H_B Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Fair point and it is why SPL2 gets aired every few seasons. Exactly, and it's really why the SFA (don't laugh) have to oversee the whole shooting match. When teams like Falkirk talk about "reconstruction" they really mean "an extra promotion place and a bigger slice of the pie financially", presumably by renegotiating up (ha ha) the £2 million payment, or having an extra one for Div One clubs based on an SPL2 TV deal (hahahah) etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Risibly, Hamilton cite fears of losing this a couple of times in their weasel YES statement. Pathetic. Our halfwits managed something similar. They said "any potential loss of revenue has to be carefully considered along with its consequences. It remains to be seen what the impact of a 'no' vote will be on the club's finances" They also piled in with the belief the result would be overturned anyway - "our reading of the situation was that the effect of a'yes' vote would be manufactured by the governing bodies irrespective of the outcome of the actual vote". Ill-informed clowns without the principles to make a stand, the skills to carry out an analysis of the situation, or even the political savvy to sense the mood. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 "The SFL" don't want reconstruction. Certain clubs in the SFL top echeclons like Falkirk do. Once we get back into the SPL we won't give a f**k about reconstruction. The proposals, as craig says, were dreadful for the Arbroath and East Stirlings of the league. Agreed. Owing to the SFL's distribution systems (which loads income after a certain threshold to SFL1 clubs), the smaller teams wouldn't have seen a vast sum of money from the £1M... maybe £20k... and regardless there's a very good chance everyone would make more from gates and negotiating their own TV deal anyway. They were also signing away the SFL itself, with everyone joining an SPL rebranded SPFL. Except clubs outside the top level had different shareholdings, diluted voting rights, and collectively placed 2 directors onto a Board while SPL placed 3 and picked the Chairman!! Beyond that they got a pyramid system (which some SFL clubs will clearly dislike), and lilly-livered generalisms about a reconstruction committee - with 3 reps from each organisation, and a chairman from SFA who were clearly in cahoots with SPL. And all packaged-up as "not legally binding" anyway, and delivered with threats-'n-menace. I don't think SFL clubs would've voted for the proposals whatever happened - as by the time the Friday came too many fans had made their view clear and too many clubs had gone past the point of no return. But lets be quite clear - what sketchy 'proposals' SPL made were insulting, farcical, and far too little far too late. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 They also piled in with the belief the result would be overturned anyway - "our reading of the situation was that the effect of a'yes' vote would be manufactured by the governing bodies irrespective of the outcome of the actual vote". Hamilton's statement was almost word for word this It was as if some "bigger boys" were going to come along and change the vote after the fact. I'm not sure what the word is to describe these statements. I'll have a think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somner`s love child Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Risibly, Hamilton cite fears of losing this a couple of times in their weasel YES statement. Pathetic. In what way was it risible. Are you suggesting that the SPL Chairmen are`nt the most self serving duplicitous collective in sport who would be willing to go to almost any length to protect their interests. Are you suggesting that the SFL experts (?) could`nt possibly have overlooked some detail in the fine print. I`ll believe the SPL will meet their FULL contractual obligation when the cheque arrives at Firhill. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chazza1910 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The plan may still be that The Rangers sre suspended for a season, and are invited to SPL2 next year. This might cost them less than trying to continue as they are. Loan out their players, no problem it seems to me. Keep a skeleton staff to switch the lights on and off at Ibrox. Sell Murray Park. They do have other sanctions to consider of course, the SPL EBT ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Hamilton's statement was almost word for word this It was as if some "bigger boys" were going to come along and change the vote after the fact. I'm not sure what the word is to describe these statements. I'll have a think. Hamilton would have probably voted for a blank mandate, if it was on SPL headed notepaper. One only has to recall Ronnie Macdonald behaving like Neil Doncaster's groupie during the 10-team SPL months to perceive the situation there. Alongside them we've 3 of Falkirk, Dundee, Forfar, Montrose... first 2 the most desperate to get back into SPL, or maybe there's just something in the Forfarshire water. QotS just made a balls of it, hence their massive apologetic backtrack. Are you suggesting that the SFL experts (?) could`nt possibly have overlooked some detail in the fine print. I`ll believe the SPL will meet their FULL contractual obligation when the cheque arrives at Firhill. They've got a document which says it's legally binding, they've got legal advice agreeing it's legally binding but clubs should still work on the basis it might not be just in case? With this level of caution, would they make it out their front doors of a morning? Edited July 17, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishes Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Who is this Di Stefano welt? Can you no mind the dick that hung about Dundee for a while, promising millions but giving sod all. I'm sure he brought in Ravanelli and everyone's favourite journo Gap Tooth Burley. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Ummm, the Truck Acts? It's been illegal to pay employees in scrip for over a century. Thanks. I understand. I had heard of the Truck Acts but only vaguely. I really don't want to enter into a discussion on the legalities of this but people do get rewarded in kind for certain functions. Someone picks up glasses in a pub and gets free beer, that sort of thing. There are also LETS (local exchange trading system) schemes which must somehow circumvent the rules. Anyhow, thanks again for the info, I was just curious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Hamilton would have probably voted for a blank mandate, if it was on SPL headed notepaper. One only has to recall Ronnie Macdonald behaving like Neil Doncaster's groupie during the 10-team SPL months to perceive the situation there. Alongside them we've 3 of Falkirk, Dundee, Forfar, Montrose... first 2 the most desperate to get back into SPL, or maybe there's just something in the Forfarshire water. QotS just made a balls of it, hence their massive apologetic backtrack. Aye, but Accies were talking from a blusnose perspective not an Accies one back then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 So at what point do they stop waiting around for Sevco and go for #spartansforSFL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Aye right, Gio - but what about all those tarriers in the middle? tarrier: a derogatory name used by bigots to describe persons of Irish descent. The bigots who use such terms often reside in small Ayrshire towns such as Kilmarnock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chazza1910 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Hamilton would have probably voted for a blank mandate, if it was on SPL headed notepaper. One only has to recall Ronnie Macdonald behaving like Neil Doncaster's groupie during the 10-team SPL months to perceive the situation there. Alongside them we've 3 of Falkirk, Dundee, Forfar, Montrose... first 2 the most desperate to get back into SPL, or maybe there's just something in the Forfarshire water. QotS just made a balls of it, hence their massive apologetic backtrack. That guy Macdonald was up to all sorts the year Hamilton beat Dundee to the title. That f***ing pitch for a start. Not content with it being an unfair advantage, Hamilton watered Gilhaney's wing at half-time I seem to recall, in one match. And somehow got (Dundee's) Antoine Curier sent off at NDP in the later game. They were a bunch of cynical hammer throwers. Plus Macdonald was spreading all sorts of rumours about Dundee's finances (not true at that time, as far as I'm aware). On the other hand, I sort of admired the old Arthur Daley get-up-at-any-costs spivvery of it all. Stopped just short of illegal behaviour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 That guy Macdonald was up to all sorts the year Hamilton beat Dundee to the title. That f***ing pitch for a start. Not content with it being an unfair advantage, Hamilton watered Gilhaney's wing at half-time I seem to recall, in one match. And somehow got (Dundee's) Antoine Curier sent off at NDP in the later game. They were a bunch of cynical hammer throwers. Plus Macdonald was spreading all sorts of rumours about Dundee's finances (not true at that time, as far as I'm aware). On the other hand, I sort of admired the old Arthur Daley get-up-at-any-costs spivvery of it all. Stopped just short of illegal behaviour. mmmmmmmm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Have I missed gtf 2 day? Where the leagues are sorted now that sevco are 3rd div? If so I may have to give up on that jelly 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somner`s love child Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Again, what? Allowing Sevco into D1 was surrendering the SFL's biggest bargaining chip, for nothing but empty promises and hot air. Had the SFL clubs voted to gerrymander Sevco into D! they were fucked completely. The SPL clubs would have had everything they wanted and would have no further use for the SFL. Kindof like telling a bird that if she lets you into her pants you'll consider proposing marriage and getting a house together *nothing in this statement is legally binding, and sexual intercourse in no way implies a binding agreement to do anything at all* Empty promises and not air apart from the immediate introduction of a play off place for the league runner up. Might not be enough, might even be `risible` but it`s certainly better than anything on the table at the moment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Giovanni Di Stefano does not sound like a typical "rangers family" name Neither does Gennaro Ivan Gattuso or Lorenzo Amoruso. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Empty promises and not air apart from the immediate introduction of a play off place for the league runner up. Might not be enough, might even be `risible` but it`s certainly better than anything on the table at the moment. What's the conclusion of this line of thought, though? That SFL clubs should have sold themselves and their organisation down the river for £1M, a play-off place, a committee and the abandonment of the sporting values their fans demanded? It certainly appears SPL clubs (or at least SPL hierarchy) though they'd do exactly that, tbf... it also appears they got it 25-5 wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Would certainly not surprise me if Whyte is still there,up to his neck in it as usual,just keeping quiet and letting Chuck be the voice. If Whyte is still there it would certainly not surprise me if Murray is still there,up to his neck in it as usual, just keeping quiet after letting Whyte do the dirty deed before passing the final stages of the hustle over to Chuck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somner`s love child Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Hamilton would have probably voted for a blank mandate, if it was on SPL headed notepaper. One only has to recall Ronnie Macdonald behaving like Neil Doncaster's groupie during the 10-team SPL months to perceive the situation there. Alongside them we've 3 of Falkirk, Dundee, Forfar, Montrose... first 2 the most desperate to get back into SPL, or maybe there's just something in the Forfarshire water. QotS just made a balls of it, hence their massive apologetic backtrack. They've got a document which says it's legally binding, they've got legal advice agreeing it's legally binding but clubs should still work on the basis it might not be just in case? With this level of caution, would they make it out their front doors of a morning? So tell me, when you personally examined the document, there were no applicable `get out` clauses, no codicils relating to annual income streams and no mention of a sliding scale of payment. Not for a second doubting you, it`s just that from my experience it`s easier to work on the basis that the SPL lie as a default position. 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.