Conference League Good Guys List

[vikingTON]

24 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Many new members are being denied a vote purely to maintain a balance in favour of SPFL clubs, that's frankly corrupt, but it's the SFA here.  There were a number of resolutions tabled today which underlined & solidified that denial of voting rights.

The SFA are not interested in devising a fair, weighted system where every club (not the Pupils though as they are not SFA members) has a vote, and after being humiliated with the Conference proposal they're not exactly going to rush to restore voting rights for everyone.

I would be more inclined to expect that they will seek to remove "granfathered" rights from members below tier 5 eg. Hawick, Coldstream, Golspie etc.

 

I agree that the SFA's current hold on voting rights is an untenable farce. 

I just don't agree that one member club, one vote - 'nobody is more equal than others' rhetoric aside - is a sustainable setup to run the game either. 

Any attempt to retroactively remove voting rights wouldn't actually achieve much to further their most recent agenda item either. 

[Pyramid Watcher]

37 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Many new members are being denied a vote purely to maintain a balance in favour of SPFL clubs, that's frankly corrupt, but it's the SFA here.  There were a number of resolutions tabled today which underlined & solidified that denial of voting rights.

The SFA are not interested in devising a fair, weighted system where every club (not the Pupils though as they are not SFA members) has a vote, and after being humiliated with the Conference proposal they're not exactly going to rush to restore voting rights for everyone.

I would be more inclined to expect that they will seek to remove "granfathered" rights from members below tier 5 eg. Hawick, Coldstream, Golspie etc.

 

We’re any of the resolutions challenged by any member club today?

[craigkillie]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

One member club, one vote is a completely unworkable system with the pyramid opening up tbh. While every member should be entitled to a vote, I would give a +1 multiple added to the weight of votes from the higher tiers. So a bottom rung club gets 1 vote, a club in the league above gets 2 votes and so on 

Either that or there has to be a restriction on which measures can be voted on based on demonstrable impact - one that works both ways. 

I believe the old SFL (pre-SPL breakaway) had a voting system similar to the former, with a 3-2-1 weighting depending on whether you were in the Premier Division, 1st Division or 2nd Division.

Obviously the SPFL has a slight lean towards the latter where certain thresholds have to be met across each division, but even there, in theory a proposal to change some aspect of the Premiership (eg changing the prize money weighting within that league), and with the full support of all 12 Premiership clubs, could be voted down by clubs in Leagues 1 and 2.

Rightly or wrongly, the current voting system in both organisations has created something of an impasse. It now seems impossible to me that the SPFL will ever be able to pass any form of reconstruction which doesn't include the B teams, since in most cases this would require at least some form of change that could be vetoed by any two of the evil trio of Celtic, Rangers and Hearts.

[Burnieman]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

I agree that the SFA's current hold on voting rights is an untenable farce. 

I just don't agree that one member club, one vote - 'nobody is more equal than others' rhetoric aside - is a sustainable setup to run the game either. 

Any attempt to retroactively remove voting rights wouldn't actually achieve much to further their most recent agenda item either. 

You'll never get agreement on anything else.  Whilst the SPFL clubs want to hold balance of power, L1 & L2 clubs won't vote to reduce their influence either if Prem/Champ have more "weighting" than them.

The first step whilst there is still time, is for all non-SPFL members and other vote holders to table a proposal to restore voting rights for all members (they can win that vote), perhaps even along the lines of 1 vote per member post-2018, 2 votes per member pre-2018 or something as basic as that where all SPFL clubs are equal (or more accurately, all Professional Game Board clubs are equal).

Because sure a hell, the SFA will look at ways of reducing non-SPFL voting influence further in the wake of the Conference debacle.

[Burnieman]

1 hour ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Your usual standards here - the balance isn’t in favour of the SPFL clubs

My usual standards are usually fairly accurate.

In practice, tier 5 clubs (PGB clubs) generally vote with the SPFL.  Most (all?) voted with the SPFL to remove voting rights for new members in 2019 in the first place.

[Burnieman]

1 hour ago, Pyramid Watcher said:

We’re any of the resolutions challenged by any member club today?

No idea, not really heard or seen anything as yet.

[Clangers]

21 hours ago, Blue Brazil Forever said:

You really are a tit. Cowdenbeath voted no.

Hibs: old firm ass lickers.

There wasn’t a vote, only evidence we have is previous voting patterns 

[Cowden Cowboy]

19 minutes ago, Clangers said:

There wasn’t a vote, only evidence we have is previous voting patterns 

Well it would be a no on that evidence 

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Burnieman said:

Because sure a hell, the SFA will look at ways of reducing non-SPFL voting influence further in the wake of the Conference debacle.

Why would the SFA want to do this? The more that voting rights in the SFA becomes de facto SPFL clubs, the more irrelevant the SFA becomes as a body organising or (haha) 'proposing change for the sake of  improving' the game.

Either the SFA accomodates a much larger membership beyond 42 national league clubs or it serves absolutely no purpose.  Which it doesn't right now, but is hardly what its blazers actually want to underline. 

[Burnieman]

12 hours ago, virginton said:

Why would the SFA want to do this? The more that voting rights in the SFA becomes de facto SPFL clubs, the more irrelevant the SFA becomes as a body organising or (haha) 'proposing change for the sake of  improving' the game.

Either the SFA accomodates a much larger membership beyond 42 national league clubs or it serves absolutely no purpose.  Which it doesn't right now, but is hardly what its blazers actually want to underline. 

Why? you'd need to talk to them about it, but it has been discussed to the point of being considered as a proposal  ie full voting rights only if you reach tier 5 (and therefore come under the Professional Game Board).  It didn't happen, but the goings on the last few weeks could resuscitate if Maxwell wants a bit of revenge.

The SFA is literally the SPFL anyway, hence why the CEO of the SPFL sits on the SFA Board, and the Professional Game Board.

[Dev]

15 hours ago, virginton said:

1) Some members quite clearly are more equal than nonsense outfits like Broomhill who have slithered into the pyramid. 

2) There is a clear distinction in interests between football clubs that are run primarily as a business - a (supposedly) professional, commercial operation and those that are not. That's not to say the latter shouldn't have a voice - they absolutely should - but the idea that the voice of Campbeltown Pupils is just as relevant to decisions that might decide how millions of pounds of money is divvied up to a club in the professional ranks runs against reality. 

It is important to remember that the SFA is there to serve ALL clubs. It isn't just about the few who shout loudest.

[Dev]

15 hours ago, Burnieman said:

Many new members are being denied a vote purely to maintain a balance in favour of SPFL clubs, that's frankly corrupt, but it's the SFA here.  There were a number of resolutions tabled today which underlined & solidified that denial of voting rights.

The SFA are not interested in devising a fair, weighted system where every club (not the Pupils though as they are not SFA members) has a vote, and after being humiliated with the Conference proposal they're not exactly going to rush to restore voting rights for everyone.

I would be more inclined to expect that they will seek to remove "granfathered" rights from members below tier 5 eg. Hawick, Coldstream, Golspie etc.

 

It just need one more foul-up by the SFA for radical changes to happen and to be brought about by those clubs which already have a significant block of votes i.e. the majority of SPFL clubs who are unhappy about the sFA being run by a tiny minority of vested interests.

[craigkillie]

28 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

The SFA is literally the SPFL anyway, hence why the CEO of the SPFL sits on the SFA Board, and the Professional Game Board.

The SFA Board contains representatives from all levels of Scottish football. He's on the SFA board as the representative of the Professional Game Board.

You'd be as well saying "The SFA is literally the Scottish Amateur FA anyway, hence why the National Secretary of the SAFA sits on the SFA Board and the Non-Professional Game Board".

[Pyramid Watcher]

20 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The SFA Board contains representatives from all levels of Scottish football. He's on the SFA board as the representative of the Professional Game Board.

You'd be as well saying "The SFA is literally the Scottish Amateur FA anyway, hence why the National Secretary of the SAFA sits on the SFA Board and the Non-Professional Game Board".

As far as I am aware the board is made up of the following 

Doncaster - SPFL

Mulraney - SPFL

Gray - SPFL

Maxwell - CEO

McKeown - Ams

2 non exec directors 

not sure of other members.

 

[craigkillie]

Mulraney and Gray are associated with SPFL clubs, but they are not directly SPFL representatives. The president and vice-president roles have previously been assumed by people at non-league clubs too (eg Alan McRae of Cove Rangers in their Highland League days).

[Pyramid Watcher]

3 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Mulraney and Gray are associated with SPFL clubs, but they are not directly SPFL representatives. The president and vice-president roles have previously been assumed by people at non-league clubs too (eg Alan McRae of Cove Rangers in their Highland League days).

Yes, but do you think their leanings would be towards the SPFL?

[craigkillie]

9 minutes ago, Pyramid Watcher said:

Yes, but do you think their leanings would be towards the SPFL?

Possibly, but their roles are independent of what league their clubs play in, and they have to be elected into those roles by the full set of voting members. They're also only fixed time positions. I don't see how any of that would mean that the SFA is "literally the SPFL anyway".

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, Burnieman said:

Why? you'd need to talk to them about it, but it has been discussed to the point of being considered as a proposal  ie full voting rights only if you reach tier 5 (and therefore come under the Professional Game Board).  It didn't happen, but the goings on the last few weeks could resuscitate if Maxwell wants a bit of revenge.

How would that achieve 'revenge'? 

[Burnieman]

10 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The SFA Board contains representatives from all levels of Scottish football. He's on the SFA board as the representative of the Professional Game Board.

You'd be as well saying "The SFA is literally the Scottish Amateur FA anyway, hence why the National Secretary of the SAFA sits on the SFA Board and the Non-Professional Game Board".

BTW that opinion came from someone who used to sit on the PGB, and that was before the CEO of the SPFL was nominated to represent the PGB.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Burnieman

[Burnieman]

8 hours ago, virginton said:

How would that achieve 'revenge'? 

You underestimate how petty and vindictive the SFA can be.

For example, when it was pointed out on more than one occasion this season that the Scottish Cup Preliminary Round scorers were not included when it came to "Scottish Cup Top Scorers" - because a Dunipace striker would have been leading - their reaction was to try and change the designation of the Preliminary Round to a "Qualifying Round".

Thankfully that proposal never got as far as AGM.

This was after it was requested a year or so previously that they re-designate the Preliminary Round to the First Round instead, which would help clubs who enter at that round with regards to promotion of matches, sponsorships etc.  That fell on deaf ears.

So instead of going positively forward to help clubs, they instead looked to try and pretend these clubs weren't in the competition "proper".  The suspicion amongst officials involved was that they weren't happy at complaints re the top scorers. Petty as f**k if true.

I still don't think they included the Preliminary Round strikers in the stats.

As for achieving revenge, removing voting rights from more clubs as outlined would help to reduce the "non-league voting block".

Edited June 7, 2023 by Burnieman