Scottish lower league football locked down for 3 weeks

[banditjag]

13 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Doncaster is an employee of the clubs and can be removed by them. Why would an individual employee be liable for the costs of his employers legal action?

If the board or employees aren't fit for purpose it's up to the clubs to remove them. Not go looking for arbitration from an outside body.

The clubs/ SPFL have the board and employees they want.

To your first para, my comment on Doncaster was humour. Of course I'd not expect an employee to pay his/her employers costs

Fair point the clubs get the board they deserve but you have to remember the voting structure to elect the board will not reflect all of the clubs desires/wishes, but that's democracy in action. However, once the management of the spfl are in place, as with any employee, removing those whose performance is shite is nearly impossible. And if you can't remove the head (Doncaster) he is highly unlikely to voluntarily leave such a well paid job. Even though the majority of votes want to keep him in post doesn't mean we all have to agree he is competent.

It is far too simplistic a view that he is just an employee. He administrated the voting debacle at end of last season and lead the corrupt behaviour of his board who pressured certain clubs to vote in a desired way to suit the spfl. That is a corrupt practice and, just my opinion, worthy of independent scrutiny, which would have cost not one penny to clubs as rangers were willing to pay costs. He we accepted that, and I suspect if it had been a club other than the condemned 3 or rangers offering to pay it would have been accepted, there would have been independent decisions of their collective behaviour and we could have moved on. I will hold an grudge against these administrators for the rest of my days if for no other reason that the chair of the bottom club in Scotland oversaw his club avoiding any form of demotion. At best unfair behaviour, at worst corrupt collusion to protect their own. Just my opinion sergeant, and I'm not denying you yours, I just don't agree.

[AndyDD]

28 minutes ago, banditjag said:

To your first para, my comment on Doncaster was humour. Of course I'd not expect an employee to pay his/her employers costs

Fair point the clubs get the board they deserve but you have to remember the voting structure to elect the board will not reflect all of the clubs desires/wishes, but that's democracy in action. However, once the management of the spfl are in place, as with any employee, removing those whose performance is shite is nearly impossible. And if you can't remove the head (Doncaster) he is highly unlikely to voluntarily leave such a well paid job. Even though the majority of votes want to keep him in post doesn't mean we all have to agree he is competent.

It is far too simplistic a view that he is just an employee. He administrated the voting debacle at end of last season and lead the corrupt behaviour of his board who pressured certain clubs to vote in a desired way to suit the spfl. That is a corrupt practice and, just my opinion, worthy of independent scrutiny, which would have cost not one penny to clubs as rangers were willing to pay costs. He we accepted that, and I suspect if it had been a club other than the condemned 3 or rangers offering to pay it would have been accepted, there would have been independent decisions of their collective behaviour and we could have moved on. I will hold an grudge against these administrators for the rest of my days if for no other reason that the chair of the bottom club in Scotland oversaw his club avoiding any form of demotion. At best unfair behaviour, at worst corrupt collusion to protect their own. Just my opinion sergeant, and I'm not denying you yours, I just don't agree.

They were not in a relegation place, though, they were in a playoff place, so it's not really fair to treat them differently than any other side in a playoff place.  All teams in automatic relegation spots were relegated. All teams in automatic promotion places were promoted. All playoffs were cancelled, so all teams in playoff positions didn't get to compete in playoffs to go up a division, or to protect their place in their division. 

Any change to this specific to the team at the bottom of League 2 would have been to punish them in a way the teams in the relegation playoff place of every other division was not punished. Is that what you think should have happened? 

 

[The Moonster]

It's apparent a great number of people are angry about an organisation they don't understand.

[Guest The Phoenix]

4 hours ago, jagsfan57 said:

 

That happens all the time in business. If it is managed properly it can work fine. It’s all very well asking for questions in advance, but it is likely that some answers could give rise to another question.

 

Spot on! 

There's even a facility to put your hand up on Zoom! 

[Cowden Cowboy]

1 hour ago, banditjag said:

To your first para, my comment on Doncaster was humour. Of course I'd not expect an employee to pay his/her employers costs

Fair point the clubs get the board they deserve but you have to remember the voting structure to elect the board will not reflect all of the clubs desires/wishes, but that's democracy in action. However, once the management of the spfl are in place, as with any employee, removing those whose performance is shite is nearly impossible. And if you can't remove the head (Doncaster) he is highly unlikely to voluntarily leave such a well paid job. Even though the majority of votes want to keep him in post doesn't mean we all have to agree he is competent.

It is far too simplistic a view that he is just an employee. He administrated the voting debacle at end of last season and lead the corrupt behaviour of his board who pressured certain clubs to vote in a desired way to suit the spfl. That is a corrupt practice and, just my opinion, worthy of independent scrutiny, which would have cost not one penny to clubs as rangers were willing to pay costs. He we accepted that, and I suspect if it had been a club other than the condemned 3 or rangers offering to pay it would have been accepted, there would have been independent decisions of their collective behaviour and we could have moved on. I will hold an grudge against these administrators for the rest of my days if for no other reason that the chair of the bottom club in Scotland oversaw his club avoiding any form of demotion. At best unfair behaviour, at worst corrupt collusion to protect their own. Just my opinion sergeant, and I'm not denying you yours, I just don't agree.

Well one problem is that clubs shouldn't ne making decisions based on grudges - take for example your own grudge a pretty baseless, hyped up viewpoint.  As I understand the chair in question was representing L1 and 2 clubs on the Board not his own club (and was re-elected by those clubs to that position past the event you reference).  He had one vote out of 9 so how can he oversee or drive the decisioning?  Why did clubs not go for an independent review - well it was mainly being promoted by club's who had their own axe to grind and whose views were driven by their own club situation and most of the other clubs (the large majority) knew there were matters of much greater import to be tackled and focused on rather than examining our own navel.  

Edited January 26, 2021 by Cowden Cowboy

[banditjag]

14 minutes ago, AndyDD said:

They were not in a relegation place, though, they were in a playoff place, so it's not really fair to treat them differently than any other side in a playoff place.  All teams in automatic relegation spots were relegated. All teams in automatic promotion places were promoted. All playoffs were cancelled, so all teams in playoff positions didn't get to compete in playoffs to go up a division, or to protect their place in their division. 

Any change to this specific to the team at the bottom of League 2 would have been to punish them in a way the teams in the relegation playoff place of every other division was not punished. Is that what you think should have happened? 

 

Of course not. Apologise ot not being specific. I get play offs were cancelled which was awfully convenient was it not. How difficult would it have been to have played the play offs before this season started. We could have at least tried which takes us to the wider point of why they didn't even try to complete the season but I'm sure no one wants to go back over all that.

[Thom & Gerry]

20 hours ago, blueone said:

According to the Press and Journal, clubs are looking to resume training on Feb 15 with matches restarting on March 2nd and season completion by the end of May.

What's the likelihood of any of that happening?

This proposal was discussed between Ian Maxwell and representatives of League 1 and 2 clubs yesterday. According to the P&J “this is understood to just be the beginning of a lengthy process before they can restart”

” No decision was taken about when the lower divisions may return or if all the proposed protocols will be required”

[Sergeant Wilson]

17 minutes ago, banditjag said:

Of course not. Apologise ot not being specific. I get play offs were cancelled which was awfully convenient was it not. How difficult would it have been to have played the play offs before this season started. We could have at least tried which takes us to the wider point of why they didn't even try to complete the season but I'm sure no one wants to go back over all that.

The impracticality of having the play offs just before the start of a new season was done to death earlier.

[haufdaft]

The impracticality of having the play offs just before the start of a new season was done to death earlier.

I agree it would be too impractical to hold the playoffs.

Equally impractical, however, was to continue the 2019/20 Scottish cup into the current season with entirely different team squads.

All decisions were make by the clubs. I wonder how many votes would have been different if clubs League positions were different.

If Rangers were leading the league, if Thistle had played and won their game in hand, if Falkirk had taken a single point from Clyde, all these clubs would've voted differently.

Same will happen this year if the season is incomplete.

The system of governance is the problem. Needs reinvented.

[Airdrie76]

They could hardly give prior warning - it wasn't their decision.  It was made by the SFA and Scottish Government.
See https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55616399
 

“The discussions on the suspension of the game started last week, long before it became clear there was a positive case in Celtic’s camp. So this is not a reaction to the Celtic situation.” Neil Doncaster. Suggests that the potential for the leagues to be suspended could have been signposted prior to the announcement I’d have thought.

[Sergeant Wilson]

39 minutes ago, haufdaft said:

I agree it would be too impractical to hold the playoffs.

Equally impractical, however, was to continue the 2019/20 Scottish cup into the current season with entirely different team squads.

All decisions were make by the clubs. I wonder how many votes would have been different if clubs League positions were different.

If Rangers were leading the league, if Thistle had played and won their game in hand, if Falkirk had taken a single point from Clyde, all these clubs would've voted differently.

Same will happen this year if the season is incomplete.

The system of governance is the problem. Needs reinvented.

That's the nature of self interest, it is changeable according to the prevailing circumstances, that won't change.

I'm not defending SPFL Board action, I'm pointing out the futility of shouting out words like enquiry, arbitration, independent with no context or reference to the rules or structure of the organisation.

I'm having increasing difficulty not posting the "down with this sort of thing" gif from Father Ted.

[The Moonster]

Is there any scope for making the lower divisions "two up, two down" and scrapping play-offs? Or will too many 3rd, 4th, 5th placed teams say that's unfair?

[Bluegrass Bairn]

2 hours ago, Airdrie76 said:

 

“The discussions on the suspension of the game started last week, long before it became clear there was a positive case in Celtic’s camp. So this is not a reaction to the Celtic situation.” Neil Doncaster. Suggests that the potential for the leagues to be suspended could have been signposted prior to the announcement I’d have thought.

 

Interesting to know exactly WHO was party to these pre-emptive discussions on suspension, as it certainly wasn't the clubs involved. More Fecking Doncaster Bullshit. What an utter kent of a man. 

[David W]

53 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Is there any scope for making the lower divisions "two up, two down" and scrapping play-offs? Or will too many 3rd, 4th, 5th placed teams say that's unfair?

I'd suggest the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th placed sides wouldn't be too happy about it either.

[The Moonster]

Just now, David W said:

I'd suggest the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th placed sides wouldn't be too happy about it either.

Aye, I thought the same after I posted that, just trying to think of ways we can cut games out but still have a relatively "normal" outcome. I reckon we'll need to cut the Scottish Cup at least, possibly consider playing less league games too if we don't get started until March/later.

[Stag Nation]

5 hours ago, banditjag said:

It is far too simplistic a view that he is just an employee. He administrated the voting debacle at end of last season and lead the corrupt behaviour of his board who pressured certain clubs to vote in a desired way to suit the spfl. That is a corrupt practice and, just my opinion, worthy of independent scrutiny,

The "desired way" was the board's recommendation - there is nothing wrong with the board or management trying to persuade clubs to support it. However, "pressure" is a different matter. Do you have any evidence of that?

[craigkillie]

3 hours ago, haufdaft said:

Equally impractical, however, was to continue the 2019/20 Scottish cup into the current season with entirely different team squads.

It wasn't "equally impractical", was it? These games were able to be played without fuss in October and December of this year without disrupting the 2020/21 season in any way. Why do you think they couldn't hold the 2019/20 play-offs during the 2020/21 season?

[Stag Nation]

10 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

It wasn't "equally impractical", was it? These games were able to be played without fuss in October and December of this year without disrupting the 2020/21 season in any way. Why do you think they couldn't hold the 2019/20 play-offs during the 2020/21 season?

It doesn't really matter. The decisions wre made by two different organisations.

[craigkillie]

Just now, Stag Nation said:

It doesn't really matter. The decisions wre made by two different organisations.

It does matter given that he has made a ludicrous point about it being "equally impractical". And anyway, the SPFL also did something similar with the 2019/20 Challenge Cup final, albeit that still hasn't been played.

[jagsfan57]

“The discussions on the suspension of the game started last week, long before it became clear there was a positive case in Celtic’s camp. So this is not a reaction to the Celtic situation.” Neil Doncaster. Suggests that the potential for the leagues to be suspended could have been signposted prior to the announcement I’d have thought.

The discussions may have started but maybe the Celtic scenario tipped the balance?