The SPFL recommendation?

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

1 hour ago, Bishop Briggs said:

Would League Two vote against 12-14-16 or 12-16-16? I doubt it. 

The big question is why the SPFL has closed down discussion on reconstruction with no change to Premiership?

No, but League 1 would have.

[roman_bairn]

Are you saying that any decisions should be made to appease a disaffected minority?

I’m saying that decisions on payments should have been separated from any vote as it influenced the vote to end the leagues, and was unnecessary and undemocratic...

[Guest Ecosse83]

Ooft Inverness statement full guns blazing. 

This vote cannot be allowed to stand now, the SPFL must be shitting themselves

[Shadwell Dog]

1 minute ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

No, but League 1 would have.

You mean clyde would vote against it.  Cant see any of those promoted into the championship voting against it which is what 6 if your talking about a 16 team championship. So there would only be 4 left including clyde which isn't enough to ko it.

[ribzanelli]

10 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

You mean clyde would vote against it.  Cant see any of those promoted into the championship voting against it which is what 6 if your talking about a 16 team championship. So there would only be 4 left including clyde which isn't enough to ko it.

Would Peterhead and Forfar not have had the same gripe as Clyde?

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

9 minutes ago, ribzanelli said:

Would Peterhead and Forfar not have had the same gripe as Clyde?

Yes, but some would no doubt have viewed that as a price worth paying. As long as it is not unfair to their team.

[Shadwell Dog]

10 minutes ago, ribzanelli said:

Would Peterhead and Forfar not have had the same gripe as Clyde?

Maybe but that still 6 sides for which is the majority of league one.

[sydney]

I am getting thoroughly sick of some individual clubs and journalists criticising the SPFL board when I haven’t heard one sensible alternative proposal from anyone. All I hear is that we need to implement a solution whereby no club is disadvantaged. The reality of the situation is that there isn’t one, which is why I haven’t heard any of them coming up with a specific proposal that achieves this aim. C’mon Rangers, Hearts, Partick, Falkirk and Inverness. Let’s hear how we can achieve this without some clubs taking a hit and without you peddling your own agendas ? We’re all ears. 
Seems to me that, rather than avoiding showing leadership, the SPFL board have attempted to do the exact opposite. Sure, there have undoubtedly been issues in the way it has been done. However, there are no precedents here in our generation and, whereas we need the whole of the game to pull together, we have found ourselves in a situation where clubs have become entrenched in their own self serving position. Putting finance and club influence to one side and based purely on sporting performance, this is the LEAST BAD option (other than arguably the Brechin situation) which is about as good as anyone can realistically hope for. 
The exception to this btw could be the ‘null and void’ option which puts everyone back to where they were in August 2019. However, this opens up another can of worms which might be more difficult to overcome. 

[Grangemouth Bairn]

5 minutes ago, sydney said:

I am getting thoroughly sick of some individual clubs and journalists criticising the SPFL board when I haven’t heard one sensible alternative proposal from anyone. All I hear is that we need to implement a solution whereby no club is disadvantaged. The reality of the situation is that there isn’t one, which is why I haven’t heard any of them coming up with a specific proposal that achieves this aim. C’mon Rangers, Hearts, Partick, Falkirk and Inverness. Let’s hear how we can achieve this without some clubs taking a hit and without you peddling your own agendas ? We’re all ears. 
Seems to me that, rather than avoiding showing leadership, the SPFL board have attempted to do the exact opposite. Sure, there have undoubtedly been issues in the way it has been done. However, there are no precedents here in our generation and, whereas we need the whole of the game to pull together, we have found ourselves in a situation where clubs have become entrenched in their own self serving position. Putting finance and club influence to one side and based purely on sporting performance, this is the LEAST BAD option (other than arguably the Brechin situation) which is about as good as anyone can realistically hope for. 
The exception to this btw could be the ‘null and void’ option which puts everyone back to where they were in August 2019. However, this opens up another can of worms which might be more difficult to overcome. 

Welcome to P&B Mr Doncaster.

[sydney]

3 minutes ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

Welcome to P&B Mr Doncaster.

Rumbled !

[Shadwell Dog]

26 minutes ago, sydney said:

I am getting thoroughly sick of some individual clubs and journalists criticising the SPFL board when I haven’t heard one sensible alternative proposal from anyone. All I hear is that we need to implement a solution whereby no club is disadvantaged. The reality of the situation is that there isn’t one, which is why I haven’t heard any of them coming up with a specific proposal that achieves this aim. C’mon Rangers, Hearts, Partick, Falkirk and Inverness. Let’s hear how we can achieve this without some clubs taking a hit and without you peddling your own agendas ? We’re all ears. 
Seems to me that, rather than avoiding showing leadership, the SPFL board have attempted to do the exact opposite. Sure, there have undoubtedly been issues in the way it has been done. However, there are no precedents here in our generation and, whereas we need the whole of the game to pull together, we have found ourselves in a situation where clubs have become entrenched in their own self serving position. Putting finance and club influence to one side and based purely on sporting performance, this is the LEAST BAD option (other than arguably the Brechin situation) which is about as good as anyone can realistically hope for. 
The exception to this btw could be the ‘null and void’ option which puts everyone back to where they were in August 2019. However, this opens up another can of worms which might be more difficult to overcome. 

They couldnt even hold a simple vote right without making a rip roaring cant of it. Now every time more info comes out about the goings on of the last few weeks they backtrack and change their answer. If they're that sound why are they so against an external investigation that they no longer have to fund? A clean bill of health from that would silence the doubters for good.

[roman_bairn]

I am getting thoroughly sick of some individual clubs and journalists criticising the SPFL board when I haven’t heard one sensible alternative proposal from anyone. All I hear is that we need to implement a solution whereby no club is disadvantaged. The reality of the situation is that there isn’t one, which is why I haven’t heard any of them coming up with a specific proposal that achieves this aim. C’mon Rangers, Hearts, Partick, Falkirk and Inverness. Let’s hear how we can achieve this without some clubs taking a hit and without you peddling your own agendas ? We’re all ears. 
Seems to me that, rather than avoiding showing leadership, the SPFL board have attempted to do the exact opposite. Sure, there have undoubtedly been issues in the way it has been done. However, there are no precedents here in our generation and, whereas we need the whole of the game to pull together, we have found ourselves in a situation where clubs have become entrenched in their own self serving position. Putting finance and club influence to one side and based purely on sporting performance, this is the LEAST BAD option (other than arguably the Brechin situation) which is about as good as anyone can realistically hope for. 
The exception to this btw could be the ‘null and void’ option which puts everyone back to where they were in August 2019. However, this opens up another can of worms which might be more difficult to overcome. 

If the SPFL would show some leadership and put forward 14-10-10-10 and state a money split with a bit of balance, without all this nonsense of needing a vote that can NEVER be democratic, we might be in a better and fairer position than we are now.
The only thing I agree with is that there is no position that is going to satisfy everyone....

[sydney]

2 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

They couldnt even hold a simple vote right without making a rip roaring cant of it. Now every time more info comes out about the goings on of the last few weeks they backtrack and change their answer. If they're that sound why are they so against an external investigation that they no longer have to fund? A clean bill of health from that would silence the doubters for good.

I’m not against an investigation per se. But it’s a side show and is a distraction from the real issue here which isn’t going away. That issue being what needs to be done with the football. 

[AL-FFC]

2 hours ago, Bishop Briggs said:

Would League Two vote against 12-14-16 or 12-16-16? I doubt it. 

The big question is why the SPFL has closed down discussion on reconstruction with no change to Premiership?

Aberdeen chairman has said there is no desire for change and that we should be focussing on the pandemic

Bonnyrigg chairman has basically said if they didnt accept Brechin to the lowland leagues they would have their Scottish cup and Tunnocks cup games withdrawn

League 2 want the 14-14-16 team league once again making it a closed shop

Doncaster saying clubs will suffer if legal action is taken 

We really are in a shite situation i think as much as i despise the arsecheeks that is the OF Sevco have basically highlighted how Doncaster is too close to Lawell and its basically a conflict of interest and theres no impartiality .

What a farce of a situation we are in 

ps apologies if someone has posted already ref any of the above points.

[Shadwell Dog]

5 minutes ago, AL-FFC said:

Aberdeen chairman has said there is no desire for change and that we should be focussing on the pandemic

Bonnyrigg chairman has basically said if they didnt accept Brechin to the lowland leagues they would have their Scottish cup and Tunnocks cup games withdrawn

League 2 want the 14-14-16 team league once again making it a closed shop

Doncaster saying clubs will suffer if legal action is taken 

We really are in a shite situation i think as much as i despise the arsecheeks that is the OF Sevco have basically highlighted how Doncaster is too close to Lawell and its basically a conflict of interest and theres no impartiality .

What a farce of a situation we are in 

ps apologies if someone has posted already ref any of the above points.

I wouldnt listen to anything doncaster has to say especially after the pish hes spouted in recent weeks.

[craigkillie]

3 hours ago, Shadwell Dog said:

The task force was doomed but not because it couldnt put together a proposal. As stated by partick ( As the reconstruction group hadn’t even formally presented a final proposal, it is surprising and disappointing that this decision could be made regardless) the group hadnt concluded their work on any proposals yet. The spfl premiership meeting met and decided they werent interested something they couldve done weeks ago and saved 3 weeks of people wasting each others time.

 

They may not have presented a proposal, but it was clear that the only proposal(s) being put forward involved a 14 team top flight. If a club didn't want a 14 team top flight then there's no point in wasting their time with a proposal. Prior to last week it wasn't at all clear that this would be the outcome from the committee - it was certainly the most likely one, but I think it was reasonable to wait and see.

 

2 hours ago, roman_bairn said:

No clubs who pretend they want reconstruction to get a vote through, then state publically that they are not interested in discussing reconstruction shortly afterwards....

Which Premiership clubs (apart from Hearts) said they wanted reconstruction? The suggestion about reconstruction came from the SPFL Board, which has representatives from Motherwell, Hamilton and Rangers on it, so the other Premiership clubs have absolutely no more responsibility for that than Falkirk or any other club not represented on the board.

Edited May 10, 2020 by craigkillie

[haufdaft]

I am getting thoroughly sick of some individual clubs and journalists criticising the SPFL board when I haven’t heard one sensible alternative proposal from anyone. All I hear is that we need to implement a solution whereby no club is disadvantaged. The reality of the situation is that there isn’t one, which is why I haven’t heard any of them coming up with a specific proposal that achieves this aim. C’mon Rangers, Hearts, Partick, Falkirk and Inverness. Let’s hear how we can achieve this without some clubs taking a hit and without you peddling your own agendas ? We’re all ears. 
Seems to me that, rather than avoiding showing leadership, the SPFL board have attempted to do the exact opposite. Sure, there have undoubtedly been issues in the way it has been done. However, there are no precedents here in our generation and, whereas we need the whole of the game to pull together, we have found ourselves in a situation where clubs have become entrenched in their own self serving position. Putting finance and club influence to one side and based purely on sporting performance, this is the LEAST BAD option (other than arguably the Brechin situation) which is about as good as anyone can realistically hope for. 
The exception to this btw could be the ‘null and void’ option which puts everyone back to where they were in August 2019. However, this opens up another can of worms which might be more difficult to overcome. 

Having no one promoted or relegated and no league titles awarded means no one is worse off as the leagues were not complete. I've not heard any specifics why this was not an option.

I'd also suggest if smaller teams are being bullied and threatened, it's likely that our teams have been on the recieving end in the past. It's simply unacceptable but accepted and encouraged by the SPFL officers as mere robust conversations.

People seem to make excuses for the unacceptable behaviour by the SPFL officials because Rangers are involved.

[AL-FFC]

The other thing is the SPFA asked the players and 70 per cent of them wanted change as lets face it you can play the same side 6 times a season the leagues boring as f**k

[Shadwell Dog]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

 

They may not have presented a proposal, but it was clear that the only proposal(s) being put forward involved a 14 team top flight. If a club didn't want a 14 team top flight then there's no point in wasting their time with a proposal. Prior to last week it wasn't at all clear that this would be the outcome from the committee - it was certainly the most likely one, but I think it was reasonable to wait and see. For example, Livingston said they wanted 16 teams, but their option wasn't considered at any point.

 

Which Premiership clubs (apart from Hearts) said they wanted reconstruction? The suggestion about reconstruction came from the SPFL Board, which has representatives from Motherwell, Hamilton and Rangers on it, so the other Premiership clubs have absolutely no more responsibility for that than Falkirk or any other club not represented on the board.

Livingston proposed a 14 10 10 10 format publicly only a couple of weeks back.  It was obvious to everyone and their dug that the proposals were going to have an increased top flight as the whole thing they were based on was trying to improve the situation for the clubs affected by the premature ending of the season.  Noone knows what the final proposal was going to be and if there was going to be restrictions on what the final proposal was why was the reconstruction group given a blank canvas to start with.  There was reps from the top flight there so why didnt they speak to their fellow clubs to find out whether there was appetite for change at the top before the whole charade started. That would have been common sense which has been severely lacking in scottish football recently.

[sydney]

2 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

Having no one promoted or relegated and no league titles awarded means no one is worse off as the leagues were not complete. I've not heard any specifics why this was not an option.

I'd also suggest if smaller teams are being bullied and threatened, it's likely that our teams have been on the recieving end in the past. It's simply unacceptable but accepted and encouraged by the SPFL officers as mere robust conversations.

People seem to make excuses for the unacceptable behaviour by the SPFL officials because Rangers are involved.

The ‘null and void’ option hasn’t been discussed in great detail I believe because of issues with potentially having to repay sponsorship/ TV money. I guess there may also be a challenge of who plays in European competition next year. Perhaps though in really needs to be discussed directly with the TV companies and UEFA (won’t be surprised if it hasn’t) as it could well be the most sensible solution.