The DA

Now that Dundee have voted 'yes' (allegedly), all we have to look forward to are the court cases from Hearts, Thistle and The Rangers.

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/football/dundee-fc/1268401/dundee-fc-spfl-vote-yes-season/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

How exactly does he 'refute allegations of an anti-Rangers bias'? Would a simple 'I don't hate Rangers' statement be enough? Or would he have to prove that he can sing a couple of verses of The Sash while keeping time on his Lambeg drum?

Cause or effect?

I'd have had some respect for her if she'd said, 'I agree. We haven't needed them at our fingertips in the past but these figures are now required and I will move heaven and earth to get them published each day'. Then sent her civil servants off to collate them.

I read that in an Ian Hislop 'Scots' accent.

Rewarding them for not having the chance to pull themselves out of a 'poor start to the season' shirley.

They'd do that better by learning to play football properly.

Close

It won't get past the Premiership vote.

As did the mention of support packages for relegated teams.

I'm none the wiser.

I've got news for you bennett.

There will still be calls to finish this season and then truncate 2020-21.

Wonder what this will mean for European competitions. Scottish clubs usually get involved from mid-July.

According to the article, Dundee already knew this before they cast/did not cast (delete as appropriate) their vote.

And it looks like this was announced to the clubs last week. It's only news to us punters.

Or maybe you won't.

How does that investigation work though? Do Rangers expect the SPFL to engage a couple of QCs to look at the evidence? Why would they do that?

In bad taste to bring it up in this context though.

I wasn't aware either. A bit suspect of Dele to bring it up in this context - stinks a bit of what rangers do with Celtic.

Who do you expect to be on this independent tribunal and who do you think should pay for it? I can just see the other 41 teams agreeing to pay £20K without having seen Rangers' evidence.

I think Rangers should feel free to pay for an independent tribunal.

There are two different issues here and I think the SPFL board are being blamed for both whereas only the second issue is their fault. First, there's the fact that no solution is going to be fair to all parties. No matter how often they vote on it, they're unlikely to hit an agreed solution: those being promoted and those being relegated are going to have diametrically opposed views and needing 8 out of 10 or 9 out of 12 in each division is almost certainly going to be a serious stumbling block. This isn't the SPFL board's fault - that's the constitution and articles that all clubs agreed to. Second, there's the cock-up of last week's vote. I'm still not sure of the timeline but Dundee's 'we want to revoke the 'no' vote we sent earlier' email suggests that they did vote 'no'. It'll be a point of law whether a club are allowed to revoke a 'no' vote (but not a 'yes' vote) but I'm sure there's precedent that'll determine that one way or the other. Based on the legal excerpts we've seen on here, it looks like they are allowed to do so, in which case the proposal will lapse in 3 weeks' time. If Dundee are allowed to change their vote, then the SPFL have done nothing wrong. Mishandled it certainly but not wrong. If instead Dundee are not allowed to change a 'no' vote then the proposal has failed immediately and we need a new proposal. Unless Dundee change their vote to a 'yes', I can't see how we get out of this. ACAS maybe?