Jump to content

The SPFL recommendation?


Recommended Posts

The bad news is that the rules have been rewritten to address this. They now differentiate between a club and the person (which includes a company) which happens to be operating it. So if Rangers* went bust and the assets were bought by another person or company then they would suffer a 15 point penalty in year one and five in year two, and 25/15 for a second insolvency event within five years. So carefully calibrated to ensure that Rangers** and Rangers*** would still be in the top league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kwaka Mal said:

French courts have declared relegation from Ligue 1 illegal.
Get ready for Budge to go into overdrive now!

She would need to take it to this mob first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport

The SFA have already warned her that taking the SPFL to court is against the articles and the club could be subject to punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She would need to take it to this mob first https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Arbitration_for_Sport
The SFA have already warned her that taking the SPFL to court is against the articles and the club could be subject to punishment.


The courts will of course roll over and accept the SFA as a higher authority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said:


The courts will of course roll over and accept the SFA as a higher authority.

 

The SFA would be legal in removing Hearts, which would boot them from the league. It’s all in the bylaws, and all quite legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Kwaka Mal said:

French courts have declared relegation from Ligue 1 illegal.
Get ready for Budge to go into overdrive now!

The French clubs didnt vote for relegation, Scottish clubs did.

Not quite sure how Hearts can contest a decision made via a democratic vote of all member clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SPFL have confirmed we're sticking with the current set-up. 

On behalf of Clyde F.C. I'd like to extend a GIRUY to Tom English, Ann Budge, Leslie Deans, Zombie Rangers FC, Neil McCann and the Brora chairman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big difference between us and them is our decision was agreed through a democratic vote of our members not the case in France.

We must have the most undemocratic democracy in world football.
Let’s face its its a dictatorship when 11 of 12 need to vote to the satisfaction of the big two....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:


We must have the most undemocratic democracy in world football.
Let’s face its its a dictatorship when 11 of 12 need to vote to the satisfaction of the big two....

But equally, 1 of the big 2 can't push any decision through without the supporting vote of at least 10 other clubs.  So not a dictatorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's literally the opposite of a dictatorship.

I think democracy usually means the majority rule.

So not sure how 11 of 12 being needed is actual the exact opposite of a dictatorship.

But I sure understand why you would think otherwise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few pages ago we had a Falkirk fan complaining that small clubs shouldn't be allowed a vote as they hold too much power and now the big clubs have voted down the proposal that would see them promoted, we have another Falkirk fan saying it's the big clubs that have turned Scottish football into a dictatorship.

Do you guys maybe want to have a wee meeting between yourselves and decide which it is before launching your toys all over the forum?

Edited by The Moonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

It's literally the opposite of a dictatorship.

The 11-1 is very much not the opposite of a dictatorship, big clubs Dictate,  it’s designed to help out the Big 2 clubs, and give them a majority of power. Can’t understand any supporter of any non-Old Firm team actually agreeing with the 11-1. Its an utter, shambles of a voting system. (Nevertheless on the topic of Reconstruction, it wouldn’t have got though even if the voting system was more fair) but the 11-1 should have been scrapped years ago, I’d imagine most people are pretty united on that front. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JagsCG said:

The 11-1 is very much not the opposite of a dictatorship, big clubs Dictate,  it’s designed to help out the Big 2 clubs, and give them a majority of power. Can’t understand any supporter of any non-Old Firm team actually agreeing with the 11-1. Its an utter, shambles of a voting system. (Nevertheless on the topic of Reconstruction, it wouldn’t have got though even if the voting system was more fair) but the 11-1 should have been scrapped years ago, I’d imagine most people are pretty united on that front. 

All clubs agreed on the 11-1 voting structure when the SPL and SFL were merged, did they not?

Edited by The Moonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If reconstruction proposals simply needed majority support among the 42 clubs rather than 75% overall with divisional thresholds to be met, every vote that's been held this summer would have gone the same way. 14-10-10-10 would still have had nowhere near enough support and ending the season on PPG with promotion and relegation for sides in automatic places would have passed extremely comfortably with or without Dundee's vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

I think democracy usually means the majority rule.

So not sure how 11 of 12 being needed is actual the exact opposite of a dictatorship.

But I sure understand why you would think otherwise...

 

6 minutes ago, JagsCG said:

The 11-1 is very much not the opposite of a dictatorship, big clubs Dictate,  it’s designed to help out the Big 2 clubs, and give them a majority of power. Can’t understand any supporter of any non-Old Firm team actually agreeing with the 11-1. Its an utter, shambles of a voting system. (Nevertheless on the topic of Reconstruction, it wouldn’t have got though even if the voting system was more fair) but the 11-1 should have been scrapped years ago, I’d imagine most people are pretty united on that front. 

 

A dictatorship is a system where a single person or entity can force through changes against the will of the majority. The SPFL could be considered a dictatorship if resolutions like this one could pass on the basis of a small number of influential clubs supporting it, or by an executive decision by the board. Instead, the opposite is true, for a resolution to pass it requires a supermajority of the clubs.

Of course, in this vote it wouldn't matter if it was simply majority rule, since the majority of the clubs saw through this tinpot proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

All clubs agreed on the 11-1 voting structure when the SPL and SFL were merged, did they not?

It nearly got booted out a few years back, but Aberdeen stood with Celtic. (and Rangers were down the divisions at the time) everyone else was against it i’m sure. 
The ironic thing is to get rid of it, you need 11-1 voters, so the big 2 like it, therefore we can’t get rid of it, and the one time we could have, because there was no big 2 as Rangers weren’t there, Aberdeen ruined it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...