Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Monkey Tennis]

25 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

A meltdown, hardly. MT and I will never see entirely eye to eye on that, or on the issue of Jim McIntyre. It's not a new debate and it's probably in the wrong place but such s the way of P&B.

It's clear that there's been no meltdown.

It's equally clear, however, that your stance on the vote Queens cast has shifted.  Indeed, it seems that you don't even remember the episode that well.  

Any assessment of Doncaster's performance is likely to head back there.

[bad chad]

This thread is sheeeiiittt

[Ad Lib]

The idea that Doncaster has been remotely good for Scottish football is the sort of thing you'd have to be heavily sedated to think of as anything other than a sick joke.

The league literally went without a main sponsor under his tenure.

[Rudolph Hucker]

TBH, I feel a wee bit sorry for Doncaster, can’t be easy dealing with Scottish football as well as dealing with that idiot who’s his OTHER boss:

[Skyline Drifter]

3 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It's clear that there's been no meltdown.

It's equally clear, however, that your stance on the vote Queens cast has shifted.  Indeed, it seems that you don't even remember the episode that well.  

Any assessment of Doncaster's performance is likely to head back there.

In what way has it shifted? I thought that voting for what was on offer at the time was worth the "price". I haven't changed that opinion. I wasn't massively bothered if the cost was Rangers being relegated one division, not three. In principle I thought at the time they should probably have started in the 4th tier but the reward on offer for sticking them in tier 2 was worth it. In the end we got it all anyway with Rangers still starting in tier 4. In that respect you and everyone else was correct and I'm happy to admit that. I got it wrong. So did the club since I presume that their reasons for voting as they did were more or less the same. At the time the line was it wouldn't happen if Rangers started in the bottom tier though. Hindsight is always 20/20. If we hadn't got the playoff / financial distribution / pyramid / single league anyway then I think I'd still be of the opinion that it would have been worth it and we'd missed an opportunity. Matters not, we did get it, and you were all proven right.

However, given that it was obvious on the day of the vote that the proposal was not going to succeed I wouldn't have voted for it ultimately and made the club a pariah.

That I don't remember the incident as well as you is not a surprise though. It simply never bothered me as much as it bothered you, particularly since we ended up getting all we wanted anyway.

And I didn't "endorse" anything. I didn't even know how the club was going to vote when that post Speroni quoted was made. The club didn't state its position in advance of voting. In fact I don't think it did so until the next day did it?  I don't know how you can "endorse" something you are not aware of.

As for Doncaster, certainly the whole episode was poor from the SPL who did effectively offer a bribe. How much that was personally down to Doncaster is another question but it may have been, I've no idea. Clearly we weren't members of the SPL at any point. It's more relevant to judge him on his actions whilst working for the SPFL, which is a different organisation, albeit dominated inevitably by former office bearers of the SPL. I didn't really intend to come over as some kind of Neil Doncaster fanboy, though I appreciate it maybe did come over that way. Fact remains (which is where this debate started) that he's nowhere near as unpopular with the people he actually works for as most fans on here think he should be, and neither is he the incompetent buffon or "cockwomble" that's constantly said. I pointedly credited him with doing a good job commercially as I think he probably has done. Speroni appears to think the commercial deals he has achieved are inadequate and could have been much better. I'm pretty sceptical about that but I'm not claiming any particular expertise in such marketing to back it up. Re-reading that post Speroni dug up I found myself still agreeing with pretty much all of it. It's also pretty critical of Doncaster and co at the time.

[Ludo*1]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

In what way has it shifted? I thought that voting for what was on offer at the time was worth the "price". I haven't changed that opinion. I wasn't massively bothered if the cost was Rangers being relegated one division, not three. In principle I thought at the time they should probably have started in the 4th tier but the reward on offer for sticking them in tier 2 was worth it. In the end we got it all anyway with Rangers still starting in tier 4. In that respect you and everyone else was correct and I'm happy to admit that. I got it wrong. So did the club since I presume that their reasons for voting as they did were more or less the same. At the time the line was it wouldn't happen if Rangers started in the bottom tier though. Hindsight is always 20/20. If we hadn't got the playoff / financial distribution / pyramid / single league anyway then I think I'd still be of the opinion that it would have been worth it and we'd missed an opportunity. Matters not, we did get it, and you were all proven right.

However, given that it was obvious on the day of the vote that the proposal was not going to succeed I wouldn't have voted for it ultimately and made the club a pariah.

That I don't remember the incident as well as you is not a surprise though. It simply never bothered me as much as it bothered you, particularly since we ended up getting all we wanted anyway.

And I didn't "endorse" anything. I didn't even know how the club was going to vote when that post Speroni quoted was made. The club didn't state its position in advance of voting. In fact I don't think it did so until the next day did it?  I don't know how you can "endorse" something you are not aware of.

As for Doncaster, certainly the whole episode was poor from the SPL who did effectively offer a bribe. How much that was personally down to Doncaster is another question but it may have been, I've no idea. Clearly we weren't members of the SPL at any point. It's more relevant to judge him on his actions whilst working for the SPFL, which is a different organisation, albeit dominated inevitably by former office bearers of the SPL. I didn't really intend to come over as some kind of Neil Doncaster fanboy, though I appreciate it maybe did come over that way. Fact remains (which is where this debate started) that he's nowhere near as unpopular with the people he actually works for as most fans on here think he should be, and neither is he the incompetent buffon or "cockwomble" that's constantly said. I pointedly credited him with doing a good job commercially as I think he probably has done. Speroni appears to think the commercial deals he has achieved are inadequate and could have been much better. I'm pretty sceptical about that but I'm not claiming any particular expertise in such marketing to back it up. Re-reading that post Speroni dug up I found myself still agreeing with pretty much all of it. It's also pretty critical of Doncaster and co at the time.

Fair play. As I've already put, I clearly disagree with you on the issue of Doncaster and I took issue with a few of your previous posts due to them being condescending of any other view point. In this post you've clearly stated your case and been honest throughout when many would have used it as a point to try and argue for arguing sake, wind up others or try and point score. I've got no horse in the race when it comes to you and MonkeyTennis' beef on the actions of QotS that day so I'll leave you two to hash that out. I still massively disagree with you on the Doncaster issue, but this type of post was refreshing IMO.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Speroni*1

[Monkey Tennis]

6 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

In what way has it shifted? I thought that voting for what was on offer at the time was worth the "price". I haven't changed that opinion. I wasn't massively bothered if the cost was Rangers being relegated one division, not three. In principle I thought at the time they should probably have started in the 4th tier but the reward on offer for sticking them in tier 2 was worth it. In the end we got it all anyway with Rangers still starting in tier 4. In that respect you and everyone else was correct and I'm happy to admit that. I got it wrong. So did the club since I presume that their reasons for voting as they did were more or less the same. At the time the line was it wouldn't happen if Rangers started in the bottom tier though. Hindsight is always 20/20. If we hadn't got the playoff / financial distribution / pyramid / single league anyway then I think I'd still be of the opinion that it would have been worth it and we'd missed an opportunity. Matters not, we did get it, and you were all proven right.

However, given that it was obvious on the day of the vote that the proposal was not going to succeed I wouldn't have voted for it ultimately and made the club a pariah.

That I don't remember the incident as well as you is not a surprise though. It simply never bothered me as much as it bothered you, particularly since we ended up getting all we wanted anyway.

And I didn't "endorse" anything. I didn't even know how the club was going to vote when that post Speroni quoted was made. The club didn't state its position in advance of voting. In fact I don't think it did so until the next day did it?  I don't know how you can "endorse" something you are not aware of.

As for Doncaster, certainly the whole episode was poor from the SPL who did effectively offer a bribe. How much that was personally down to Doncaster is another question but it may have been, I've no idea. Clearly we weren't members of the SPL at any point. It's more relevant to judge him on his actions whilst working for the SPFL, which is a different organisation, albeit dominated inevitably by former office bearers of the SPL. I didn't really intend to come over as some kind of Neil Doncaster fanboy, though I appreciate it maybe did come over that way. Fact remains (which is where this debate started) that he's nowhere near as unpopular with the people he actually works for as most fans on here think he should be, and neither is he the incompetent buffon or "cockwomble" that's constantly said. I pointedly credited him with doing a good job commercially as I think he probably has done. Speroni appears to think the commercial deals he has achieved are inadequate and could have been much better. I'm pretty sceptical about that but I'm not claiming any particular expertise in such marketing to back it up. Re-reading that post Speroni dug up I found myself still agreeing with pretty much all of it. It's also pretty critical of Doncaster and co at the time.

The shift lies in you thinking at the time that the way Queens voted was sensible, whereas now you say  "you and everyone else was correct and I'm happy to admit that. I got it wrong. So did the club"

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

I'm not quoting the old, long but interesting posts. However, it can't be stated often enough, RANGERS WERE NOT RELEGATED.

If it's the same club they were readmitted.

If it's a new club they were admitted.

I don't care which of the real versions anyone subscribes to. In the first you support a club that stole from their club colleagues, the public and their country. In the second you support a new club that thinks that's a legacy worth maintaining.

[RandomGuy.]

Seen multiple new pages and assumed something interested had happened.

If someone could post a warning next time Skyline Drifter and Monkey Tennis are throwing dissertations at each other, thay would be appreciated. 

[BFTD]

We've all been at home way too long if folk are being reduced to defending Neil Doncaster.

[mishtergrolsch]

2 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

I'm not quoting the old, long but interesting posts. However, it can't be stated often enough, RANGERS WERE NOT RELEGATED.

If it's the same club they were readmitted.

If it's a new club they were admitted.

I don't care which of the real versions anyone subscribes to. In the first you support a club that stole from their club colleagues, the public and their country. In the second you support a new club that thinks that's a legacy worth maintaining.

I think an overwhelming majority of the The Rangers fans need admitted.

[Rudolph Hucker]

2 hours ago, mishtergrolsch said:

I think an overwhelming majority of the The Rangers fans need committed.

FTFY

[Monkey Tennis]

4 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Seen multiple new pages and assumed something interested had happened.

If someone could post a warning next time Skyline Drifter and Monkey Tennis are throwing dissertations at each other, thay would be appreciated. 

How many words were required in your dissertation?

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

How many words were required in your dissertation?

Even your insults are boring FFS.

[Ludo*1]

3 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Even your insults are boring FFS.

[Bigmouth Strikes Again]

12 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Even your insults are boring FFS.

[Skyline Drifter]

7 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The shift lies in you thinking at the time that the way Queens voted was sensible, whereas now you say  "you and everyone else was correct and I'm happy to admit that. I got it wrong. So did the club"

 

Thats not a shift no matter how many times you paint it as such. 

I already said I would do the same again. What was on offer was worth it and was supposedly only on offer with a yes vote. 

Accepting that in hindsight it was wrong isnt the same as a shift. 

[HoBNob]

23 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Thats not a shift no matter how many times you paint it as such. 

I already said I would do the same again. What was on offer was worth it and was supposedly only on offer with a yes vote. 

Accepting that in hindsight it was wrong isnt the same as a shift. 

It's not in hindsight, what on offer wasn't worth it, at all, in the slightest. Not even a little bit.

[Skyline Drifter]

57 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

It's not in hindsight, what on offer wasn't worth it, at all, in the slightest. Not even a little bit.

That's an opinion, not a fact. I think it was.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Thats not a shift no matter how many times you paint it as such. 

I already said I would do the same again. What was on offer was worth it and was supposedly only on offer with a yes vote. 

Accepting that in hindsight it was wrong isnt the same as a shift. 

 Jeez Man.  You are one stubborn bugger.

You admit to having made a mistake and to getting your reading of a situation wrong, yet insist that this represents no shift in your stance between then and now.

The reasons given by the club for voting as they did, were contradictory and bore no scrutiny at all.  Hindsight helps to make the decision look ridiculous, but it's not required.  Normal sight could pull off the same trick.