Follow Follow Rangers. Season 2023/24

[kingjoey]

2 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

Not wanting a schedule of games interrupted for threadbare reasoning doesn't make me a conspiracist, Jhoey...

Why do you think that the decision was taken to do what the clubs voted for? Do you think that the vote shouldn’t have been acted on? 

[kingjoey]

2 hours ago, gaz5 said:

That's subjective.

Personally, I didn't think it made much sense, because the situation is unlikely to be any different in 3 weeks time. Getting another 2 games out the way as scheduled made more sense to me.

But ultimately I don't really GAF as I've no skin in the game, so makes no ends to me.

I only posted in response to the question about why clubs voted a certain way. The answer is self interest. It's nothing to do with "benefit of the fans" as it's being sold.

There's nothing wrong with clubs voting for whatever suits them. They don't even need to give a reason. Just put their cross in the box, count them up and move on.

I agree with you that it is unlikely that crowds will be allowed in as normal in three weeks time, but given that a break was coming in seven days anyway, it makes perfect sense to at least give it a chance. 

[bennett]

Do they not have multi quote up in Aberdeen?

[gaz5]

I agree with you that it is unlikely that crowds will be allowed in as normal in three weeks time, but given that a break was coming in seven days anyway, it makes perfect sense to at least give it a chance. 

We'll agree to disagree. I don't see much merit, personally, in postponing 2 rounds of fixtures where the majority of players/management are eligible (non Covid issues excluded) while at the same time forcing anther two rounds to be played where there are genuine problems with fielding teams.

What made perfect sense for me was not forcing teams to play this last week by having to bend the loan rules or register a 40 year old who is 6 years retired and a 17 year old goalkeeper as an outfield sub to make up the numbers..

Postponing those games would have made perfect sense.

Postponing 2 full rounds of fixtures "for the fans" (aye, right) while at the same time forcing teams to play when they have genuine issues is probably the most "Scottish football" thing to have happened in all of this.

[kingjoey]

27 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

Postponing 2 full rounds of fixtures "for the fans" (aye, right) while at the same time forcing teams to play when they have genuine issues is probably the most "Scottish football" thing to have happened in all of this.

In your opinion, why were the 2 full rounds of fixtures postponed?

[gaz5]

In your opinion, why were the 2 full rounds of fixtures postponed?

I've said above, because that's what the majority of clubs voted for and each club cast their votes for their own reasons. I gave examples of half the league and why they likely chose how they did.

But as I've said multiple times, the why is irrelevant. They can vote however they want for whatever reason they want.

The "for the fans" thing is just a soundbite IMO.

You think if Celtic had a full strength squad and Rangers had the amount of players Celtic do missing for Jan 2nd those votes wouldn't have been the polar opposite of what they were, regardless of the venue?

Course they would. It's about competitive edge and it happens at every level of Scottish football.

Clubs voted the way they did because it suits them for lots of reasons and fans in stadiums is nowhere near the top of that list, save for perhaps Aberdeen in this instance.

[Dons_1988]

15 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

I've said above, because that's what the majority of clubs voted for and each club cast their votes for their own reasons. I gave examples of half the league and why they likely chose how they did.

But as I've said multiple times, the why is irrelevant. They can vote however they want for whatever reason they want.

The "for the fans" thing is just a soundbite IMO.

You think if Celtic had a full strength squad and Rangers had the amount of players Celtic do missing for Jan 2nd those votes wouldn't have been the polar opposite of what they were, regardless of the venue?

Course they would. It's about competitive edge and it happens at every level of Scottish football.

Clubs voted the way they did because it suits them for lots of reasons and fans in stadiums is nowhere near the top of that list, save for perhaps Aberdeen in this instance.

The primary reason is finance for most clubs. 

But we’ve just been through a season of no fans and it’s almost unanimously recognised as being absolutely shite and a fundamental hole in the entire experience of football, players and managers included. 

There was a winter break anyway. It was eminently sensible to bring it forward. 

[gaz5]

The primary reason is finance for most clubs. 
But we’ve just been through a season of no fans and it’s almost unanimously recognised as being absolutely shite and a fundamental hole in the entire experience of football, players and managers included. 
There was a winter break anyway. It was eminently sensible to bring it forward. 

Again, I'm not arguing that playing on without fans isn't shite for fans, or that it has financial implications.

But the "for the fans" argument (outside of milking them for money) loses credibility IMO when you only cancel 2 of the 3 games without fans, rather than all of them.

And equally when you force fans to pay to watch their team with kids from the lowland League you changed the rules to allow to come back or a 40 year old retired assistant manager and a sub goalie as an outfield player on the bench.

Reality is that neither the clubs nor the football authorities could give a shit about fans, outside of the money they bring.

But "for the fans benefit" is an easy sell PR wise. Certainly easier than "we want to avoid a huge game with half a team", or "we want a transfer window before we get cut any further adrift" or "we need the money and that's what the fans are good for".

But as I've said all along, the reasons shouldn't really matter. "The majority of clubs voted for X", end of story. The why is neither here nor there.

[Dons_1988]

Just now, gaz5 said:

Again, I'm not arguing that playing on without fans isn't shite for fans, or that it has financial implications.

But the "for the fans" argument (outside of milking them for money) loses credibility IMO when you only cancel 2 of the 3 games without fans, rather than all of them.

And equally when you force fans to pay to watch their team with kids from the lowland League you changed the rules to allow to come back or a 40 year old retired assistant manager and a sub goalie as an outfield player on the bench.

Reality is that neither the clubs nor the football authorities could give a shit about fans, outside of the money they bring.

But "for the fans benefit" is an easy sell PR wise. Certainly easier than "we want to avoid a huge game with half a team", or "we want a transfer window before we get cut any further adrift" or "we need the money and that's what the fans are good for".

But as I've said all along, the reasons shouldn't really matter. "The majority of clubs voted for X", end of story. The why is neither here nor there.

As I said, finance is the primary reason for the change. 

And as stated earlier today, they Would’ve cancelled all 3 fixtures if there was enough space in the diary to reschedule them all. 

[gaz5]

As I said, finance is the primary reason for the change. 
And as stated earlier today, they Would’ve cancelled all 3 fixtures if there was enough space in the diary to reschedule them all. 

There is space, for all but 2 clubs for 1 game each, if they don't get papped out in the next round of Europe, which at least 1 of them certainly will.

[Dons_1988]

Just now, gaz5 said:

There is space, for all but 2 clubs for 1 game each, if they don't get papped out in the next round of Europe, which at least 1 of them certainly will.
 

Yeah but you can’t work on that assumption. It’s quite simple really. 

[gaz5]

Yeah but you can’t work on that assumption. It’s quite simple really. 

You can't work on the most probable assumption, but you can work on the least probable one (that both will make it all the way to their respective finals)?

Yep, seems simple. [emoji846]

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, gaz5 said:

You can't work on the most probable assumption, but you can work on the least probable one (that both will make it all the way to their respective finals)?

Yep, seems simple.

A few years ago they failed to plan for both clubs reaching the group stages and they ended up with the farce of trying to force two league cup semi finals at hampden on the same day.

It may be unlikely but you need to have the capacity to deal with it. 

[gaz5]

A few years ago they failed to plan for both clubs reaching the group stages and they ended up with the farce of trying to force two league cup semi finals at hampden on the same day.
It may be unlikely but you need to have the capacity to deal with it. 

So play the 3 games as scheduled so you have capacity to deal with the minuscule eventually that's happened once in all of history.

We can go round in this circle all night, but it's a moot point. I think we both agree the early stoppage isn't for the fans already.

[The_Kincardine]

4 hours ago, kingjoey said:

Why do you think that the decision was taken to do what the clubs voted for? Do you think that the vote shouldn’t have been acted on? 

There should never have been a vote.  The reason the SPFL pays a CEO about £500K per annum is to make clear and consistent decisions rather than organise daft wee ballots.  So we have yet another illogical fudge and this is down to poor leadership.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

Good the see that @The_Kincardine has come round to the idea that Sevco shouldn’t have been allowed back into the league set up and made to play using a name that wasn’t “Rangers”. All in the name of consistent decision making, obviously. It’s all that he and ‘sporting integrity’ asks for.

[The_Kincardine]

6 hours ago, Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo said:

Good the see that @The_Kincardine has come round to the idea that Sevco shouldn’t have been allowed back into the league set up and made to play using a name that wasn’t “Rangers”. All in the name of consistent decision making, obviously. It’s all that he and ‘sporting integrity’ asks for.

FFS!  It's diddy reasoning like  this which justifies taking as many decisions away from you as possible...

[kingjoey]

2 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

FFS!  It's diddy reasoning like  this which justifies taking as many decisions away from you as possible...

I’m not so sure that he has any influence on the board of his club.

[Dons_1988]

9 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

There should never have been a vote.  The reason the SPFL pays a CEO about £500K per annum is to make clear and consistent decisions rather than organise daft wee ballots.  So we have yet another illogical fudge and this is down to poor leadership.

That’s not his job though. 

[lubo_blaha]

There should never have been a vote.  The reason the SPFL pays a CEO about £500K per annum is to make clear and consistent decisions rather than organise daft wee ballots.  So we have yet another illogical fudge and this is down to poor leadership.

The board are simply acting upon the wishes of the clubs. They tried to cede covid-related decisions to the board but the clubs voted against it.