forum, the resolution might as well say Sevco will play on Mars if they are not admitted to the First - it is not a realistic choice. The vote is effectively between the First or no admission. ETA Posted this before the chat above from HJ etc. Edited July 12, 2012 by Flash 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofarl Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I wonder how Lee Wallace and Mculloch and co will feel about plying their trade in division 3. Looooooollllllllll. GIFRY. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) The way the original resolution was worded meant they were effectively only voting on Division 1 or nothing. Although it referred to the Third Division, it was not a genuine alternative. The resolution may have been changed since it was published but I haven't seen it if it has. Clyde's new statement regarding the proposals.: The board of Clyde Football Club met last night to consider how it might approach the resolutions (see below) to be voted on at the SFL meeting on Friday 13th July. This update is to inform our owners and supporters and hopefully explain some of the complexities that face the club when carefully and objectively considering how we might vote. We hope that by being as clear as possible about the difficulties surrounding this situation that the people able to support the process act swiftly to do so. The overwhelming reality is that we are being asked to make one of the most important decisions for Scottish Football in a vacuum devoid of factual information, that vacuum having been filled with unhelpful rhetoric and scaremongering by the chief executives of the SFA and SPL. We therefore looked at what we were being asked to vote on, how it fitted with the principles of the sport, and what information we might need to inform a logical decision in context of the current reality. It was clear that the resolutions marked a clear departure from all previous process and custom and practice when considering admitting a team to the SFL, albeit operating within the rules of the SFL. It was in that context which we considered the resolutions. In reality, the customary principles of sport were not at the forefront of the resolutions.We first concluded that there was limited risk to the SFL from the 'Armageddon' theory, as depicted in the detailed presentation by Neil Doncaster and supported by Stewart Regan, which had prompted fears of cash flow loss to the SFL next season. We have obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement signed up to by the SPL and the SFL in April 1998 - it is clear that the agreement is not ambiguous in this regard and there is no scope for the SPL to fail to meet the obligations to the SFL except by deliberately breaching the agreement. Neil Doncaster was unequivocal when he said that there would be no payment under the agreement and stressed that it was not the board of the SPL that made big decisions, it was the clubs themselves. We have concluded that it defies credibility that the SPL clubs would instruct the SPL to deliberately breach a legal agreement. To assist the SFL clubs to take decisions in the right manner then the external threat should be removed by the SPL clubs, confirming to the SFL that they have not and will not instruct the SPL to breach the Settlement Agreement.Consideration was then given to Resolution 1 which we concluded required to be reworded to be explicit that entry was to SFL3. The reason for this is that once entered to the SFL in the manner proposed under Resolution 1, we understand that it is within the power of the Board of the SFL to place a club into any league of their choosing. We believe that, due to the intolerable pressure placed on the SFL board to date by external parties, this resolution should be explicit to avoid the Board coming under pressure from either the SFA or SPL in the event that Resolution 2 is rejected. It is also our opinion that Resolution 1 being explicit sits more appropriately with Resolution 2 which in itself is explicit about where any club might play.In terms of Resolution 1, whether reworded or not, it seemed inconceivable to the Board of Clyde that absolutely no information whatsoever has been provided to support the resolution. This is clearly a matter of haste and again driven by an external agenda, perhaps because Sevco have not lodged an application to join the SFL then they have not submitted any information. Whilst we have accepted that this is being treated as a special case and we are willing to run with this, it simply was not possible to conclude that we could make any decision at this time. The matter is made worse because of the extent of uncertainty which hangs over Sevco. There is no need to prepare an exhaustive list of the issues as they are well publicised, however the extent of outstanding sanctions that may or may not be levied against a club which has yet to obtain SFA membership, together with the increasing number of possible commercial and legal challenges to the transactions to date simply presents a significant risk to the ability of the club to fulfil its fixtures in any league. Given that some of these matters are in the hands of the governing bodies it seems inexplicable that they are left hanging. We are clear that for the good of the game that we would want a swift and positive conclusion that would see Rangers Football Club taking part in the game again and we would wish to be able to support a Resolution that saw them entered to SFL3. However, until we receive enough information to inform such a decision then we are being pushed into a corner which would actually leave any club making a logical decision arrive at the conclusion that Resolution 1 should not be supported. The SFA could assist the process by transferring the SFA membership to Sevco prior to the Friday meeting if they have satisfied themselves of fit and proper tests and have carried out their own diligence on the viability of the club and the various legal challenges.Resolution 2 suffers from the same issues as Resolution 1, in that no information of any sort about Sevco, not even whether it will obtain SFA membership, leaves no possibility of making a decision about entry to the SFL based on facts or logic. Clearly it is incumbent on all the governing bodies to make available all factual information they have available if they truly want this process to have any chance of being recovered from the current chaos. At the very least the business plan for Sevco and any other information that led the SPL clubs to arrive at a decision should be made available to the SFL clubs, and not with inappropriately short notice, although that point has as good as passed. Resolution 2 was where the challenge to sporting integrity arose. It was impossible to engage with this concept without continually bearing in mind that the SFA had already undermined the prospects for any integrity to be maintained by making it clear that failure to deal with the admission of a newco to SFL3 would be a dereliction of duty. In effect posting notice that no matter what decision is taken by the SFL clubs to administer their league, the SFA would not tolerate anything other than SFL 1, an equivalent point having been made by Neil Doncaster on behalf of the SPL clubs. The stated position of the SFA and SPL chief executives means that, whilst this club can have faith in David Longmuir to do all in his power to deliver a new combined structure that meets the objectives of Resolution 2, we have no faith in the parties that the new arrangements would be negotiated with. Their behaviour to date is evidence enough for us. We should not be disingenuous on our own position in terms of the question of trading sporting integrity for transformational change to the way the game is governed that is posed by Resolution 2. We have said previously that there would be no winners and that compromise would be required at some point. With this in mind, had we worked through this process and seen positive collaborative behaviour from the leaders of the SFA and SPL and we were challenged with backing Resolution 2 in exchange for revolutionary change that would truly benefit the game as a whole, then we would have engaged with that. As it stands, we have no information on the proposals other than that distributed in advance of the meeting last week and no confidence in the parties that will control the process outside of the SFL. As such we would vote no to Resolution 2.Resolution 3, as many have pointed out this resolution seems presumptuous as no invitation has been issued from the SPL to either club. Again, this arises because of the external pressures, the haste and the failure of other bodies to complete their own processes. As things stand, whilst Sevco/Newco was not voted into the SPL, it seems that the SPL still has 12 members based on the reported voting at the SPL meeting last week, albeit one of whom is in liquidation. It seems to make more sense that the SPL complete their processes and make the appropriate invitation for a club to join the SPL. We would seek to support whichever of our member clubs are invited to join the SPL to make that move, however, at the moment there is no certainty that Sevco will be entered into the SFL and the SFL should not risk leaving itself short of a team.In summary, the complete absence of information on Sevco Scotland Ltd renders it impossible to vote with any logic in favour of any of the Resolutions. The default in these circumstances would unfortunately be to vote against. We hope and trust that this unacceptable situation will be resolved swiftly and will allow Clyde Football Club to support Resolution 1 from an informed position and will see Rangers Football Club playing in SFL3. We see Resolution 2 as a matter of trust and it would take a change of personnel and attitude for us to be confident that David Longmuir would be entering discussions with a group of people committed to a collaborative process in a spirit of genuine partnership.In the current circumstances our only decision could be to vote against Resolution 2. Subject to a satisfactory outcome on Resolution 1 we would support Resolution 3.The three resolutions presented to the club are as follows:- (i) That the Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13. (ii) That the Scottish Football League Members direct the Board of Management of The Scottish Football League (the “Board”) to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13 unless the Board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football Association on a series of measures which the Board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game, how it is structured, how it is governed and how it is financed, whereupon the Board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the First Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13. (iii) That the Scottish Football League Members in terms of Rule 12 approve the resignation of either Dundee F.C. or Dunfermline Athletic F.C., whichever shall be admitted to join the Scottish Premier League for Season 2012/13, such resignation to take effect as at the date of admission of such club to the Scottish Premier League, notwithstanding that the requisite notice under Rule 12 shall not have been given.Details of the series of measures referred to at (ii) above shall be made available to the Members in advance of the meeting and an opportunity for full discussion of those measures will be given prior to the proposals being put to the meeting. (Sections in bold by me.) Edited July 12, 2012 by Florentine_Pogen 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.