Sportsound Watch

[The_Kincardine]

2 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

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.

The only things presented as purported facts have been:

RamblingGuy saying, "The rules of the vote specifically say a "refuse" vote can be changed at any point within the 28 day deadline."

A wee Hibs fanny claiming, "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."

Both are wrong.

 

[johnnydun]

17 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

The only things presented as purported facts have been:

RamblingGuy saying, "The rules of the vote specifically say a "refuse" vote can be changed at any point within the 28 day deadline."

A wee Hibs fanny claiming, "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."

Both are wrong.

 

I posted the rules on the last page.

So you have been presented with basic facts today.

Pay particular attention to rules 2 & 3.

No rules were broken in the vote. If they were, can you point them out?

Even if the system is flawed, all clubs were using the same system.

Edited May 10, 2020 by johnnydun

[The_Kincardine]

3 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

I posted the rules on the last page.

So you have been presented with basic facts today.

Pay particular attention to rules 2 & 3.

No rules were broken in the vote. If they were, can you point them out?

Even if the system is flawed, every club were using the same system.

I saw that.  It has been posted many times and is irrelevant.

The clubs were presented with an accept/reject ballot paper with a 5pm deadline and the SPFL Exec harried them in to both the form of voting and the voting timescale.  They manipulated Cormack in to accepting the resolution based on a crossed fingers behind the back notion of having the Premiership clubs having a vote before the season was finally called.  They then enticed your chairman in to changing his vote (which you deem unnecessary but clearly wasn't) by whatever chings and hoors temptation was enough for him to lose his credibility.

The real fact is that the vote was rigged and the astonishing fact is that so few posters acknowledge this.

[ropy]

Is a new SPFL board due to be voted in soon?  This season should have been finishing around now.

[johnnydun]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

I saw that.  It has been posted many times and is irrelevant.

The clubs were presented with an accept/reject ballot paper with a 5pm deadline and the SPFL Exec harried them in to both the form of voting and the voting timescale.  They manipulated Cormack in to accepting the resolution based on a crossed fingers behind the back notion of having the Premiership clubs having a vote before the season was finally called.  They then enticed your chairman in to changing his vote (which you deem unnecessary but clearly wasn't) by whatever chings and hoors temptation was enough for him to lose his credibility.

The real fact is that the vote was rigged and the astonishing fact is that so few posters acknowledge this.

The rules are irrelevant?

The 5pm Friday deadline was a preferred deadline not a certain deadline, every club got sent the same rules.

In what way was he enticed? You say the vote was rigged, can you supply the "basic facts" to back this claim?

[ggr]

10 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

The real fact is that the vote was rigged and the astonishing fact is that so few posters acknowledge this.

"My opinion is that the vote was rigged and the astonishing fact is that so few posters agree with me"

 

[Public menace]

The weeks long arguments have had no basic facts to support them.

Anytime benny/kinky are given facts that go against their argument, they class them as “irrelevant”, in the meantime claiming all sort of bullying and bribery with hee haw to back their claims up

[Guest JTS98]

6 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

I saw that.  It has been posted many times and is irrelevant.

 

Like most legal documents, the rules are written in a way that can be interpreted any way the organisation want to interpret them.

It's clearly the case that the ethical handling of the voting process was extremely suspect. I think anyone arguing otherwise is quite clearly trolling.

However, there is a fundamental case here that the way this has been handled is simply wrong and there needs to be an investigation into why the governing body went public to give a casting vote and negotiating position to one member. That absolutely cannot be allowed and it seems very likely that it influenced that club's vote, casting huge doubt on the integrity of the process.

It speaks volumes for the tribal nature of football that so many people who spend their money and weekends on Scottish football seem ok with such an obviously shady process being used to make very big decisions. It's quite startling that so many are prepared to do mental gymnastics to justify this.

This glib idea that "we just need to focus on getting back playing" is nonsense. It's just an attempt to shut down discussion. There is plenty of time to investigate what has gone on here before a ball is kicked. There's not much of a rush. There's not going to be any fitba next week.

It's like the US government announcing in November that all results are in bar one state and it's exactly level in the Presidential election, and there's one guy who still has to vote then getting one of the candidates to phone that boy and offer him the moon on a stick.

I'd advise against engaging with Green Day on here, mind. You're wasting your time. I've never worked out if the boy is thick or just trolling on every subject he posts on. I don't put anybody on ignore, but I just completely ignore anything he posts or reacts to these days. Don't waste your time.

I could write his posts for him. Basically take any issue, choose the outcome Hearts don't want, and that's his view. Logic, reason, ethics all irrelevant. He's a Matt McGlone. There is no argument you could present to him that would outweigh Hearts=bad.

You could show him a video of someone from the Celtic board slipping a brown envelope to a Dundee director while saying "Thanks very much for changing your vote, here's what we discussed" and winking, and Green Day would say, 'How do you know what's in that envelope? How do you know what vote he was talking about?'.

Edited May 11, 2020 by JTS98

[tree house tam]

8 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

 chings and hoors 

 

[Green Day]

9 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

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.

It wasnt, I was - self evidently - talking about the Premiership vote.

[Green Day]

9 hours ago, kingjoey said:

he may be trying to whoosh you

No sure he understands that strategy, tbf.........................

[Dons_1988]

8 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

They manipulated Cormack in to accepting the resolution based on a crossed fingers behind the back notion of having the Premiership clubs having a vote before the season was finally called.  

Wrong. You've been told this many times.

[ropy]

If the resolution had failed what would we do next?

[Sparticus]

4 minutes ago, ropy said:

If the resolution had failed what would we do next?

My view is if it had failed then the SPFL would have closed the whole season down by now anyway with the same system as the resolution.

Too many clubs had to have the money when they thought they would get it, or go under.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Sparticus
sppeling

[pandarilla]

I'm not following this particularly carefully, but can i check if I've read the feeling right.

Kincardine believes there's something inherently dodgy about the way it was all done, with a changed vote, one team ending up with massive power, and seemingly endless time to receive and accept offers.

Most rangers fans (i would presume) would go along with the above, but there's also an excellent recent post by jts98, which generally agrees that something ain't right.

The alternative view is the favoured one on p&b - that the spfl didn't break any rules and Dundee (either through genius or luck) just played the system to their advantage.

No need for an enquiry - it's just rangers being whiney little bitches.

And the whole forum agrees that green day should be ignored entirely.

Is that the jist, or have i missed anything vital?

[ropy]

There should be an investigation into whether we should have an inquiry or an enquiry.

[Green Day]

12 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

And the whole forum agrees that green day should be ignored entirely

Jeez, no need to get so upset, I gave your mum her knickers back ffs.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Green Day

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I'm not following this particularly carefully, but can i check if I've read the feeling right.

Kincardine believes there's something inherently dodgy about the way it was all done, with a changed vote, one team ending up with massive power, and seemingly endless time to receive and accept offers.

Most rangers fans (i would presume) would go along with the above, but there's also an excellent recent post by jts98, which generally agrees that something ain't right.

The alternative view is the favoured one on p&b - that the spfl didn't break any rules and Dundee (either through genius or luck) just played the system to their advantage.

No need for an enquiry - it's just rangers being whiney little bitches.

And the whole forum agrees that green day should be ignored entirely.

Is that the jist, or have i missed anything vital?

The SPFL Board are incompetent, and should've been punted during the Sevco vote when there genuinely was bullying.

Dundee broke no rules, and simply played a voting structure made by morons. If the voting slips never contained "reject", as they shouldve done as there is no way to reject these type of votes other than abstaining, then this wouldnt have been an issue at all.

Rangers have no interest in helping Scottish football. Their crusade isnt about that. They have provided no evidence to back up any of their claims, at all, apart from heresay based on the words of Scot Gardiner, a known liar within Scottish football. Hes also just coincidentally a Rangers fans who has links with a team facing relegation and another desperate to get promoted. This is about the club putting up a fight against anyone, simply to placate a moron fan base.

The best thing for Scottish football just now, clubs and players, is to end the season as soon as possible so theres clarity and decisions can be made on contracts. The clubs voted for that to happen, through a democratic vote, that broke no rules. The Sevco vote years ago had the SPFL bully and threaten clubs publicly, and spread misinformation to influence the vote, and thag vote still went through. 

[Dons_1988]

16 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

I'm not following this particularly carefully, but can i check if I've read the feeling right.

Kincardine believes there's something inherently dodgy about the way it was all done, with a changed vote, one team ending up with massive power, and seemingly endless time to receive and accept offers.

Most rangers fans (i would presume) would go along with the above, but there's also an excellent recent post by jts98, which generally agrees that something ain't right.

The alternative view is the favoured one on p&b - that the spfl didn't break any rules and Dundee (either through genius or luck) just played the system to their advantage.

No need for an enquiry - it's just rangers being whiney little bitches.

And the whole forum agrees that green day should be ignored entirely.

Is that the jist, or have i missed anything vital?

If Rangers had presented their dossier in a relatively measured manner, at an appropriate time (i.e. once the safety of the game was secured) I'd probably support it. The dossier raised some very valid questions (if not the evidence to support those questions/accusations) which call into question the governance of the vote.

My own view is that regarding the resolution we've ultimately got to the correct outcome, but the manner of it has been absolutely woeful. There's no precedent for this situation so to an extent this is understandable but the basic levels of failure in communication, particularly with aggrieved clubs has been shocking.

The descent of the entire thing into a public squabble being played out through official statements and interviews on Sportsound, with no one engaging in meaningful discussion in private is a national embarrassment and ultimately shows a lack of leadership again from the SPFL board.

I can't see Doncaster surviving this once this is all over anyway as this has become so toxic his position is likely untenable.

[Guest JTS98]

16 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

The SPFL Board are incompetent, and should've been punted during the Sevco vote when there genuinely was bullying.

Dundee broke no rules, and simply played a voting structure made by morons. If the voting slips never contained "reject", as they shouldve done as there is no way to reject these type of votes other than abstaining, then this wouldnt have been an issue at all.

Rangers have no interest in helping Scottish football. Their crusade isnt about that. They have provided no evidence to back up any of their claims, at all, apart from heresay based on the words of Scot Gardiner, a known liar within Scottish football. Hes also just coincidentally a Rangers fans who has links with a team facing relegation and another desperate to get promoted. This is about the club putting up a fight against anyone, simply to placate a moron fan base.

The best thing for Scottish football just now, clubs and players, is to end the season as soon as possible so theres clarity and decisions can be made on contracts. The clubs voted for that to happen, through a democratic vote, that broke no rules. The Sevco vote years ago had the SPFL bully and threaten clubs publicly, and spread misinformation to influence the vote, and thag vote still went through. 

After yesterday's appeal to antiquity and straw man, I was wondering how RandomGuy would step up his fallacy game today.

He hasn't let me down, firing right in with an exceptional ignoratio elenchi, a fabulous tu quoque, and an ad hominem (with added circumstantial ad hominem) to start the day with a bang.

I'm considering using his posts as the framework for a module in a first-year undergraduate philosophy course. I think there's a market for it.

When you have to emphasis that 'X didn't break any rules' that usually flags up unethical behaviour.

Edited May 11, 2020 by JTS98