Ivo den Bieman Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Why, out of interest? ...because of Ragers lose this it has been made clear that only those clubs voting YES will be invited to join SPL2, whilst the others voting NO will be cut adrift. self-evidently you can't have an SPL2 consisting of Sevco, Dumbarton and Stenhousemuir. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Stramash Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) I know what you mean. I'm going back to inverness next season, but something still bugs me. I really hope that the spl clubs were unaware the buns were going to get entered back into div 1. If it turns out they were then I'm done. Not happy about the div 1 thing. Just as long as it's made clear that it's a new club. And everyone knows it. I don't see how any new team can be admitted to any SFL league - apart from the ones already waiting for entry to SFL 3. Whatever it is Charles Green is knitting together, it doesn't look like a football club, yet. No one knows who owns what. Fit and proper person test? The deal might even be reversed by the liquidators since it looks as though Duff & Phelps have not acted in the creditors' best interests. The Green company has no financial history either (3 years of accounts seems to be the requirement). And there are multi court cases surrounding Craig Whyte, TicketUs, and who knows what. To give priority to Green the SFA would have to bypass its own rules and better judgement. Even if Green's team is forced in, there's no certainty there won't be another administration & liquidation. None of it makes sense. The vote makes no sense. On paper it looks as though any new club from Glasgow is a complete non-starter. Edited July 9, 2012 by Danish Pastry 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Just for the sake of anyone who wasn't aware, the SFL vote on Friday may have three clauses, but it's only one vote. Clubs will not be asked to consider each part in isolation. So they either vote to let Sevco in, let Leishman, Regan and Co install them in SFL1, and allow Dun* to join the SPL, or they do none of these things. This is why the vote is fixed, and why the only moral option is to vote no and call the SFA's bluff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I'd like to be a conspiracy theorist and / or naiive arsehole for a minute. Stuart Cosgrove, talking about the worth of TV deals throughout Europe on OTB on Saturday, referred to Doncaster as having been responsible for selling Scottish football short by signing up to the worst contract in Europe when he concluded the last Sky deal. Oh, how I would love, just love, if information came to light which proved that ND had taken a wee sweetener / envelope from Sky to make sure the SPL clubs agreed to their chickenfeed deal. Anyhoo, just a wee headwank on my part......................... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramour Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 1341832908[/url]' post='6412333']Despite the best efforts of Kenny Clark by allowing Du Wei to stay on the park and disallowing two (arguably three) perfectly good goals - we actually won that match 2-1 I mind that game well. A Sunday lunchtime kickoff, with Roy Keane making his debut for a Celtic side expected to sweep aside The Bully Wee who, if memory serves, had created a full side from scratch at the start of the season out of triallists and juniors. Celtic were a complete rabble (Du Wei and Mr Keane himself being two of the worst offenders), and Clyde should have been four up at half time. I was also of the mind that funny business was afoot, and I'm not even a Clyde fan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Im not questioning your reasoning - I agree with you in general - but the TUPEing over of staff doesnt necessarily mean they need to continue to pay them. They could be made redundant if not required. Obviously, that doesnt apply to the players. My guess, although how it would be achieved Im not sure, would be that if Rangers finish high enough in the first the play offs would be extended to accomodate them. If they finish too low or dont go through the play offs then SPL 2 comes along again. Not only that, but by stating, so categorically, that Rangers cant be out of the SPL for more than one season, are the SFA not already pre-judging their own tribunal panel, who are still to come back on the disrepute charge and any future hearings on dual contracts? Nah, any staff not required would have been part of that swathe of redundancies when H&D started swing the administrative axe. Oh, no, I dreamt that happened in a universe where THINGS WERE DONE IN AN HONEST FASHION AND NOT AS PART OF A SCAM TO LET THE THIEVING b*****dS DROP ALL THEIR DEBTS AND CARRY ON AS FUCKING NORMAL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 This "superior fan" attitude is something that I have always hated. You're not a fan if you don't sing, you're only a fan if you go to every single game, fans who sit in one stand are better than those in another. And now you're not a real fan if you are against the rules being bypassed to allow a team that has systematically cheated an easy route back to their previous ill-gotten rewards. I don't think that's the case although it's certainly the case that you can't be a die-hard or be 'loyal' (remove any Ranjurs connotations if you can) if you're not at every one. Some people are happy to go to every game and let that dictate their lives for them but I prefer to mix it up a bit more. I probably go to half the games (both home and away, possibly more away than home ) and spend the second weekend heading away somewhere, usually either caving up NW Scotland or Yorkshire or hillwalking somewhere out west, both of which are pretty tricky to cram into a Sunday. You know the guy at the start of sportscene who dances about the hills checking the scores on his mobile? That'll be me a lot of the time! Used to be the case that the perfect weekend would be a game on the Saturday and a walk somewhere relatively local on the Sunday but you soon run out of options before the same thing just becomes a bit boring. Some Brechin fans probably think that they're more of a fan than me but would they still go if they were in the same shoes as me? I've got an extra four hours travelling each match day, the extra £20 to get to Brechin in the first place (the same as their transport and match entry) while they can roll out of bed at 10:15 for an away day. Some who go to most games would, others wouldn't. Doesn't mean that matches mean more to them than me though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 http://www.bris.ac.uk/alumni/featured/sports/doncaster.html He will have supplied the description. Neil is focused on improving the league 1. for the benefit of Scotland’s premier 12 clubs, 2. increasing attendances across the league and 3. creating commercial partnerships that will drive more money into Scottish football. And his pay/bonus will be based on these. And of course with Rangers/Sevco going from the SPL even for one year, he believes these personal targets will be hit. So we are reorganising Scottish football not for the good of the game but on the basis of what pays Doncaster best. Cheers legend, So basically integrity isn't in his book, he's looking for the best available financial solution for his cartel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 In which I look at the SFL notice of meeting and discuss, in this part, whether the SFL has been correct in, allegedly, telling Dundee that it cannot vote at Friday's meeting. I suggest that of all the SFL members, Dundee appear to have the least "conflict", on the basis that they are to be promoted. In that case why did the SFL tell Dundee it could not vote? http://scotslawthoug...-sevco-rangers/ Under SFL rules, Dundee had to vote unless there were exceptional circumstances. They requested permission to abstain since there was a conflict of interest. The SFL confirmed this conflict of interest and asked them not to vote, which was what they wanted anyway. Dundee statement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 This reply is more to the Supras post you quoted, which I missed earlier... What is a "real fan"? Had DUFC deliberately acted against the wishes of the support by shoehorning Whateveryouwanttocallthem FC back into the SPL, what reason would there have been for me to give them any more of my hard earned cash when they clearly don't give a f*ck about my opinion? The situation is the same now - if DUFC have been actively involved in the SPL's attempts to pressure the SFL clubs into pushing them into division one, despite the obvious precedents and guidelines that are in place, then why should I continue to support a team that clearly has no regard for the rules, and no desire to be anything other than a dog living off the scraps from the OF table? This "superior fan" attitude is something that I have always hated. You're not a fan if you don't sing, you're only a fan if you go to every single game, fans who sit in one stand are better than those in another. And now you're not a real fan if you are against the rules being bypassed to allow a team that has systematically cheated an easy route back to their previous ill-gotten rewards. Well in that case, I'm glad I'm not a "real fan". Firstly, anyone who has been a member of P&B for more than 5 minutes knows the Supras character is a twat. More importantly, this is a defining moment in Scottish football, a moment that has maybe been long in the making. If supporters moan and complain then ultimately roll over they will have achieved only one thing - a guarantee that in the season to come the clubs and the footballing authorities piss all over them. What has been acheived so far is significant, too much to throw it away IMO. Had there been no serious resistance I am certain newco would have been accepted into the SPL. Fans have forced this change as a result of threatening to withold financial support, it's the only sanction that fans have. Like you I will have nothing more to do with United if they have been a party to gerrymandering that lets newco into Division 1. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Firstly, anyone who has been a member of P&B for more than 5 minutes knows the Supras character is a twat. More importantly, this is a defining moment in Scottish football, a moment that has maybe been long in the making. If supporters moan and complain then ultimately roll over they will have achieved only one thing - a guarantee that in the season to come the clubs and the footballing authorities piss all over them. What has been acheived so far is significant, too much to throw it away IMO. Had there been no serious resistance I am certain newco would have been accepted into the SPL. Fans have forced this change as a result of threatening to withold financial support, it's the only sanction that fans have. Like you I will have nothing more to do with United if they have been a party to gerrymandering that lets newco into Division 1. Well aware - but couldn't resist the opperchancity to have a go at the "superior fan" attitude. It has annoyed me for a long time! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 This is what I was thinking of. Whether or not Green has the money, paying redundancy packages to back office staff is likely to be cheaper than keeping them Yes, all of those things and more Ive never heard of any time limit on redundancies after TUPE and I cant find anything online. As far as I know, all TUPE means is that all of your rights, salary etc and employment service transfer over. If you are then made redundant and the new company pays you whatever redundancy payments you are due then I dont think TUPE prevents this If you ask Prison Officers at Birmingham who had to transfer over to the private sector when they were TUPE'd - your T&Cs are protected for ONE YEAR, and then you're on whatever contract the new employer sees fit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 ...because of Ragers lose this it has been made clear that only those clubs voting YES will be invited to join SPL2, whilst the others voting NO will be cut adrift. self-evidently you can't have an SPL2 consisting of Sevco, Dumbarton and Stenhousemuir. Has it? Where was this said? Just for the sake of anyone who wasn't aware, the SFL vote on Friday may have three clauses, but it's only one vote. Clubs will not be asked to consider each part in isolation. So they either vote to let Sevco in, let Leishman, Regan and Co install them in SFL1, and allow Dun* to join the SPL, or they do none of these things. This is why the vote is fixed, and why the only moral option is to vote no and call the SFA's bluff. Ah, that makes sense. It also makes the whole thing stink even worse Nah, any staff not required would have been part of that swathe of redundancies when H&D started swing the administrative axe. Oh, no, I dreamt that happened in a universe where THINGS WERE DONE IN AN HONEST FASHION AND NOT AS PART OF A SCAM TO LET THE THIEVING b*****dS DROP ALL THEIR DEBTS AND CARRY ON AS FUCKING NORMAL. Remember, though, Green is playing with his own/his backers money 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 If you ask Prison Officers at Birmingham who had to transfer over to the private sector when they were TUPE'd - your T&Cs are protected for ONE YEAR, and then you're on whatever contract the new employer sees fit. Yeah, but that could have been part of the agreement to take on the contract or it could have been stipulated in their existing contracts of employment. Theres no legal requirement to maintain an employee, or there T&Cs, for a set period of time under TUPE, other than what is in the contracts. If someone has a source that says it does, Im happy to be proven wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monrovianmonk Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Jane Lewis @JaneLewisSport#Fifa have no concerns over latest developments re. #RangersNewco. Preference is always to leave with National Association, so#sfa. Rephrase, FIFA don't give a rats arse about Scotland 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Taken from the Paul McConville Blog - this may answer some of the questions about the SFL clubs being steamrollered. All it needs is one or more clubs to propose an amendment in writing to the second part of the resolution to be put to the meeting on Friday. Rule 58 deals with Amendments to Resolutions:- “58.1 A resolution to be proposed at a general meeting may be amended by a resolution if: 58.1.1 written notice of the proposed amendment is given to the Chief Executive by a person entitled to vote at the general meeting at which it is to be proposed not less than 48 hours before the meeting is to take place; and 58.1.2 the proposed amendment does not, in the reasonable opinion of the Chairman of the meeting, materially alter the scope of the resolution. 58.2 If the Chairman of the meeting acting in good faith wrongly decides that an amendment to a resolution is out of order, the Chairman’s error does not invalidate the vote on that resolution. 58.3 An amendment to a resolution shall be put to the meeting first and if carried, the meeting shall then vote on the resolution as so amended.” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Jane Lewis @JaneLewisSport #Fifa have no concerns over latest developments re. #RangersNewco. Preference is always to leave with National Association, so#sfa. Rephrase, FIFA don't give a rats arse about Scotland Or FIFA don't want to be accused of calling the kettle black on corruption... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veteran Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I don't think that's the case although it's certainly the case that you can't be a die-hard or be 'loyal' (remove any Ranjurs connotations if you can) if you're not at every one. Some people are happy to go to every game and let that dictate their lives for them but I prefer to mix it up a bit more. I probably go to half the games (both home and away, possibly more away than home ) and spend the second weekend heading away somewhere, usually either caving up NW Scotland or Yorkshire or hillwalking somewhere out west, both of which are pretty tricky to cram into a Sunday. You know the guy at the start of sportscene who dances about the hills checking the scores on his mobile? That'll be me a lot of the time! Used to be the case that the perfect weekend would be a game on the Saturday and a walk somewhere relatively local on the Sunday but you soon run out of options before the same thing just becomes a bit boring. Some Brechin fans probably think that they're more of a fan than me but would they still go if they were in the same shoes as me? I've got an extra four hours travelling each match day, the extra £20 to get to Brechin in the first place (the same as their transport and match entry) while they can roll out of bed at 10:15 for an away day. Some who go to most games would, others wouldn't. Doesn't mean that matches mean more to them than me though. I suspect for many clubs , especially SFL clubs , the problem is not predicting the number of 'my club right or wrong' and 'I'll never go there again' fans. These are probably minority extremes. The majority of fans I suspect will become more disillusioned at the open corruption flaunted day after day and will become floaters. On a good day with nothing better to do they'll go to a game. On a cold dreich day , they'll find something better to do. SFL clubs have to decide by Friday what poses the greater risk : a possible sharp short term drop in income or a certain long term drop in income when large numbers of fans become less committed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veteran Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Has it? Where was this said? Ah, that makes sense. It also makes the whole thing stink even worse Remember, though, Green is playing with his own/his backers money Could Stenhousemuir and Dumbarton afford to be sued for consequential to every SFL club if they left without 2 years notice. Could be two wee newco's in the making. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Jane Lewis @JaneLewisSport#Fifa have no concerns over latest developments re. #RangersNewco. Preference is always to leave with National Association, so#sfa. Rephrase, FIFA don't give a rats arse about Scotland F*ck what FIFA say. What are UEFA saying ? 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.