Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Skyline Drifter]

6 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said:

Maybe the supposed 100 page original proposal was also attached.

It was nowhere near 100 pages. Who's saying that?

Just now, Tannadeechee said:

Depends on how they've sent it, how they've attached the vote. Doesn't need to have been bounced, the SPFL's mail marshall system may have held it, simple as that.

Surely that's unlikely as it spent the afternoon getting nearly 40 other similar attachments without an issue. If there was a conscious hold somewhere surely it would be at Dundee's end? Sometimes email just get lost somewhere though. I'm sure we've all had it happen.

[weetoonlad]

Depends on how they've sent it, how they've attached the vote. Doesn't need to have been bounced, the SPFL's mail marshall system may have held it, simple as that.

If it had yes tick box would have the spfl got it .....

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, The Master said:

In that case, and as much as it pains me to agree with anything coming out of Ibrox, could the SPFL not loan money on the basis of current position?

If the season then ends, nothing needs paid back; if it somehow continues, clubs who fall down the rankings repay the difference; clubs who go up get more. 

The downside might be drawing up watertight contracts to cover that. 

Potentially. I suspect the SPFL would feel the need to gain members approval before doing so though. Notwithstanding that the Memo effectively allows them to act as a Bank, they aren't one and it would be dangerous ground to allow the Board to approve such loans without authority from the members.

Of course, they could just have asked for such approval.

[Juanhourjoe]

Could maybe buy it being an issue with the email being received if spfl and Dundee weren't acting so shady about. 

My guess would be the vote was received. But everyone pretends it hasn't been, whilst someone has a word with Nelms.

[Arnold Layne]

So, in the meantime, is there anything to prevent other clubs sending an email to the SPFL telling them not to count their vote?

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, Arnold Layne said:

So, in the meantime, is there anything to prevent other clubs sending an email to the SPFL telling them not to count their vote?

Is there anything to stop me going back to a polling station after I vote in a General Election and asking to change my vote?

[craigkillie]

13 minutes ago, superbigal said:

Very late to this thread.
So all football teams have their season ticket income.
They all have their minimum end of season possible league position payments.
They all have the ability to borrow money from govt loan schemes.
They all have the ability to use the govt furlough scheme. The portal should allow their applications to be accepted by the 27th of April.
They will have all other sponsorship in place that was meant to last them to the end of the season.

Appears on the face of it football should be in a far better place than the majority of businesses that the enforced shutdown is enforced on.

Which clubs are so badly managed that imminent shutdown is inevitable?

At this serious time in the "real world"
Any squealing chairman should be sent to the frontline.

 

First of all, they don't have their complete minimum end of season payments, just a chunk of them. The last instalments have not been paid. They may have the ability to use these government schemes, but they are not able to access that money for weeks, and probably not before their April payroll. A lot of the sponsorship money they receive will also be paid in instalments, and they may not have received the payments for the final few matches which did not go ahead. As it stands, clubs have had basically no income for a month, and will still be required to pay staff and other bills.

Any business in the country which is completely unable to trade is going to be in dire straits very quickly, and football clubs are no different. The idea that they're not allowed to make plans for this because other folk have it worse is quite frankly nonsense.

[RossBFaeDundee]

2 minutes ago, Arnold Layne said:

So, in the meantime, is there anything to prevent other clubs sending an email to the SPFL telling them not to count their vote?

 

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Is there anything to stop me going back to a polling station after I vote in a General Election and asking to change my vote?

Is there any actual evidence of this claim that it had even been sent yet? We could ask plenty questions that are just not being answered.

Edited April 12, 2020 by RossBFaeDundee

[johnnydun]

2 minutes ago, Arnold Layne said:

So, in the meantime, is there anything to prevent other clubs sending an email to the SPFL telling them not to count their vote?

Only if they voted no.

[Ludo*1]

23 hours ago, jagfox99 said:

That's the way I see it and have no problem whatsoever with that course of action.

By then we will know the FIFA and UEFA course of action. Who knows what may be available then?

The SPFL gave clubs 2 or 3 days to run through and vote on a 100 page proposal apparently. Totally bonkers, imo.

 

19 hours ago, Yenitit said:

dish the cashout as things stand without having any attachments to it. Then take your time to discuss what’s best for Scottish football and not try and rush through a 100 page document in 2 days that would’ve left a lot of people at Hearts, Partick etc jobless on Monday. 

@Skyline Drifter - Can't quote your post for some reason.

[Ad Lib]

3 minutes ago, Arnold Layne said:

So, in the meantime, is there anything to prevent other clubs sending an email to the SPFL telling them not to count their vote?

Only if they voted Yes.

I'm genuinely not kidding.

[Ad Lib]

2 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

 

Is there any actual evidence of this claim that it had even been sent yet? We could ask plenty questions that are just not being answered.

I think the SPFL's latest statement confirms that an email was received with a ballot, but they are claiming it arrived after the 6pm email saying "please don't count our vote at this time".

[Tannadeechee]

7 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It was nowhere near 100 pages. Who's saying that?

Surely that's unlikely as it spent the afternoon getting nearly 40 other similar attachments without an issue. If there was a conscious hold somewhere surely it would be at Dundee's end? Sometimes email just get lost somewhere though. I'm sure we've all had it happen.

No not necessarily. Dundee's would come.from a different email address than the others, have they scanned the vite at a higher resolution meaning a larger file, have they used the wrong file type and one which may be considered more likely to be compromised etc. There are a variety of reasons why. 

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

 

First of all, they don't have their complete minimum end of season payments, just a chunk of them. The last instalments have not been paid. They may have the ability to use these government schemes, but they are not able to access that money for weeks, and probably not before their April payroll. A lot of the sponsorship money they receive will also be paid in instalments, and they may not have received the payments for the final few matches which did not go ahead. As it stands, clubs have had basically no income for a month, and will still be required to pay staff and other bills.

Any business in the country which is completely unable to trade is going to be in dire straits very quickly, and football clubs are no different. The idea that they're not allowed to make plans for this because other folk have it worse is quite frankly nonsense.

They've all received, almost, the amount they could expect for finishing bottom though. I think that's the point he's making. If everyone's had the money they'd have had for 10th (12th in Prem) then they in theory ought o have been able to survive on that as otherwise finishing bottom would potentially kill the club.

Of course it clearly isn't that simple for a number of reasons, including some you mention.

[johnnydun]

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

As it stands, clubs have had basically no income for a month

If there was a bad winter month with a few weeks of postponements, would they be in the same position?

[Ad Lib]

6 minutes ago, Tannadeechee said:

No not necessarily. Dundee's would come.from a different email address than the others, have they scanned the vite at a higher resolution meaning a larger file, have they used the wrong file type and one which may be considered more likely to be compromised etc. There are a variety of reasons why. 

It's all just incredibly convenient that it's happened to the casting vote, though, isn't it?

Edited April 12, 2020 by Ad Lib

[Ludo*1]

Hearts latest statement: https://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/article/chairmans-update-12-april-2020

On Wednesday, 8th April, following a series of briefings and receipt of the SPFL’s Written Resolution of that date, I issued a statement which clearly indicated that Heart of Midlothian would be voting against the Resolution. Both in my statement and in subsequent media interviews, I outlined our reasons for voting in this manner. I can confirm that we lodged our “No” vote on Friday 10th April 2020.

Following what has been a hugely turbulent few days, please find below an updated statement of our position.

To remind you, our objections to the Resolution were in large part condemnatory of the process being followed.

 

1.     I argued that the possible implications involved in the decision were of such magnitude that all 42 Clubs needed time to discuss, debate and ensure a full understanding of all of the relevant factors and options.  I also argued that to ask Clubs to vote on one option only, within little more than 48 hours, was totally unreasonable.

 

2.     The Legal briefing notes which accompanied the Written Resolution makes it very clear that given these unique circumstances, it falls to the SPFL members to decide the fairest basis on which to determine final league standings along with the associated implications, for Season 2019/20.

These briefing notes outline 6 (of various) options, the advantages and disadvantages of which the Board has apparently considered. The brief summary of the first 5 of these options focus on why the Board considers these options to be unsuitable.  While I have no issue with their views being expressed, I do not consider the arguments for or against these options to have been objectively expressed. 

In the 6th option, the single one that members are being asked to vote on, the reasons for (not against) this being the best solution are more fully stated.  The very language used is different.  Instead of talking in terms of something being arbitrary or unfair or damaging, as is done when discussing other options, the language changes to talk of how this is the fairest method of determining the final League positions.  Clearly, this is a subjective judgement. It suggests that the Board has made a decision and simply wish now to convince the members to accept that decision.  This is not, in my view, how you honour the principle that it is up to the members to decide how to ensure the fairest approach is taken.

The Board has clearly discussed and considered various options. This is exactly what we would expect of the Board. However, to then dismiss all but one option and present only this option for a members vote, within a very limited timescale, must surely raise the question of whether the Board is attempting to unduly influence the members decision making process.

 

3.     In my earlier statement, I also indicated that I did not accept the position being argued by the SPFL that the only way to make much needed funds available to members was to pass this Resolution. It is difficult not to argue that linking the vote in this way to releasing funds, was an attempt to unduly influence the outcome of the vote.

A number of Clubs were angered by this approach, and as has been well publicised, Rangers promptly pulled together a Resolution, which if passed, could have seen funds able to be released to Clubs immediately.  This would have removed any suggestion that a Club’s financial situation could be a possible influencer in the vote.

The fact that such an important matter was not properly addressed by the SPFL, in advance of the vote, is hugely disappointing. 

Rangers submitted their paperwork to the SPFL on Thursday 9th April and were advised that the Resolution required the support of 2 further clubs, before it could be considered. We had already publicly stated that we supported Rangers in this matter and duly, at 3.47pm, submitted an identical Resolution to the SPFL, receipt of which was promptly acknowledged at 3.50pm. We did not receive any subsequent correspondence on this matter until 11.57am on Friday 10th April, when we received an email from the SPFL notifying us that the Resolution was not competent. Our in-house lawyer contacted the SPFL to understand in what manner the Resolution was not competent, to be informed that the issue was the use of the single word “instructed” as opposed to “requested” (That the Board of the Company be authorised and instructed as follows:). I am not a lawyer but find it quite incomprehensible that this should hold up the whole process. 

My observations are that if the SPFL genuinely wanted to work with member clubs to find a solution to the matter of releasing funds they could and should have reverted both more timeously and more helpfully. I have also been advised, from various reliable sources, that on a video call with the Championship clubs at approximately 4.30pm on Thursday, it was stated that the Ranger’s Resolution was incompetent.  I would stress that I was not personally on that call. However, assuming, as I do, that this remark was made, I have to wonder why we were not so advised until lunch-time the following day. Once again, I strongly question the process.

 

4.     The final point from my last statement, on which I wish to update you, is the question of whether League reconstruction is being, or should be, considered in time for 2020/21.  It was confirmed over the past few days that if the Resolution was approved, the Board would be prepared to consult with Clubs on League reconstruction.  It was also intimated that they thought the chance of reaching agreement was very slim.

Given that the Resolution is not yet approved and given that time is marching on, I can confirm that Hearts, either alone or in conjunction with other Clubs, will be proposing a Temporary Adjustment to the Leagues, aimed at bringing matters to a close in a manner that ensures no Club is financially penalised as a consequence of these exceptional circumstances.   

I would add that the financial consequences for Hearts of the current Written Resolution being accepted and thereby, almost certainly facing relegation, would be in the order of £2.5m - £3.0m of lost income next year.  This would be on top of the financial burdens we will all face as a consequence of what is going on in the world today.  For other relegated clubs, the financial penalties, while perhaps on a different scale, would be equally devastating to their operations. For this reason, if for no other, we will not give up on seeking an alternative Resolution that sees greater fairness for all.

 

In summary, the past few days have been quite extraordinary.  Over this period, I have been speaking regularly and extensively to other Chairmen and Chief Executives both in the Premier League and the Championship and I was convinced that the SPFL Written Resolution would fail on Friday.  I knew that some Clubs had moved their position in the run-up to the vote, as indeed is always their right.  I knew that the Premiership clubs would vote ‘yes’.  However, I was absolutely confident that 3 Championship Clubs were united in voting ‘no’, thereby buying Clubs more time to consider other options.  I have no more insight than anyone else as to why Dundee’s vote has not yet been confirmed.

I saw also the Rangers statement of yesterday and the SPFL’s response.  Once again, I have no further insight into the claims being made by Rangers.  However, this is a major embarrassment for Scottish football, one which I believe could so easily have been avoided.  Without openness, transparency and pragmatism we will simply keep making the same mistakes. 

I refuse to speculate and can only assure you that we will continue to explore, in every way possible, any and all options that will offer a more equitable outcome than has to-date been proposed to the very real problems that face us all.

Edited April 12, 2020 by Speroni*1

[Ad Lib]

The Hearts statement is a really sensible one.

[Guest Flash]

14 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It's in the Memo, not the Articles or Rules.

Rangers say it was only after an email exchange with the SPFL that they became aware of it. So, they seemingly don’t know what is in the Memo, Articles and Rules without having the SPFL explain it to them.

[Tannadeechee]

6 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

 

Is there any actual evidence of this claim that it had even been sent yet? We could ask plenty questions that are just not being answered.

The only evidence is what Gardner said on Sportsound yesterday, in that he said Drysdale told him it was sent.