Ric

If it's any consolation I'm a posh twat who knows he is! So go on then, expand...

Not a problem, you were absolutely right to pick me up on it.

Well this is interesting, I'd always seen it written as lackie, yet it seems the correct spelling is lackey Perhaps a Scots thing? Seems like my overly smug correction from a few posts back is equally erroneous.

Thanks. I've green dotted you not necessarily to cement the verbal circle jerk but because you highlighted a grammatical mistake..

You'll be looking for the word lackie, and I'd also be interested to know just who these people were. Perhaps not the names, but the sorts of positions they hold as that would at least hint at the veracity of such claims. As Kirsty MacColl once sang, "There's a guy works down the chip shop swears he's Elvis". Doesn't mean he was though. Edit: btw, I know nothing of Alan Burrows, I just enjoy following the strands of any rumour.

Ok, I'll answer both your points in one if you don't mind. This is how I see it, someone like craigkille who clearly has a better understanding than I do on this sort of thing may correct me later. The SPFL governs the league. Teams need to be members to play in the league. SPFL is also conducting the vote. A vote whose outcome directly affects the teams. For the SPFL then to influence any club via lobbying (and that it is the key term in this) seems like a huge conflict of interest. Should they be allowed to advise? Sure. Should they be allowed to say "we'd like the vote to pass/fail"? Again, yes. Lobbying however is a different thing. In a political sense it's often seen as a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". Whether the SPFL have bullied clubs? Who knows, probably not but have they used their weight as the governing body to influence? Probably. The issue is, even if it's above board (and I am making no claim either way) the use of the term lobbying opens it up to accusations and we all know that Rangers will take any bait possible to have a go. As for the analogy of a union, it's simply not the same. The union may run a vote, they may influence or even lobby its members, but unions represent employees and no person is required to be part of a union to be an employee. FWIW I think unions do a good job, this is no dig at them.

That actually is my point, that you need to be a member of the SPFL in order to play games. It's a mutually inclusive argument, while the one put forward about a union making recommendations about an employer is not.

I don't think Budge should be used as the benchmark for anything tbh!

I take your point but I still feel that it opens itself up to the sorts of claims Rangers have/will make.

Sorry buddy, I've got Uni on the mind just now. The point is still the same. You don't need to be part of the union to be a worker.

That's slightly different. You are not obliged to be part of the student union in order to be a student.

Where are the rules set out? For me a body that is undertaking the vote should not be influencing it.

I think that's where the bullying claim will lie. For me? I'm not sure if it will show actual bullying, but even then the idea that the SPFL were not only conducting the vote but also "lobbying" is problematic. Advice? Sure.

After reading MacLennan's comments I think we can see where the "battle lines" will be drawn. Rangers' claim of bullying, while MacLennan saying they lobbied. For me, the use of the word lobby is concerning. They should be allowed to give advise, but that is a different matter. Whether that constitutes as bullying I have my doubts, but I feel (and we'll need to wait and see) that any amount of lobbying will be considered so by the Ibrox outfit.

The question I have is, say they play the final games behind closed doors, is Budge going to continue calling for league reconstruction if her team manage to sneak their way out of the relegation spot?

I find a lot of merit in that comment, and I apologise if I may have been missing some of the nuance to the point you are making. I'd say that is a two parter in many ways. One is the fact we can't plan for the future, and that I think is something we can all agree with. The second is whether we should aim for temporary rather than permanent (although, both terms are fraught with difficulty in regard to precise definition), and as a long term advocate of reconstruction I am happy to see it put into place purely because it's "one foot in the door" as it were. It's the latter bit that is of the most concern here. Some may say that is self interest, and sure that is justified as there is an element to that, but league reconstruction has a huge ripple effect and it's important we let the initial "splash" settle before adding more ripples. No, I don't think there is. I'd maybe say that not all solutions are equal. Which sounds a "Captain Obvious" comment, but it still needs to be said. This is quite telling because I think you are 100% spot on, but a solution should not be predicated solely on whether Hearts are pragmatic or not. Thank you for the clarification. I have many reasons to be quite annoyed at Hearts fans as my club is constantly castigated because of their failure. However I don't, football can be tribal and distinctly myopic, but even then I know the emotions involved so I get it. Most of their fans on here are decent posters, even those I've been happy to disagree with, and I really wouldn't wish this situation upon them. The difficulty I have is that claiming they were about to make some Lazarus like climb from the bottom of the league is just not backed up in the data we have seen up to the point of the league being suspended. Was it possible? Of course it was possible, was it plausible? No, not really. What I do have, in abundance it has to be said, is an absolute loathing in the two-faced attitude of Budge. I see no reason to give her the benefit of the doubt when it's clear she has acted in a manner that not only goes beyond her club but actively seems to be applying negatives to the very clubs that are above hers in the league. I noticed Scott, our guy, is on the League Reconstruction committee now - was that to replace Dempster or that a different committee I'm thinking of - so I feel at least our position will have some airing rather than relying on others to do so. Should Scott have more weight to his opinion because the issue clearly affects us? No, but it shouldn't be counted as less.

I don't think I've made a single assumption about you, none of this has been about you, it's been about the position you have taken on this. Why on Earth should you seek out my comments? Presumably because they are about this very topic and refute the claims you have made. Now, let's get past the personal, let's deal with the meat of the issue. On this we actually agree. However, could you tell me how a temporary reconstruction (say.. a season or two) benefits these club more than a permanent one. Temporary simply kicks the can down the road, leaving these clubs equally unsure what will happen once the league structure "returns to normal". This is where your "I'm supporting all clubs here" argument falls down. So go on then, what does it mean? Clearly if you use the term temporary it cannot be in place for anything longer than a season or two, and certainly Budge's comments would hint at that. So can you confirm if you see temporary in the same way as Budge?

Wrong. You would know this if you even took a second to read any of my comments on here. It's clear you haven't. Once again another massive jump into assumption. So once again a massive "swing and a miss, champ" as a well known box-office poster would put it. It is absolutely not a grand statement to suggest that those using this situation to benefit their club when all previous statements have made no reference to the subject (and in Budge's case, the opposite) is the de-facto definition of mealy mouthed. Going by your comments it seems you have scant experience of what it's like for a team to yo-yo between leagues, and honestly whether you believe it or not I'm glad you have enjoyed your team being successful. With that in mind it comes as no surprise you are happy to just gloss over that a temporary reconstruction poses issues for more clubs in the top division than it provides benefits. Maybe you could stop taking umbrage at my comments, I have already stated my arguments are "playing the ball rather than the man" yet your tone continues to be one where you think I am solely out to insult you. Edit: ...to be fair, I probably shouldn't have quoted you, instead quoted the person you quoted, as that may have come across as taking the opportunity to disagree with you.

Jesus f**k man, grow up.

Let's have a look at the positions Hearts have been in since their return: 6, 6, 5, 3. During that time not a peep about league reconstruction, in fact quite the opposite with Budge stating that the number of clubs in Scotland as a whole is too many. They have a large squad, they have a large stadium and gate revenues, they have all the benefits that a large club in Scotland brings. So you will forgive me for taking anything that somehow temporarily resolves their situation while fucking over every other club that may reside in the relegation places in proceeding years when the league is "returned to normal" with an extremely large dose of salt. Anyone supporting a temporary fix is not supporting Scottish football as a whole and to claim otherwise is some of the most mealy mouthed bullshit I've heard on this board.

Yes, I can guarantee you that, as unlike your club I've not seen any clamour for it to be saved from relegation. As for the rest of your comments, it's good that your disagree with me on most things because I think you are being massively naive. Now please don't take that as an insult, I am sure you are an intelligent and well intentioned individual.

You are making an assumption that I wish reconstruction to assist Hearts. I do not. I am, however, an advocate of a bigger league and always have been. If that reconstruction happens because of Hearts, then the "ends justifies the means" I suppose. What it absolutely should never be, is a temporary fix to stop Hearts being relegated then the "status-quo" is returned when Hearts are no longer in that position. That suits Hearts and Hearts alone, and is going to have a far bigger effect on my team. If St Mirren were bottom of the league, no reconstruction talks would be going on, I can guarantee you that.

I think the split position is mutable. if Hearts are in the top section then it'll be the same each season, if not Budge is demanding a temporary reconstruction of the split to fit whichever position they are in the league. If this involves an odd number of games then she's demanding on the days that Hearts are not playing they are allowed a "glamour friendly" in Dubai.

I thought it would be better emphasis than all caps.. I've got absolutely no issue with reconstruction, although a forced one because one club made a rip-roaring arse of things then whined like a child is probably the least justification I can find for it.