Cowden Cowboy

As far as I can see online Article 60 is about Director disqualication whilst 62 is powers of directors. It states in essence the board can exercise all powers and carry out the objects of the SFA which are not by the articles or by statute expressly required to be done in a general meeting. Thus is there somewhere in articles something that states a new League can only be created by members vote at GM?

So SPFL sets up new conference league via the separate company already established. It then asks SFA to authorise it. The SFA Board does so - thus the League can be created by that means? Not every ‘blazer’ in this process is clueless re such matters. Many clubs have board members with a good deal of football governance and business knowledge and experience. Yes there are conference tricksters at work but there are shades of grey as there always is in complex situations. Expect the unexpected - after all in terms of the law and football authorities Rangers never ceased to be

Probably enjoyed Cowden’s title success

Easy to say when you are getting a championship level of SPFL fees - lower down it becomes more financially difficult

Will leave it to Footballfirst to explain

Correct -

This bit is nonsense - ‘ they can only invoke powers outwith the constraints of the AoA’. They are required to operate within the powers of the AoA. Not doing so can potentially have serious implications rather than just being not wise. And you say you are a layman re AoA - well not all of us are.

Be very specific as well

No interest in endlessly debating dogmatic straw clutching. Getting 51% in an SFA vote to create a new league as opposed to getting the SPFL to vote for something entirely different under their much more challenging voting structure is comparing apples and oranges

Not up to me to educate folks who talk about the articles but haven’t even looked at the simple list which shows article 18 is the one about creating leagues and associations.

Because they presumably expect/ed to win a vote and then could portray it as what the member clubs wanted. This isn’t really that difficult to grasp

The SFA Board has a good deal of power. The point is these articles potentially allowed the board to create a new league without a vote. It’s nothing to do with them ignoring a vote rather than there is a view that they didn’t need to even have a vote in the first place. Rather than prompt them to do that surely a better strategy was to encourage them to go down the vote route where if they lose it is much more politically difficult to go against the clearly expressed view of the membership. Of course that might not be the end of the matter

Ah the old get other folks to do all the donkey work approach. A guy on here sets out how such a league could be created under the articles. As far as I can see you unilaterally have then decided with no supporting rationale at all that the SFA Board itself can’t use the articles highlighted to bring in a new league - where does it say that requires a members vote? Be very specific as a poster on here loves to say. Or maybe acknowledge that there are other valid viewpoints as regards how best to handle this matter. Enough said though tonight.

But they maybe did read the articles rather than just pretending they understood them like some on here

Why do you say that when you and others clearly had no idea what the articles said in the first place? What is your actual basis for saying the Board can’t make such a decision without going to a vote? And isn’t it a better strategy therefore to seek to have it subject to a vote rather than just having an immediate confrontation where such a course of action might have just been implemented?

They likely have the capacity to create such a league without a vote - better to make sure there was a vote and let the debate stretch out and start to snowball opposition rather than just allow a dash for it. Doubt though they could have pulled matters together to create a league from scratch in an abbreviated time scale. But again smart folks don’t telegraph their strategies and also realise there can be many twists and turns. They also try and build alliances rather than criticise others who in essence are on the same side

I am afraid you are wrong they are a bit more clued in than that -but hey convince yourself you’ve got it all sussed and are the master of strategy.

Because these are insiders in the game who understand the politics, the regulations and try and use clever strategy rather than mouthing off publicly - and lots of folks are talking and working together below the radar. Meantime keep chuntering away as usual trying to create a commotion

Not even very but upgraded his catchphrase to extremely!

No I don’t have to do better or pander to you - people with real knowledge and understanding trump your ignorance and bluster. Fin.

Yes so go and read them carefully

You do realise there is a counter view held by some knowledgeable people that the SFA do have the power to create such a League? And that presumably it is though preferable for them if they can say a majority of clubs were in favour and voted for its creation

No I don’t

Doubt conflict of interest applies - league has no confirmed members as yet

AGM was last Monday