coqofthenorth

Sometime a picture paints a 1,000 words. Should have included this with you nonsense rant Jim.

..... the 4 horsemen of the aclopalypse?

The re-drafted last slide from Newco's PowerPoint presentation has been leaked from today's meeting. Perhaps a little bit amateurish but good to see they've at least made some attempt at contrition.

OK, ok! Have one too! Hope I've not set a precident here. Just for the record, no more greenies will be issued today for RATM lyrics being quoted in this thread.

Greenie for getting a RATM quote on the thread.

I don't see it quite like that. I see today as another milestone but there's a long way to go and several other battles ahead if things are truly going to change for the better. A NO vote will help but it's what happens after that that counts.

The SPL rejected the transfer of the share from Oldco to Newco. Newco are currently 'leagueless".

Is he looking for a new job as a Middle East peace envoy now?

...bongo. Umbongo. They drink it in the Congo. I'll get me coat.

On Radio Shortbread this morning, John Yorkson offered Newco to SPL as a possibility when the SPL meet on Monday to decide who would be Club 12. So, no, definately not far fetched. He didn't support this option BTW and was very critical about the governing bodies. There are many twists and turns ahead. Today is not the end, just another milestone.

I don't know if that's how it works and could well be the case. Surely though, if the majority of member clubs are saying NO then the board should reflect their view? If the board is the one to make the decision and they say YES to Div 1, is there an option for the Chairmen to call for a vote of no confidence in the board?

nice one! Greenie for tying together MBA, Mike Batt and The Wombles. Nicely done.

Maybe this is how it'll work:

Audio interview with Peterhead Chairman Rodger Morrison on the club site: http://www.peterhead...ia/367-rm120712

Apologies of this has been covered before and I maybe did get a bit bored when P&B went offline but, following the SPL vote this week, was it reported what reasons the clubs gave for not accepting Sevco 5088's application? I don't remember seeing anything. This got me thinking about Sevco and Mr Green. I did a check online and Sevco 5088 is currently registered with only 1 director; Charles Alexander Green. He's also listed as the sole director of two other businessesRFC 0712 and Sevco Scotland. I found is strange that Mr Green has no other company history. If you look at Craig Whyte or David Murray's profile, there are many other businesses they've had a hand in. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about business matters than me can explain why that might be? On the face of it, it looks a bit odd. Some questions that occurred to me: Who is Charles Green working for? What was in his proposal to the SPL? Why did the SPL reject it? Do Sevco have an SFA license? If the SPL rejected Sevco's proposal, why should it beaccepted by the SFL? I'm sure the SPL clubs were made aware of the financial implications of not accepting Sevco into the league so did they just see through Doncaster's doomsday scenario? Too many questions!!!!! Lauchlan Cameron's comments in the Daily Record maybe answer some of these.

Exactly. If it were true that the SFA can impose a decision on the SFL, why can't they impose a decision on the SPL? This is a gamesmanship and, unfortunately, Stenny have bought it hook line and sinker. It's a similar scenario playing out as with the SPL vote, we're going to have a week of 'Armageddon' threats from those who want the status quo (queue a plethora of suitable song titles) and those who can see a better way for Scottish football.

http://www.stenhouse...2012/07/05/790/

Are you Bomber Brown?

Source?

As Stuart Cosgrove noted yesterday evening, Jim Traynor is 'institutionalised'. Yes, big word isn't it and, no doubt, Mr T will expect this sort of terminology to be beyond us semi-literate keyboard bashers! Do not be surprised by Mr Traynor's approach. He's only doing what all tabloid journalists do; sensationalise and use hyperbole to provoke a reaction. Job done in this case! Understand this; Mr T and his ilk are part of the 'old way'. They have been shown to be out of touch and increasingly irrelevant as technology allows information to be accessed and distributed more quickly. Instead of allowing your blood pressure to be unnecessarily increased, just don't buy the Daily Record; you're only continuing to feed the Beast (pun intended). Find other, more informed, online alternatives. On the plus side, the fact that Mr T is acknowledging the 'keyboard clickeratti' and is choosing to make us the subject of his journalistic 'banter' only proves that our voice is being heard.

If cockwombles were to unite, what would be the collective noun for a group of these creatures? Should it be 'a gobble'?

I assume this creates a vacancy then in the SPL. When will they decide who fills it? Here's a thought (evil, I admit), if the SPL invite Dundee/Dunfermline to join, should they decline on the grounds of sporting integrity?!

I'm having problems too. Looks like the Clyde website is busy.....

If 'financial Armageddon' means that Scottish football will not be able to continue in its present form, I'm fine with that. The current set-up is broken, disfunctional and in serious need of reform. Nobody can be sure about what's ahead but this is surely the right time for change.

Probably not explaining myself very well and certainly not advocating that anybody should sue anyone else. I'm no lawyer or contracts expert, I'm just trying to understand all the panic around the Sky deal. As I understand it, the SPL is a private company. If a business enters into a contract with another business then it is bound by the terms of that contract. If the SPL Ltd as represented by Doncaster et al have contractual obligations then failure to deliver would technically be a breach. It's just business as somebody has taken great delight in stating already. Or is the Sky issue, really not that big an issue and there's some 'wriggle room' to re-negotiate given the current predicament? Do the clauses about the requirement for 4 OF games even exist?