Granny Danger Posted April 14, 2020 Author Share Posted April 14, 2020 1 minute ago, Bishop Briggs said: Not if the SPFL asks them to vote within 2 days rather than the usual 28 days. Asked but didn’t compel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VictorOnopko Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Just now, Bishop Briggs said: So did your club vote No as agreed with, and copied to, PTFC and ICT? Did your club ask for that vote to be considered as not cast? If so, how would you describe such behaviour? Dundee have behaved.... very oddly. I would say, though, that all the teams who voted Yes to the proposal are the ones who behaved appallingly. They have basically thrown a small number of fellow clubs under the bus to get their hands on the money (having been told by the SPFL that they needed to vote by Friday (not true) in order to get the money (also not true)). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifespud Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Asked but didn’t compel.Granny are you a member DUSF? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionel wickson Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 1 hour ago, weeredbook said: There's only 1 man who can do this ,he will be on soon . Weetoonlad? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 14, 2020 Author Share Posted April 14, 2020 Just now, Fifespud said: Granny are you a member DUSF? Christ Spud,I thought you weren’t talking to me! No I’m not, seems all very strange. There’s a statement from DUSF just been posted on the United thread. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmontheloknow Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 25 minutes ago, rainbowrising said: If Thistle feel not enough information was given why did they vote? 5pm on the day was a preferred timescale not a given. Are they blaming the SPFL Board because they didnt cover all options? There's a suggestion information was deliberately withheld - that clubs could get loans rather than a vote to tie up the season's end with final payments and that the SPFL knew this but did not share the information. They also say that if the regulations have to be changed to allow the league to be ended prematurely, then regs can be changed re: payments too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainbowrising Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 7 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: Not if the SPFL asks them to vote within 2 days rather than the usual 28 days. Have to say the media did a brilliant job of trolling headlines about deadlines and missed deadlines. 5pm was a preferred time to try and get this sorted. Again, if clubs say this was so unfair what the feck was their legal advice doing in the lead up. Endless what aboutery from some clubs going on here. No one was forced to vote in 2 days. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 11 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: Not if the SPFL asks them to vote within 2 days rather than the usual 28 days. Key words being, 'IF POSSIBLE' which as in my quotation, was put in block capitals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 7 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said: Why did your club create a group chat for clubs that were voting no? Sneaky b*****ds deserve all you get IMO. So you won't answer my valid questions. PTFC, ITC and your club had been in WhatsAPP discussions with the other clubs the league. Then they decided to co-ordinate their No votes. The real sneaky b*****ds are clubs who go into administration twice to escape their debts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Bliss Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 12 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said: https://www.dundeeunitedfc.co.uk/news/6469/STATEMENT-FROM-CHAIRMAN-MARK-OGREN.html?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=dundeeunitedfc ‘Fan’tastic 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainbowrising Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, cmontheloknow said: There's a suggestion information was deliberately withheld - that clubs could get loans rather than a vote to tie up the season's end with final payments and that the SPFL knew this but did not share the information. They also say that if the regulations have to be changed to allow the league to be ended prematurely, then regs can be changed re: payments too. All ifs and buts. The SPFL would argue they had to make a decision and did so. As Granny Danger has intimated many times the SPFL Board is represented by the clubs. What were the clubs themselves doing? Now it's all unfair? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 2 minutes ago, rainbowrising said: Have to say the media did a brilliant job of trolling headlines about deadlines and missed deadlines. 5pm was a preferred time to try and get this sorted. Again, if clubs say this was so unfair what the feck was their legal advice doing in the lead up. Endless what aboutery from some clubs going on here. No one was forced to vote in 2 days. Says the poster whose club voted No and then asked for its vote to be withdrawn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 1 minute ago, Yenitit said: ‘Fan’tastic The fan group has fired a rebuttal. Could get messy. Speaking as a neutral, it's not the time for this. As a Dee, file it into my ever growing things you love to see file. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: The real sneaky b*****ds are clubs who go into administration twice to escape their debts. Things you love to see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainbowrising Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Just now, Bishop Briggs said: Says the poster whose club voted No and then asked for its vote to be withdrawn. Says the poster that has no idea what his club is playing at. It would take 5 minutes to say it was all a mistake and the vote is Yes or No. This is grandstanding on a league reconstruction vote that could fail in the end. What then? As I say, instead of the SPFL perhaps a lot of clubs need to look at themselves including us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derry Alli Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 @Granny Danger, needing an update on that John Nelms ticker tape you have been running since last night. Stage we at now bro? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 Just now, rainbowrising said: Says the poster that has no idea what his club is playing at. It would take 5 minutes to say it was all a mistake and the vote is Yes or No. This is grandstanding on a league reconstruction vote that could fail in the end. What then? As I say, instead of the SPFL perhaps a lot of clubs need to look at themselves including us. My club has always said that was opposed to the resolution - https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/club-statement-8th-april-2020/ "Following today’s SPFL announcement, Partick Thistle FC will simply not accept this proposal as it stands. We believe that the proposal requires significantly more discussion, scrutiny and debate before any vote can be taken. We are now engaging with others to amend the proposal to identify a fairer and more equitable solution to address a number of inequalities it throws up. At an unprecedented time for football, we believe that it doesn’t meet the basic principle that no club should be left worse off by this important decision. It also seems to link acceptance of the proposal before payments can be made to hard-pressed clubs but, in our opinion, the two things do not need to be linked. Money to clubs is a priority, the proposal could be debated in slower time." What part of that don't you understand? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rb123! Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 36 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said: Presumably, the SPFL have allowed Dundee to withdraw that No vote. The SPFL also said that only No votes can changed. The Jags' lawyers say that the SPFL can't do that - Dundee's No vote was received and must stand so the resolution has failed. If the SPFL accepts a changed Yes vote from Dundee, our Board can appeal to UEFA and all the way up to the Court of Arbitration in Sport. Or it can challenge the resolution in the civil courts. All that will probably take much longer than 28 days. The SPFL would be mad to press ahead with its ridiculous plan but nothing would surprise me. Great laugh if the week before the start of the new season the SPFL were found guilty in the courts and the new season was put up in the air 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stumigoo Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 3 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said: The fan group has fired a rebuttal. Could get messy. Speaking as a neutral, it's not the time for this. As a Dee, file it into my ever growing things you love to see file. If it was mid-season then I think it could get messy but maybe with everything else that has been happening (in and out football) then people maybe don't have the energy to have a proper ding dong battle, I certainly don't. Without taking sides in the detail, the timing of the statement is an own goal by the club. There is literally no point in releasing a statement like that right now, even if it is the season for statements by everyone and anyone. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmontheloknow Posted April 14, 2020 Share Posted April 14, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, rainbowrising said: All ifs and buts. The SPFL would argue they had to make a decision and did so. As Granny Danger has intimated many times the SPFL Board is represented by the clubs. What were the clubs themselves doing? Now it's all unfair? Your own club shared their viewpoint at one stage. Maybe you still do! Nelms wanted null and void. Bottom line is SPFL said if you want your money, we finish the season. PTFC legal advice says 'wrong' and here's why. Edited April 14, 2020 by cmontheloknow 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.