The Moonster Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 8 minutes ago, Dylangt7 said: The whole argument feels similar to when your whole fanbase knows its time for your manager to go, you get the people who come along and say "well who are you suggesting we replace them with..." its a nick picking fear of change. Its not my job to come up with the a new manager, I just know when the current one is no longer suitable. That's a poor analogy. When a manager is failing and is removed from their job, the club then open up to applications and select a new employee like any other company. The average fan has no knowledge of who will apply, they can only see that what is there isn't working. You suggest current ownership doesn't work and fans should own clubs. Well that means fans need to buy controlling stakes in their club. You know that takes a lot of money fans don't have, or most of them would've done it by now. So when you make that suggestion and say "It's not up to me to figure out how it happens" it's a bit disingenuous. If you don't want member clubs voting democratically on issues then you absolutely need to suggest how else the game can be governed. It's not like the SPFL can scrap the current governance and then open it up to the floor for the best suggestion, we need to vote through the changes. . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylangt7 Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 4 minutes ago, The Moonster said: It's kind of a problem when people shout "THIS DOESN'T WORK" but can offer absolutely no solutions as to how things should then work. If there must be a better way then someone must be able to tell me what it is. The 22 game thing is a prime example why fans can't be asked to resolve every issue. Dumbarton were probably quite happy to only play 18 games but with other clubs saying they want 22 (or in some cases *cough* Danny Lennon *cough* wanted 27 games), board members need to reach a sensible compromise. If each club put that decision to a fan vote we would not have reached a conclusion - you'd have Falkirk fans steadfastly wanting 18 games, Partick wanting 22, Forfar wanting 22 and go knows how many other different answers. As per my manager analogy above, You know its time for Duffy to go, someone's probably already said, right smart arse who do you suggest he is replaced with. But thats not your job. But i'll try. Off the top of my head an independent regulator for football or a board of Trustees similar to how charities are run. Every major, contentious or ad-hoc decision that has to be made is recommended to the regulator or Trustees for ratification. Using the 22 game example, fans cant be trusted to make these decision and you outlined exactly why "clubs" cant be trusted to make those decisions. Self Interest. An independent trustee (please no ex players) would look at the Pros and Cons of 18 games v 22 and from all clubs perspective, fans paying for streams and part time players playing 3 games a week and made there decision. Some clubs would moan - they do now in this system. But in the main a better decision would have been reached based on common sense rather than self interest. A Board of Trustees would hopefully also have the experience to manage these types of risks with better governance in the first place. many were shouting at the start of this season for contingency plans to be put in place for these very scenarios. Everyone could see they would likely happen. What happened the clubs couldn't agree and just left it to chance. The "clubs" have proved they cant be trusted on their own to run leagues fairly and consistently, no matter how much fan pressure or representation there is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Just now, Dylangt7 said: As per my manager analogy above, You know its time for Duffy to go, someone's probably already said, right smart arse who do you suggest he is replaced with. But thats not your job. But i'll try. Off the top of my head an independent regulator for football or a board of Trustees similar to how charities are run. Every major, contentious or ad-hoc decision that has to be made is recommended to the regulator or Trustees for ratification. Using the 22 game example, fans cant be trusted to make these decision and you outlined exactly why "clubs" cant be trusted to make those decisions. Self Interest. An independent trustee (please no ex players) would look at the Pros and Cons of 18 games v 22 and from all clubs perspective, fans paying for streams and part time players playing 3 games a week and made there decision. Some clubs would moan - they do now in this system. But in the main a better decision would have been reached based on common sense rather than self interest. A Board of Trustees would hopefully also have the experience to manage these types of risks with better governance in the first place. many were shouting at the start of this season for contingency plans to be put in place for these very scenarios. Everyone could see they would likely happen. What happened the clubs couldn't agree and just left it to chance. The "clubs" have proved they cant be trusted on their own to run leagues fairly and consistently, no matter how much fan pressure or representation there is. As per my previous post, it's not on me to magically select the next employee by guessing who will apply for a job. The two situations aren't analogous. An independent regulator would've had colt teams into the league about 5 years ago. An independent regulator would've put Rangers straight back into the Premier league in 2012. How do clubs fight against unfair decisions made by this independent regulator? Who pays them? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 On 16/03/2021 at 12:44, Shadwell Dog said: I agree the clubs need to be made aware that noone from a fans outlook wants this. That b****** ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylangt7 Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 5 minutes ago, The Moonster said: As per my previous post, it's not on me to magically select the next employee by guessing who will apply for a job. The two situations aren't analogous. An independent regulator would've had colt teams into the league about 5 years ago. An independent regulator would've put Rangers straight back into the Premier league in 2012. How do clubs fight against unfair decisions made by this independent regulator? Who pays them? sorry but that's a fantastic leap there, why would any independent regulator have made any of these decisions? What could possibly have been the arguments for, that they would have reviewed, agreed on and outlined as a basis for there decision? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Just now, Dylangt7 said: sorry but that's a fantastic leap there, why would any independent regulator have made any of these decisions? What could possibly have been the arguments for, that they would have reviewed, agreed on and outlined as a basis for there decision? I don't agree with any of these points but the case made for colt teams is that: 1. It improves the quality of player through the leagues 2. Will improve the National side 3. It operates in other countries successfully 4. Will bring extra revenue to lower leagues through big clubs fans visiting games Just as every Old Firm journalist in the country has stood up and parroted these lines without evidence, an independent regulator can justify their stance in the same way. But more the point, in the case that an independent regulator DID make that sort of decision, what leg do the clubs have to stand on to fight it? And again, who pays this panel to do their job? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 25 minutes ago, Dylangt7 said: sorry but that's a fantastic leap there, why would any independent regulator have made any of these decisions? What could possibly have been the arguments for, that they would have reviewed, agreed on and outlined as a basis for there decision? Who would fund and appoint the independent regulatory board? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O'Kelly Isley III Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Can we not just agree that the 'one club, one team' democratic principle which has served us admirably since 1892 continues, and to f**k with the very idea of Colt teams ? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballboy Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 The original question from roman was does anyone think it won't happen?. The answer from me is I don't want and really hope it doesn't however It seems more and more the ugly sisters who pretty much have decided they want this. Everytime there is a discussion among clubs about this it's to discuss the latest proposals to try to shoehorn them in with minimal protest. A few months ago it was to add them to league 2. Now lowland league and allow promotion. Regardless of the approach anyone would take as these "proposals " keep changing and want go away. We will see soon just how much fans opinions matter in scottish football. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peternapper Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 2 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said: Can we not just agree that the 'one club, one team' democratic principle which has served us admirably since 1892 continues, and to f**k with the very idea of Colt teams ? I will second that, has always been my stance regarding colt teams. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Can we not just agree that the 'one club, one team' democratic principle which has served us admirably since 1892 continues, and to f**k with the very idea of Colt teams ?It hasn't always been the case. Several of the top flight clubs also ran teams in the third tier of the SFL in the years after the war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peternapper Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Nobody would bother if these teams that want more than one side play each other in a reserve/2nd teamleague & not interfere with clubs going about their business 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 5 hours ago, roman_bairn said: You see, you asked me a question and I outlined the principles of a way to address the current concerns making it clear that a full review would be needed fully bottom out. However you keep throwing these ‘undefined elements’ out there to try to fan the flames as if that’s are things that could not be resolved in drawing up a charter. Carry on defending what you think is true democracy if you like. Ps. To the poster who thought he was being clever the pointing out the voting systems of the UK as some confirmation. When you turn up to vote today remember to let them know your name and address with no documentary evidence and mark your vote IN PENCIL. Are you genuinely insinuating that people are taking ballots out of the boxes and erasing the votes and then replacing them with something else, or are doing so during the count? Because I can't think what else you could be implying by mentioned that a pencil is used (in block capitals). Incidentally, if someone believes a person has voted for them falsely, that is investigated. It's why they mark a number against a name. Such voter fraud is pretty rare though, so not sure why you have highlighted it here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FairWeatherFan Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Everyone just needs to laugh at this and think how utterly deluded the LL Board must be to take this seriously. https://www.caledonianbraves.com/uploads/tinymce/Lowland League Proposal - May 2021.pdf 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_bairn Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Are you genuinely insinuating that people are taking ballots out of the boxes and erasing the votes and then replacing them with something else, or are doing so during the count? Because I can't think what else you could be implying by mentioned that a pencil is used (in block capitals). Incidentally, if someone believes a person has voted for them falsely, that is investigated. It's why they mark a number against a name. Such voter fraud is pretty rare though, so not sure why you have highlighted it here.No, but it’s hardly foolproof and a shining example of democracy is it?Things like what happened re Dundee’s vote last year could happen. Oh wait, that couldn’t as it was democratic and must therefore be fully transparent....[emoji3] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockson Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 7 hours ago, roman_bairn said: Ah, so it’s a straight 50% vote needed to carry it through then? Otherwise it’s not a democracy.... Then General Elections in Britain are not democratic. You don't need 50% of the votes in a constituency to get elected to Westminster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 1 minute ago, roman_bairn said: No, but it’s hardly foolproof and a shining example of democracy is it? Things like what happened re Dundee’s vote last year could happen. Oh wait, that couldn’t as it was democratic and must therefore be fully transparent.... Why not? Are democracies defined by the implements people use to make a mark? The Dundee thing was fully investigated, in court by an independent party, and was found to be fine. Also, clubs are allowed to change their mind. Only raving conspiracy fools think Dundee's vote was some mad plot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CambieBud Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 What am I missing here? The proposal is for one year only and the colts cannot be promoted? What’s the point of that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rovers_Lad Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Foot in the door Dont encourage the hoors 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_bairn Posted May 6, 2021 Share Posted May 6, 2021 Then General Elections in Britain are not democratic. You don't need 50% of the votes in a constituency to get elected to Westminster.Absolutely spot on.Don’t tell the usual know it all’s on here though....[emoji3] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.