Sportsound Watch

[welshbairn]

3 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

I have said, many times, that our prime driver here is for all league positions to be frozen and for no winners or losers to be declared - thus no 9IAR.

If there are to be no winners and losers it would only be fair to share the prize money out equally. Otherwise there's no justification for denying 9IAR.

[johnnydun]

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

So is this a photoshop job?

However you want to spin it, Dundee cast a perfectly acceptable vote.

[Green Day]

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

Part of the background to this is utter shite such as RamblingGuy stating nonsense such as, "The rules of the vote specifically say a "refuse" vote can be changed at any point within the 28 day deadline." and others saying the likes of, "You can't change a Yes vote but you can change a No vote".  This is demonstrable pap.

As I have said repeatedly, there is no provision for changing a No/reject/don't accept vote.

Now if you want to go down the, "it doesn’t say that a Reject vote cannot be changed, then a Reject vote can be changed." wormhole then I'm willing but it changes nothing.  Dundee cast a perfectly acceptable vote and it should be respected.  

OK, I will try one last time.

Regardless of all and any other votes cast as "No" /not cast/eaten by dogs/whatever.........

The only thing that counts in the SPFL rules is that a certain number of votes FOR A RESOLUTION are reached.

In that, frankly unprofessional, way it resembles your local bowling club. It is an unarguable fact that this is a daft methodology..............but it is the methodology in place, and all clubs are signed up to.

It was impossible for that to be changed for that resolution, so the methodology remained as it always had.

There was a number requiring to be reached, and (iirc) when Hibs said "Yes" at 4.15/4.30sh, it was game set and jerseys. Any votes cast for Yes, No, My dug ate my Hamster were totally irrelevant after that point as the resolution was passed.

All of this is VERY VERY SIMPLE.

For the love of god, tell me you understand it?????

[DA Baracus]

He understands it fine and has done since the start.

This is what his tedious act involves.

Edited May 10, 2020 by DA Baracus

[The_Kincardine]

6 minutes ago, Green Day said:

OK, I will try one last time.

Regardless of all and any other votes cast as "No" /not cast/eaten by dogs/whatever.........

The only thing that counts in the SPFL rules is that a certain number of votes FOR A RESOLUTION are reached.

In that, frankly unprofessional, way it resembles your local bowling club. It is an unarguable fact that this is a daft methodology..............but it is the methodology in place, and all clubs are signed up to.

It was impossible for that to be changed for that resolution, so the methodology remained as it always had.

There was a number requiring to be reached, and (iirc) when Hibs said "Yes" at 4.15/4.30sh, it was game set and jerseys. Any votes cast for Yes, No, My dug ate my Hamster were totally irrelevant after that point as the resolution was passed.

All of this is VERY VERY SIMPLE.

For the love of god, tell me you understand it?????

This is just utter nonsense and it is astonishing that you think this.  How Hibs voted had no impact on the Dundee vote whatsoever.  

The resolution needed acceptance from 8 Championship clubs or it would fail.  This is what the whole Whatsapp discussion was about.

Dundee cast their perfectly valid vote so the resolution failed.  What happened next is why we should have an inquiry.

Hope I've made that simple enough for you.

[Green Day]

5 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Hope I've made that simple enough for you

Dundee called the SPFL and said that their original vote was invalid, but that point is kinda irrelevant  anyway because as much as you call it "valid", as any moron knows they had 28 days to cast a Yes if they wanted - which is entirely within the constitution and rules.

Indeed Hearts could send an email to Doncaster today changing theirs to a Yes - just for the giggles.

But Hibs couldnt change their Yes to a No.

Is that simple enough???

[The DA]

8 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is just utter nonsense and it is astonishing that you think this.  How Hibs voted had no impact on the Dundee vote whatsoever.  

The resolution needed acceptance from 8 Championship clubs or it would fail.  This is what the whole Whatsapp discussion was about.

Dundee cast their perfectly valid vote so the resolution failed.  What happened next is why we should have an inquiry.

Hope I've made that simple enough for you.

From what we've seen so far, there is no such thing as a reject vote in company law.  Discussions and persuasion can continue for 28 days to force/nurse a resolution over the line.

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Green Day said:

Dundee called the SPFL and said that their original vote was invalid, but that point is kinda irrelevant  anyway because as much as you call it "valid", as any moron knows they had 28 days to cast a Yes if they wanted - which is entirely within the constitution and rules.

You stated clearly, "There was a number requiring to be reached, and (iirc) when Hibs said "Yes" at 4.15/4.30sh, it was game set and jerseys."

This was tosh and completely missing the point.

[The_Kincardine]

3 minutes ago, The DA said:

From what we've seen so far, there is no such thing as a reject vote in company law.  Discussions and persuasion can continue for 28 days to force/nurse a resolution over the line.

There certainly was in the rigged ballot and was used ruthlessly by the SPFL Exec in their own favour.  Why they chose this route and why they hounded Nelms is the sensible basis for an inquiry.

[kingjoey]

24 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

This is just utter nonsense and it is astonishing that you think this.  How Hibs voted had no impact on the Dundee vote whatsoever.  

The resolution needed acceptance from 8 Championship clubs or it would fail.  This is what the whole Whatsapp discussion was about.

Dundee cast their perfectly valid vote so the resolution failed.  What happened next is why we should have an inquiry.

Hope I've made that simple enough for you.

I know that you've been trying to rubbish my posts on this subject for a wee while, but no idea why you would deem it necessary to reply to Green Day's pile of shite of a post. It's so much of a pile of shite, that he may be trying to whoosh you. 

[The_Kincardine]

7 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

I know that you've been trying to rubbish my posts on this subject for a wee while, but no idea why you would deem it necessary to reply to Green Day's pile of shite of a post. It's so much of a pile of shite, that he may be trying to whoosh you. 

I simply disagree with you.

[Ludo*1]

6 hours ago, Swordfishtrombone said:

Seems a bit harsh. I’m no fan of Dodds as a pundit, he certainly has a bias to Rangers and is a bit thick, and I know Dundee fans have reason to dislike him but as a player he was a very good Scottish top flight striker and probably achieved the most he could have with his ability. He played for his country and played very well for a few clubs resulting in a move to a very good Rangers team. He was a niggly wee b*****d and a constant nuisance and goal threat as a player, I don’t think coward is a fair word to describe him.  He’s somebody I can’t get annoyed about. There are far worse than him. 

He's a lying, snivelling, sneaky and cowardly little shit.

[kingjoey]

2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

I simply disagree with you.

No you don't. 

[Ludo*1]

Kincardine when presented with basic facts:

[The DA]

25 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

There certainly was in the rigged ballot and was used ruthlessly by the SPFL Exec in their own favour.  Why they chose this route and why they hounded Nelms is the sensible basis for an inquiry.

You have solid evidence that he was hounded or do you just have suspicions?

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

No you don't. 

You're right.  I like your views and wish I had the imagination to come up with them...

Edited May 10, 2020 by The_Kincardine

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Speroni*1 said:

Kincardine when presented with basic facts:

If only I'd been presented with any basic facts this afternoon...

[kingjoey]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

You're right.  I like your views and wish I had the imagination to come up with them...

Bugger! I was trying to guide you to a Monty Python Argument sketch series of posts. That went well.

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

Bugger! I was trying to guide you to a Monty Python Argument sketch series of posts. That went well.

[johnnydun]

25 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

If only I'd been presented with any basic facts this afternoon...

Surely you are trolling mate. You are usually not this thick. Although we disagree on a lot of thing, you have never struck me as dense.