cuyahoga Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 All these r e m songs and not one E-bt the (side) letter? Or ignoranceland? Shocking Quality! What album's Shocking from? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoapMactavish Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 My uncle is a director of Alloa, im phoning him tonight and telling him to get newco telt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Given that Cosgrove has stated that this forum ( along with our non Newco counterparts) contains wide and specialised knowledge of all things football, does anyone know of any SFL rule which would allow them to veto a constitutional vote held by the 30 SFL members. I thought that their remit began and ended with their licensing of member clubs. It must be fanciful in the extreme to think that they could even be involved in the setting up of an SPL2 which has absolutely nothing to do with them. Someone really has to take Regan to task for this stuff, it`s as bad as the rioting in the streets nonsense. they can overrule anything they want its their ball 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 The SFL season starts in about four weeks. The SFL vote is over a week away. For anyone who thinks that in the event of the SFL not allowing newco into Division 1, there will be an SPL 2 in place in time for next season I have the following advice: Get your head out of your arse. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Queen of the south to issue statement in tomorrows standard. Apparently Mr Hewitson isn't overly happy, with the SFA/SPL/SFL over the threats being made Please QOS, vote no Justice for the 41 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 they can overrule anything they want its their ball Who are they? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Who are they? the SFA board The knights who say NI Edited July 5, 2012 by itzdrk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 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. The SFL chairmen are far from stupid and any threats of armageddon or hells fire raining down on them if newco aren't pushed into SFL1 simply won't wash with them. If they get offered a big enough bribe to let sevco in the first then they'll be there but until that point it'll be a resounding no, it's just a matter of how much people want sevco in the 1st. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 the SFA board Who is the SFA board elected by/accountable to? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Who are they? See the following statement from Stewart Regan for details: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 Who is the SFA board elected by/accountable to? i have no idea atall but according to longmuir in the video i posted up earlier from stv they can overturn or push through what they want 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 The SFL season starts in about four weeks. The SFL vote is over a week away. For anyone who thinks that in the event of the SFL not allowing newco into Division 1, there will be an SPL 2 in place in time for next season I have the following advice: Get your head out of your arse. pre-fucking-cisely. It's an empty threat. Several clubs have come out post interview and said no, several said no before hand too. Rangers will be in division 3 next season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 If the SFL starts in 4 weeks time cant we just delay the announcement till................ i dunno About 3 & half weeks time? Let's see the c***s cobble together a team in 3-4 days. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 This £15.7m .... does that take into account the £2m that the SPL have decided they won't bother paying the SFL clubs ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) i have no idea atall but according to longmuir in the video i posted up earlier from stv they can overturn or push through what they want Your obviously more willing than I am to buy into the bullshit. Firstly, I'm not sure they have the powers. Secondly, I would imagine even if they have the powers these could be subject to challenge on an appeal to UEFA. Thirdly, whilst I don't know the procedures I'm fairly sure the SFA board is elected by (and therefore, you would imagine, accountable to) the Scottish football clubs. Fourthly, would any club dictated to by a body whose representatives they elected br willing to be dictated to by that body? Fifth lay, even if they had the power and the inclination they simply would not have the time. It is a threat and we, and I mean we as the people who are vital to Scottish football, need to be challenging this nonsense rather than acquiescing. Edited July 5, 2012 by Granny Danger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 The SFL really should be consulting lawyers now about how to get their £2m. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nkomo-A-Gogo Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 This £15.7m .... does that take into account the £2m that the SPL have decided they won't bother paying the SFL clubs ? Do they have a get-out clause which allows them to renege on paying this? "We're skint" isnt good enough, pay up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewing up a storm Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Stenny can f**k off. My son is a Stenny fan so the fact there are no forseeable trips to Ochilview if they vote yes is a complete pisser. The fact their chairman has the ability, which is sadly lacking in Scottish football, to string together more than two relatively articulate and correctly punctuated sentences (or perhaps their secretary is just very competent) should not detract from the craven nature of their statement. Firstly, their statement takes no account of the financial impact of any supporter boycott, probably relatively minimal though unfortunately, or the additional financial advantage they could have from Rangers visiting twice in 2013/14 both in increased crowds and sponsorship opportunities. Admittedly, it would be relatively shortsighted to assume 100% that this would happen (as Stenny could be relegated to Div 3 the same season Rangers got promoted) but could have been taken into account. Secondly, and miles more importantly, the talk of needing to look after Stenny's interests and not "punishing" Rangers is complete rubbish. Even ignoring the point about "punishing" Rangers (which has been made many times) effectively they are making clear that they believe in enforcing rules and precedents or not solely on the basis that it leads to benefit for their squalid entity. Thirdly, Stenny talk repeatedly about the financial difficulties they will be under and I believe these are probably relatively accurate (although the initial point in this point still stands). However, their argument is effectively a) we will be in trouble for year one, b) they will need to make severe cuts to manage in the short-term. I recognise this is a difficult situation but there are other teams who would be in even more trouble who have not cravenly backed down in this way. Nowhere at all in this statement does it say the club will be in severe danger of administration if Rangers go into Division Three, something I'm sure they'd have made clear if it was the case, merely that things will be tough for them for a while. Their statement that Rangers being in Division Three means that "Dependent on the success of hiring the pitch we would potentially reduce the playing budget in year 2" even suggests that they might only "potentially" (not even "probably") have to make savings to the playing budget! Fourthly, not a single mention whatsoever about the view of Stenny supporters. They mention that they had been contacted frequently for their views but do not state at all that (unless I'm completely wrong) the majority of Stenny fans would be against this. Not one mention whatsoever - instead mealy mouthed words about the board being asked their opinion. This statement manages to be very honest (supposedly) about the financial situation but not a single word about the supporters they should be listening to. Shocking. Sixth, it has been known for a long time that Rangers going into Division Three was an option - Stenny were willingly signing players at the start of last month so if they ended up lumbered with unpayable wages through Rangers going into Division Three it is partly their own fault. Trying to be fair, they'd be completely hamstringing themselves if they didn't sign anyone at all as it would make them relegation favourites but a) no mention of this in the statement about their wage bill and b) other clubs who have signed players have still come out with strong "no" statements. Seventh, there is not a huge amount of clarity around what exactly they are asking for in terms of a "stronger and more equitable league structure". However, given that their entire statement reeks of "we have no option financially but to allow this" they've effectively reduced any leverage they might have. Points 8-139 deleted in the interests of retaining some semblance of brevity Again, trying to be fair to Stenny, it is in many ways a relatively honest and articulate statement, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting. At least a few typos and grammatical errors would have added some humour... Edited to state that I was so pissed off I left out point number 5. Rest assured that it was damn good though... Edited July 5, 2012 by Brewing up a storm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 The SFL really should be consulting lawyers now about how to get their £2m. From what has been said about the agreement they don't need to consult lawyers, it is an empty threat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gastropod Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 that bomber idiot said on radio clyde last night that he had the SFL meeting papers at hand and it was adone deal..he also said that came with heavy sanctions on newco and green was a tit to accept it.. then again it was bomber propaganda,, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.