League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[Aim Here]

13 minutes ago, 8GamesToGo said:

Hearts and PT literally petitioned the court for a full public trial.

So you don't want to know what happened with the Dundee vote?

Given the SPFL has not introduced any guidelines around what to do if the league has to be stopped again, I would have thought every club would welcome if not a full inquiry at least some transparency to avoid the whole thing happening again.

You're missing the point, but that's never a surprise. I'm up for seeing whatever I can, but if there's reasons why I can't see some confidential information, I'll have to accept it, and just read the judgement instead. There are plenty of absolutely legitimate reasons why a private company might want to keep internal communications secret. If some of this information relates to pending sponsorship or TV negotiations - which it could easily be, given the nature of the petition - it could well harm the SPFL in getting those deals. After you've been moaning about Neil Doncaster's incompetence, you wouldn't want to be seen to support forcing him to f**k over the SPFL by, say, leaking a flaw in the SPFL's negotiating position with Sky or whoever, now would you?

The point is, though - Hearts and Thistle are holding the judgement hostage on the supposed grounds that they want to force publication of confidential information - the documentary evidence they dug up with their discovery motion - which they already argued they only needed to see for the purposes of fighting their petition case.

Either they lied to Lord Clarke when they were quizzed on the purpose of discovering this information, or they're lying to everyone now (and they're really trying to suppress the judgement by conditioning it on the publication of unreleasable private information). You're the mug punter that's actually believing two contradictory doublethink positions at the same time.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Aim Here

[johnnydun]

21 minutes ago, 8GamesToGo said:

we still don't know what went on with that Dundee vote.

 

11 minutes ago, 8GamesToGo said:

So you don't want to know what happened with the Dundee vote?

FFS! We all know what happened with the Dundee vote.

We didn't break any rules and didn't receive any fine.

What about Hearts?

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Pet desperately wagon-circling this into some sort of victory when Hearts have been absolutely fucking rinsed at every stage of the process 

[Guest 8GamesToGo]

5 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

 

FFS! We all know what happened with the Dundee vote.

We didn't break any rules and didn't receive any fine.

What about Hearts?

You changed your mind after private discussions about reconstruction no-one else was involved in. Meaning you effectively voted on something different from everyone else. We don't know what those private discussions involved.

[Guest 8GamesToGo]

5 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

Pet desperately wagon-circling this into some sort of victory when Hearts have been absolutely fucking rinsed at every stage of the process 

Won the moral argument

Lost the vote for an inquiry

Lost the reconstruction vote

Poached D Utd's manager

Poached Celtic's goalie

Won 2 out of 3 at the LC hearing

Lost arbitration

Got off with a magnificently tiny fine

Didn't have to walk anywhere

We'll call it a score draw.

[Guest 8GamesToGo]

16 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

You're missing the point, but that's never a surprise. I'm up for seeing whatever I can, but if there's reasons why I can't see some confidential information, I'll have to accept it, and just read the judgement instead. There are plenty of absolutely legitimate reasons why a private company might want to keep internal communications secret. If some of this information relates to pending sponsorship or TV negotiations - which it could easily be, given the nature of the petition - it could well harm the SPFL in getting those deals. After you've been moaning about Neil Doncaster's incompetence, you wouldn't want to be seen to support forcing him to f**k over the SPFL by, say, leaking a flaw in the SPFL's negotiating position with Sky or whoever, now would you?

The point is, though - Hearts and Thistle are holding the judgement hostage on the supposed grounds that they want to force publication of confidential information - the documentary evidence they dug up with their discovery motion - which they already argued they only needed to see for the purposes of fighting their petition case.

Either they lied to Lord Clarke when they were quizzed on the purpose of discovering this information, or they're lying to everyone now (and they're really trying to suppress the judgement by conditioning it on the publication of unreleasable private information). You're the mug punter that's actually believing two contradictory doublethink positions at the same time.

So what do YOU think Helms talked about before changing Dundee's vote and who did he talk to about it?

And consider that now the precedent has been set that a club can take the league to court for £2500. And clubs can change their vote with no need to even explain why. And leagues can be settled by votes and WhatsApp. Because the SPFL hasn't even put in any new rules around how the league should be stopped during a pandemic to stop all this happening again. So competent though.

Edited August 6, 2020 by 8GamesToGo

[Guest 8GamesToGo]

17 minutes ago, Szamo's_Ammo said:

Like Shankland trying to score in the Premiership.

[Szamo's_Ammo]

4 minutes ago, 8GamesToGo said:

Won the moral argument

Lost the vote for an inquiry

Lost the reconstruction vote

Poached D Utd's manager

Poached Celtic's goalie

Won 2 out of 3 at the LC hearing

Lost arbitration

Got off with a magnificently tiny fine

Didn't have to walk anywhere

We'll call it a score draw.

[Loonytoons]

5 minutes ago, 8GamesToGo said:

Won the moral argument

Lost the vote for an inquiry

Lost the reconstruction vote

Poached D Utd's manager

Poached Celtic's goalie

Won 2 out of 3 at the LC hearing

Lost arbitration

Got off with a magnificently tiny fine

Didn't have to walk anywhere

We'll call it a score draw.

In what world?

[Aim Here]

5 minutes ago, 8GamesToGo said:

So what do YOU think Hems talked about before changing Dundee's vote and who did he talk to about it?

My completely uneducated guess - I suspect he talked to the SPFL board members about recovering his chance at getting into the Premiership, and they said they couldn't promise that, because it would need a rule change that nobody would vote for, but what they could do was set up a reconstruction committee, put him on the committee with the (supposedly) most avid reconstruction fan - Ann Budge - at the helm, give it Neil Doncaster's full support and hope it could come to a consensus that involved a larger top flight.

I mean, that absolutely did happen, it could easily have been what tipped Dundee to change their vote, it's completely legit and above board, as per the arbitration tribunal, and what actual evidence is there of anything untoward going on, other than the fevered collective w**k-dream imaginings of the JKB echo chamber?

Edited August 6, 2020 by Aim Here

[Guest 8GamesToGo]

1 minute ago, Szamo's_Ammo said:

Like Shankland coming up against proper defenders every week for the first time in his career. "You mean I won't score 30?"

[Guest 8GamesToGo]

Just now, Loonytoons said:

In what world?

Well, even members of the SPFL board who started this whole thing said it was "unfair". So that world.

[Guest 8GamesToGo]

1 minute ago, Aim Here said:

My completely uneducated guess - I suspect he talked to the SPFL board members about recovering his chance at getting into the Premiership, and they said they couldn't promise that, because it would need a rule change that nobody would vote for, but what they could do was set up a reconstruction committee, put him on the committee with the (supposedly) most avid reconstruction fan - Ann Budge - at the helm, give it Neil Doncaster's full support and hope it could come to a consensus that involved a larger top flight.

I mean, that absolutely did happen, it could easily have been what tipped Dundee to change their vote, it's completely legit and above board, as per the arbitration tribunal, and what actual evidence is there of anything untoward going on, other than the fevered collective w**k-dream imaginings of the JKB echo chamber?

Do you think it's fair the one club should get these private discussions with the SPFL around such an important vote?

And how do you explain the SPFL not having processes in place to check email quarantine and spam folders immediately after the vote deadline and before announcing anything instead of, you know, getting around to it 4 or 5 hours later? 

And you don't think it's in the slightest bit weird that the deciding vote was the one allegedly in quarantine?

And that the SPFL put pressure on the club with the deciding vote by releasing partial results for.... reasons?

[Loonytoons]

1 minute ago, 8GamesToGo said:

Well, even members of the SPFL board who started this whole thing said it was "unfair". So that world.

Hardly winning the moral argument given all the shit that happened after.  Budge and co tried to screw over so many lower league clubs that the  "unfair" argument went completely out the window.  Morally destitute would be closer to the mark.

[500ClubCraig]

League Reconstruction 20/21 season
 

Booted out at the committee stage and never got off the ground when SuperBudge was going to revolutionise Scottish Football. 
Would only have happened if it had been included in the original SPFL Resolution to end the leagues.

The fear has to be as the current situation unfolds that it may require to be revisited, especially for the lower leagues, as most clubs will not be able to play with no paying fans. Don’t see crowds at Sporting events for some time to come, especially given recent events in Aberdeen.

[Guest 8GamesToGo]

4 minutes ago, Loonytoons said:

Hardly winning the moral argument given all the shit that happened after.  Budge and co tried to screw over so many lower league clubs that the  "unfair" argument went completely out the window.  Morally destitute would be closer to the mark.

Budge directly initiated 2.5m or more of investment into the Scottish game. The one bright spot of the past few months for Scottish football came about through Budge introducing Anderson to Doncaster, even though Doncaster ignored him at first. So competent though. She also supported and voted for reconstruction that would have benefited a number of lower league clubs and hurt none. If she'd had her way, Thistle and Stranraer would be in higher leagues. Falkirk would be in the championship. Caley would been the Premiership. 

Edited August 6, 2020 by 8GamesToGo

[Loonytoons]

1 minute ago, 8GamesToGo said:

Budge directly initiated 2.5m or more of investment into the Scottish game. The one bright spot of the past few months for Scottish football came about through Budge introducing Anderson to Doncaster, even though Doncaster ignored him at first. So competent though. She also supported and voted for reconstruction that would have benefited a number of lower league clubs and hurt none. If she'd had her way, Thistle and Stranraer would be in higher leagues. Falkirk would be in the championship. Caley would been the Premiership. She was also in favour of clubs like lefty and Brora getting promoted.

The reconstruction she was so eager for was going to screw so may lower league teams a couple of seasons down the line and almost inadvertently got the arse cheek colts introduced into the lower leagues.  Just to protect the worst team in the top flight.  Morals absolutely out the window.

[Guest 8GamesToGo]

36 minutes ago, Loonytoons said:

Seriously!  You really aren't the sharpest tool.  You were bottom of the league when it was called.  There was a vote on it too, and the majority were happy with the league being called.  The one you were at the bottom of.

And you didn't think you'd be relegated.  Truly bizarre.

I naively thought clubs would not vote to harm fellow clubs in that way during a pandemic when there were other less harmful options. There was an extremely dodgy vote on it, yes. A vote that "won" by one vote - the dodgy one.

[Loonytoons]

Just now, 8GamesToGo said:

I naively thought clubs would not vote to harm fellow clubs in that way during a pandemic when there were other less harmful options. There was an extremely dodgy vote on it, yes. A vote that "won" by one vote - the dodgy one.

You are aware that Budge has previous trying to harm fellow clubs.  No morals, only self interest.

[Aim Here]

15 minutes ago, 8GamesToGo said:

Do you think it's fair the one club should get these private discussions with the SPFL around such an important vote?

And how do you explain the SPFL not having processes in place to check email quarantine and spam folders immediately after the vote deadline and before announcing anything instead of, you know, getting around to it 4 or 5 hours later? 

And you don't think it's in the slightest bit weird that the deciding vote was the one allegedly in quarantine?

And that the SPFL put pressure on the club with the deciding vote by releasing partial results for.... reasons?

 

Yes. Every member had the right to negotiate it's vote for the proposal if it wasn't quite happy with it. Dundee just had a smarter negotiating plan, albeit extemporised due to circumstances. Remember that Dundee's negotiation got Hearts two bites at the reconstruction cherry, which is far more than Hearts would ordinarily expect. Had Dundee not voted that way, then ICT or Thistle could have been persuaded with something else instead, and it may not have been to Hearts' liking (like maybe some lucrative friendlies or something).

Normal everyday carelessness. Half the SPFL desk jockeys are likely unaware that the email quarantine zone exists on their mailserver, and it  just so happens that  phoning up Dundee to ask 'Have you voted yet?' came to mind before 'Let's check if the email's gone astray somewhere in the bowels of the IT system'. If I'm expecting an email, that would be my first response.

No. If any championship vote ended up in quarantine - yes or no - it would have been the deciding vote. That means that if a vote goes into quarantine, at least, 1/4 of the time, it would have been a deciding vote. That's not a statistical oddity, that's mere happenstance.

To get the vote over and done with, of course.

Edited August 6, 2020 by Aim Here