Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, bennett said:

The 11 - 1 voting structure does hold us back,  does anyone know if other countries have a similar structure?

I don't know of any country that also has such a restrictive structure.

In some ways I understand the need for not having 50/50 as things would/ could be changed almost non-stop so there needs to be a balance as to what is a percentage that would allow things to pass where they need to but would prevent unnecessary resolutions from being passed all the time. 9 - 3 seems reasonable to me but i'm assuming the reason that there is little appetite for a change is the same reason that there always is...

Power and money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yesterday's vote was provoked into happening, by that.

 

4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It was really about league positions being finalised and certain spoils being dished out accordingly.  You only need to look at how each club voted to see that.

So yes.  Among other outcomes, yesterday's vote was about Celtic winning the league.  

Just let Romeo have his online victories, its easier that way.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dundee Hibernian said:

It's ridiculous that anyone reckons that 31% were behind the spirit of the resolution today: clubs had many different reasons for voting either way, some because they felt they'd been denied the chance of promotion, some because they feel their relegation is unfair, others wanting reconstruction or redistribution of prize money, and one not wanting Celtic to be awarded the Premiership.

There was no unified motivation for supporting one side or the other, apart from the self interest of every club.

An excellent, simply point that is clear to almost everyone on here - but apparently to not a single journalist in Scotland.

12 clubs who voted in favour of self-interest in terms of how it affected their own club; 1 club who voted against the self-interest of another club. Take Rangers out of this and, rightly or wrongly, there is absolutely no story to which the media would devote any significant coverage*. The season for Rangers had turned into a humiliating, familiar tale of the crashing of bottles, and a heavy defeat in the league from end-of-2019 parity was inevitable. The gap was only getting wider, week on week. They appear to want to have their cake and eat it: a merciful end to the pain of their rivals pulling effortlessly ever further ahead; but denial that those same rivals were doing exactly that.

It is the definition of dog-in-a-manger behaviour: Rangers had and have no chance of being champions; but they have a possibility of preventing Celtic being awarded it. This is nothing to do with the SPFL.

* One way of looking at the vote is that the 3 requisitioning clubs needed 29 of the remaining clubs to join them, but they only got 10. That is, they needed support from 3 out of every 4 other clubs (actually more stringent, because of the required distribution) - instead, they got 1 out of every 4 clubs. A crushing rejection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sparticus said:

Pretty sure they had a vote to change the 11-1 a few years back.It failed by one vote.

Certainly had a chance to change it while Rangers were on their seaside tour, can't remember what happened. St Mirren caved probably, like with reconstruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Certainly had a chance to change it while Rangers were on their seaside tour, can't remember what happened. St Mirren caved probably, like with reconstruction.

Nah, it was the mighty, mighty Dons that fvkked it.

A terrible decision by oor Wiggy (and presumably the rest of the AFC board).

Nae excuses!

Yours, shamefully

aDONis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Certainly had a chance to change it while Rangers were on their seaside tour, can't remember what happened. St Mirren caved probably, like with reconstruction.

Not sure but I think it was Aberdeen who f*cked it. Obviously Celtic and Rangers like the 11-1 voting system but when Rangers were away and they voted to change it Aberdeen sided with Celtic to keep it.

Happy to be proven wrong if anyone can remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bennett said:

Just let Romeo have his online victories, its easier that way.

The Rangers would do anything for a victory right now. Online or off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Certainly had a chance to change it while Rangers were on their seaside tour, can't remember what happened. St Mirren caved probably, like with reconstruction.

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Certainly had a chance to change it while Rangers were on their seaside tour, can't remember what happened. St Mirren caved probably, like with reconstruction.

Wrong. It was Aberdeen.

And you were in favour of the 8-8-8 model? St Mirren and Ross County done everyone a favour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ahemps said:

Not sure but I think it was Aberdeen who f*cked it. Obviously Celtic and Rangers like the 11-1 voting system but when Rangers were away and they voted to change it Aberdeen sided with Celtic to keep it.

Happy to be proven wrong if anyone can remember.

I seem to recall at the time Milne came out with a statement that he couldn't support the change in voting structure, because it was too far reaching. He was worried that if a 9-3 voting system was in place, the other clubs would vote for things such as splitting gate receipts 50/50, or restructuring to something that would lose him his precious 4 home games against the Old Firm and Sevco.

I (vaguely) remember doing a quick back-of-an-envelope calculation at the time, and the only teams who would have lost out on a 50/50 split of gate receipts would have been Celtic (massively), and Hearts (something like £50k over a season). Absolute arse of a man, and some Dons fans still defend him.

Thankfully, I think Cormack would have a lot more sense, and guts about him in a similar situation.

34 minutes ago, EdinburghPar1975 said:

I don't know of any country that also has such a restrictive structure.

In some ways I understand the need for not having 50/50 as things would/ could be changed almost non-stop so there needs to be a balance as to what is a percentage that would allow things to pass where they need to but would prevent unnecessary resolutions from being passed all the time. 9 - 3 seems reasonable to me but i'm assuming the reason that there is little appetite for a change is the same reason that there always is...

Power and money...

I think a reasonable structure would simply be 10-2. The important thing is preventing Celtic and Sevco retaining the power to do things that only benefit Celtic and Sevco.

Edited by Illgresi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Milne never explained why he voted to keep the 11-1 vote but by doing so he kept us in the dark ages.

I get the whole blocking the sharing of attendance money, has anyone ever asked for that? A 75-80% majority should be enough, they could even put in a rule about attendance money changes needing 11 votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NorthBank said:

Wrong. It was Aberdeen.

And you were in favour of the 8-8-8 model? St Mirren and Ross County done everyone a favour.

Thought it was 12-12-18? And they also blocked changing the 11-1 rule.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22151308

Edited by welshbairn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sparticus said:

Another day, another statement.

https://livingstonfc.co.uk/spfl-egm-club-update/

Commendable obviously that no club should be disadvantaged but the reality is that some clubs are going to take a hit either by being relegated (like Hearts) or not being promoted (like Dundee United). It's simply not possible to have a situation where no one is disadvantaged unfortunately.

Unless we all merge into one giant league...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Thought it was 12-12-18?

Half way through the season Leagues 1 & 2 would then change into an 8-8-8. Ludicrous idea.

You are not doing too well here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BawWatchin said:

The Rangers would do anything for a victory right now. Online or off.

He may post mostly about Rangers but to call him a bear is a bit far fetched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NorthBank said:

Half way through the season Leagues 1 & 2 would then change into an 8-8-8. Ludicrous idea.

You are not doing too well here.

Not sure why that would be anymore ridiculous than the Premiership split now.

And what's this about blocking the change from 11-1 to 9-3?

Quote

The Scottish Premier League has failed to achieve the 11-1 majority required to agree a new league format.

Ross County and St Mirren voted against the proposal at Hampden on Monday when the clubs considered a new 12-12-18 model for Scottish football.

Aberdeen chairman Stewart Milne has accused the two clubs of "putting Scottish football in jeopardy".

Clubs in favour had proposed altering the required majority for changes in league structure from 11-1 to 9-3.

But that was rejected by the two clubs as well as the main proposal, which would have scrapped the current 12-10-10-10 make-up for the start of next season.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/22151308

Share this post


Link to post
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...