Statement thread

[bennett]

10 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

I'm not sure how an inquiry into Neil Donaldson and the SPFL would help when it was their fellow Premiership clubs that scuppered the talks. More evidence that this EGM wasn't ever about the SPFL leadership, but basically a bunch of clubs having a protest at whatever it was that had upset them recently.

Tbh if the spfl had fully briefed clubs about the vote and made clear all of the choices available to clubs rather than trying to ride roughshod over everyone....

1 hour ago, EdinburghPar1975 said:

Really don't understand how Keith Jackson continues to get columns in a paper. The Aberdeen thing was a non-story, complete semantics and rectified with no issue. As for the £7.5m 'sitting' at Hampden does he not understand/ want to understand that the cash can only be sent to the clubs when the league is officially called (which it hasn't yet) - that must have been said hundreds of times now.

Tom English's assertions that close to 100% of the folk giving him grief are Celtic fans shows to me exactly what part of the issue is with him, he refusing to engage out with the bubble he is wanting to report in. If he wanted to actually get information he could try and speak to some of the teams who weren't behind the proposal and actually hear their side, but that would just be madness...but why do that when he knows the truth

celtic fans do seem to think that because he's Irish he's going to be walking around with a tricolour over his shoulder while wearing a celtic shirt and singing IRA songs, they seem to struggle when he goes against their viewpoint. 

 

 

[Sparticus]

6 minutes ago, bennett said:

Tbh if the spfl had fully briefed clubs about the vote and made clear all of the choices available to clubs rather than trying to ride roughshod over everyone...

The SPFL spent weeks going over everything with a fine toothcomb just to bring forward the best solution to the clubs.Sake this is the appreciation they get?

[EdinburghPar1975]

27 minutes ago, bennett said:

celtic fans do seem to think that because he's Irish he's going to be walking around with a tricolour over his shoulder while wearing a celtic shirt and singing IRA songs, they seem to struggle when he goes against their viewpoint. 

I can only speak for myself but the issue I have isn't that he may have an opposing viewpoint, more that he isn't looking into the other side of the argument and giving an overall view of what clubs are thinking about and why they didn't go with Rangers/ Hearts and Stranraer or even that his pals in Inverness may not be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[bennett]

21 minutes ago, Sparticus said:

The SPFL spent weeks going over everything with a fine toothcomb just to bring forward the best solution to the clubs.Sake this is the appreciation they get?

 

I feel like a right dick now.

 

[bennett]

1 minute ago, EdinburghPar1975 said:

I can only speak for myself but the issue I have isn't that he may have an opposing viewpoint, more that he isn't looking into the other side of the argument and giving an overall view of what clubs are thinking about and why they didn't go with Rangers/ Hearts and Stranraer or even that his pals in Inverness may not be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

In the articles I've read he has, on sportsound theres usually someone else with an opposing viewpoint  though. You've basically just described Michael Stewart tbf.

 

[Guest Flash]

2 hours ago, The DA said:

Is he demanding that an inquiry should be honest and not crooked?  

BTW anyone who uses 'to be honest' or 'to tell you the truth' is suggesting that they don't normally do so.  Either that or they're a Weegie.

I'm not gonna lie - I use “to be honest”.

[EdinburghPar1975]

3 minutes ago, bennett said:

 

In the articles I've read he has, on sportsound theres usually someone else with an opposing viewpoint  though. You've basically just described Michael Stewart tbf.

 

Normally i'd agree with you and he does usually come across as balanced but not once recently have I heard (for example) an opposing viewpoint from him as to why in the Championship the vote was 9-1 if there was so much unhappiness as he is claiming. He's also ran away a bit from commenting on his viewpoint on Scott Gardners comments on being 'bullied' following Ross McArthur and the Morton chairman's subsequent comments on the claims. The last few podcasts have not been balanced in my view and seem more towards trying to stoke up another argument as opposed to trying to present both sides and see why there can be differences of opinion. Seems like the world in general right now - if you don't agree with a certain viewpoint then you must be wrong/ vilified...seems to be little in the way of accepting others views may have some substance, even if you don't agree with them. 

Scottish football is a mess, everyone knows its completely self serving and the fact that teams voted with the SPFL doesn't mean they're all satisfied but that they probably accept that in this circumstance and in the claims that Rangers, Hearts and Stranraer made there wasn't a cast iron case to answer to. I'd love to see my own team, Dunfermline, say that when the new season has started they feel that the time for an all party review had come and look at things then as I don't want things brushed under the carpet.

in an ideal world the SPFL would be initiating that and who knows, when COVID is out of the way they may well (doubtful!)

[Aim Here]

1 hour ago, bennett said:

Tbh if the spfl had fully briefed clubs about the vote and made clear all of the choices available to clubs rather than trying to ride roughshod over everyone....

...  then Rangers, Hearts or someone would still have been making similar noises about whatever bogeyman was to hand.

Face it, If it wasn't Neil Doncaster, it would have been John Nelms or Peter Lawwell or George Soros or the most likely looking scapegoat within their line of vision. The primary issue is that a few clubs are unhappy about a bunch of different things, and they don't have any power to alter the real cause of whatever their particular gripe is - the coronavirus cutting the season short, the 80% of clubs who think voiding the season is the least bad option, the 6 SPFL clubs who are against reconstructing the league in a way that the lower-league clubs prefer. For all their many, many, faults, Neil Doncaster and the SPFL bigwigs are the cause of precisely none of their current pressing problems, but they just happen to be the easiest target to pick on.

The 'riding roughshod over everyone' is a red herring. The vote to end the season was always going to happen that way. Suppose Dundee's vote hadn't been swung, then what? Are the 'null and void' camp going to be able to persuade 23 teams to change their votes, or is a slightly modified 'end the season as-is' vote going to be put forward, with some small concessions to the 'nays' to swing that single vote - like, as happened, a league reconstruction commission with pro-reconstruction folks at the helm. The problem Rangers have isn't that  Neil Doncaster has 80% of the SPFL clubs in his pocket, it's that 80% of the SPFL clubs disagree with them on how the season should end. But there's no dossier that they can write to impeach all of Scottish fitba'  or depose the coronavirus, so they have to make do with the easy scapegoat.

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Aim Here

[wastecoatwilly]

48 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

Neil Doncaster and the SPFL bigwigs are the cause of precisely none of their current pressing problems, but they just happen to be the easiest target to pick on.

Stewart Robertson was one of those bigwigs and couldn't vote with the board,sevco went in a different way but left their own man hanging high.

[bennett]

2 hours ago, Aim Here said:

...  then Rangers, Hearts or someone would still have been making similar noises about whatever bogeyman was to hand.

Face it, If it wasn't Neil Doncaster, it would have been John Nelms or Peter Lawwell or George Soros or the most likely looking scapegoat within their line of vision. The primary issue is that a few clubs are unhappy about a bunch of different things, and they don't have any power to alter the real cause of whatever their particular gripe is - the coronavirus cutting the season short, the 80% of clubs who think voiding the season is the least bad option, the 6 SPFL clubs who are against reconstructing the league in a way that the lower-league clubs prefer. For all their many, many, faults, Neil Doncaster and the SPFL bigwigs are the cause of precisely none of their current pressing problems, but they just happen to be the easiest target to pick on.

The 'riding roughshod over everyone' is a red herring. The vote to end the season was always going to happen that way. Suppose Dundee's vote hadn't been swung, then what? Are the 'null and void' camp going to be able to persuade 23 teams to change their votes, or is a slightly modified 'end the season as-is' vote going to be put forward, with some small concessions to the 'nays' to swing that single vote - like, as happened, a league reconstruction commission with pro-reconstruction folks at the helm. The problem Rangers have isn't that  Neil Doncaster has 80% of the SPFL clubs in his pocket, it's that 80% of the SPFL clubs disagree with them on how the season should end. But there's no dossier that they can write to impeach all of Scottish fitba'  or depose the coronavirus, so they have to make do with the easy scapegoat.

 

It's like a return of the bralt with all the currently trending Sevco buzzwords thrown in.

 

The spfl bigwigs as you put it seem to be a law unto themselves, deciding what the member clubs need to be consulted on (usually very little) and if we're being honest if it wasn't for the Sevco factor, most of Scottish fitba would be against them.

Obviously with Scottish  fitba being Scottish fitba,  self interests will be at the forefront of every decision.  Looking at the spfl board you have several board members putting forward and voting for a resolution which directly benefits their clubs.

If they had been more open with the clubs and put forward Sevcos original resolution too, giving clubs a choice of both resolutions then I doubt that we'd have went as far.

Could Sevco with hindsight handled things differently,  possibly.  Could the spfl have handled things differently....

 

[Spring Onion]

6 minutes ago, bennett said:

It's like a return of the bralt with all the currently trending Sevco buzzwords thrown in.

 

The spfl bigwigs as you put it seem to be a law unto themselves, deciding what the member clubs need to be consulted on (usually very little) and if we're being honest if it wasn't for the Sevco factor, most of Scottish fitba would be against them.

Obviously with Scottish  fitba being Scottish fitba,  self interests will be at the forefront of every decision.  Looking at the spfl board you have several board members putting forward and voting for a resolution which directly benefits their clubs.

If they had been more open with the clubs and put forward Sevcos original resolution too, giving clubs a choice of both resolutions then I doubt that we'd have went as far.

Could Sevco with hindsight handled things differently,  possibly.  Could the spfl have handled things

Question for you Bennet, Kincardine has been very open about, why do you think The Rangers were against calling the leagues?

Surely self interest was the heart of why they didn't want the leagues finished as is.

[bennett]

1 minute ago, Spring Onion said:

Question for you Bennet, Kincardine has been very open about, why do you think The Rangers were against calling the leagues?

Surely self interest was the heart of why they didn't want the leagues finished as is.

 

9 games still to play, a game in hand and 2 old firm (sorry Romeo) games to be played. Could we have regained our earlier form?  Could we have beaten celtic?  Could celtic have had a few bad games, they got through a few previous games by the skin of their teeth....

Could asking for fairness be classed as self interest, possibly...

Did we want celtic to get £30m champions league money?

Did the spfl's cowboy antics piss us off?

I don't think you can single out any one reason. 

 

Again apologies to Romeo for saying old firm.

[Spring Onion]

4 minutes ago, bennett said:

 

9 games still to play, a game in hand and 2 old firm (sorry Romeo) games to be played. Could we have regained our earlier form?  Could we have beaten celtic?  Could celtic have had a few bad games, they got through a few previous games by the skin of their teeth....

Could asking for fairness be classed as self interest, possibly...

Did we want celtic to get £30m champions league money?

Did the spfl's cowboy antics piss us off?

I don't think you can single out any one reason. 

 

Again apologies to Romeo for saying old firm.

So null and void was never the preferred option, in your eyes or the eyes of your board or fans? 

 

[bennett]

10 minutes ago, Spring Onion said:

So null and void was never the preferred option, in your eyes or the eyes of your board or fans? 

 

I'm fairly certain that you're using these innocent questions to build up to a haymaker, best spit it out then.

That's something that's always irked me on PnB, don't be sly, just ask what you're going to ask. You'll get on better that way.

 

 

 

 

[Romeo]

**** really hurting big time.

Bennett's obsession with me is getting a bit stalkerish.

[Spring Onion]

Just now, bennett said:

I'm fairly certain that you're using these innocent questions to build up to a haymaker, best spit it out then.

That's something that's always irked me on PnB, don't be sly, just ask what you're going to ask. You'll get on better that way.

 

 

 

 

Now now Bennett. No need to be so antsy.

 

It was a genuine and honest question, just that your auld mucker Kincardine was pretty honest in stating that The Rangers wanted a null and void plain and simple. So I was simply asking you if that's not in your own clubs self interest. 

[bennett]

Null and void wasn't it (spring onions)?

Would we prefer null and void to finishing as it is, obviously. 

I'd like to think that if the option to play the games was available then we'd have taken it, our players had a lot to prove after a poor a few weeks.

 

[Spring Onion]

6 minutes ago, bennett said:

Null and void wasn't it (spring onions)?

Would we prefer null and void to finishing as it is, obviously. 

I'd like to think that if the option to play the games was available then we'd have taken it, our players had a lot to prove after a poor a few weeks.

 

I'm sure every club would have wanted to play it out across all the divisions, well maybe not my team as we had been on a terrible run since the New Year.  Sadly that couldn't happen and its left an almighty mess behind. 

There hasn't been a team including our own teams who haven't acted out of self interest,  in my opinion. 

[johnnydun]

5 minutes ago, bennett said:

Null and void wasn't it (spring onions)?

Would we prefer null and void to finishing as it is, obviously. 

I'd like to think that if the option to play the games was available then we'd have taken it, our players had a lot to prove after a poor a few weeks.

 

TBF I would have preferred null and void, just for the seethe at Tanadump, if this could have happened without any prize money or contractual issues then I would have been all for it.

But this would have brought a complete mess for the reasons of prize money, tv contracts, sponsors contracts etc... calling it as is now is the most sensible and least damaging option. IMO.

[coprolite]

They should have allocated places on bigness so we could have got third. Only fair.