Baxter Parp Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Could've fooled me. I know, but there it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutty Old Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) Whatever the outcome of this fiasco, there must be resignations from those responsible for the threat that teams would be barred from promotion to SPL2. The scottish game is about EVERY team, not just the perceived giants. Turnbull Hutton is the ideal person to idemand an inquiry into the blackmail attempts by certain people. It is not acceptable to let this go once the dust settles. I am being careful to avoid names of those to be thrown out. A proper investigation should establish who the corrupt individuals are and they must be forced out. I hope the Raith Rovers Chairman is aware that the vast majority of fans of all clubs are 100% behind him. Sporting integrity has become a term to be scoffed at during this crisis. It seems that there is no such thing and some people prefer that sporting integrity should never be considered. Clear the decks, let's start again and let's create a real 'association' of clubs who stick rigidly to the rules of that association. That way we win or lose on our merits. That doesn't auger well for Ayr United but that's how it should be. If there are any clubs who think they should be above these principles and are not prepared to accept these conditions, refuse them entry. As for people like James Traynor, don't buy the comic that is the Daily Record. You know it makes sense not to. People like this imbecile must be hounded out. Edit to add: Turnbull Hutton, a man of real integrity. Edited July 3, 2012 by Cutty Old 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoMaSano Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Dandruff problem. I'm not actually sure why that particular advert sticks out in my head. I've just had a problem with the use of "Up To" in adverts for a long while, it doesn't surprize me that the SPL are using this kind of meaningless jargon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Saints Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Anyway it's a moot point r.e. Newco Rangers as it's happened. Clauses seem to exist, and Doncaster and Regan are either pretending they'll be enacted (call their bluff) or know they'll be enacted (up to SFL's clubs whether they give 2 hoots). Even Santa? Lol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabawsa_Ritchie Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) f OK but does that mean that they would grant them a license to play in the SFL? If so, on what basis? Surely the grounds for granting licenses are the same across all divisions? Although many of the licence conditions will be common across all football leagues (including junior and amateur), in Sevco's case there is the 'sins of the father' factor. In other words, the SFA will not grant the SPL a licence if they vote to let Sevco back in because of the misdeeds of the now-defunct Rangers FC , but would in all probability grant the SFL their licence if they allow Sevco in - but is the SFA view First Divsion or Third? Edited July 3, 2012 by Mabawsa_Ritchie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomDom Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) Get a grip SKY have a contract .. end of. If the SPL agreed to a clause they are entitled to enforce it. If the SPL are squirming because of it .. then it is not SKY's fault. You can't interfere with a business contract nor make them morally responsible for it. Have to agree with this. The SPL fucked up with this stuff and now they're getting shafted for it. One in a long list of reasons why it'd be amusing to see their whole setup go tits up and Neil Doncaster's head on a spike. Edited July 3, 2012 by DomDom 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Have to agree with this. The SPL fucked up with this stuff and now they're getting shafted for it. One in a long list of reasons why it'd be amusing to see their whole setup go tits up and Neil Doncaster's head on a spike. Fixed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 f Although many of the licence conditions will be common across all football leagues (including junior and amateur), in Sevco's case there is the 'sins of the father' factor. In other words, the SFA will not grant the SPL a licence if they vote to let Sevco back in because of the misdeeds of the now-defunct Rangers FC , but would in all probability grant the SFL their licence if they allow Sevco in - but is the SFA view First Divsion or Third? 'Sins of the father' - no licence for a re-branded Rangers, maybe a licence for a new club 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 It's like Bart Simpson saying he's sorry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomDom Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Aye well, that as well. Gonna edit my post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geedublu Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 The majority of Sevco supporters comments that I have seen, indicate that they want to be put in the 3rd Div. The majority of other clubs' supporters seem to think that this is, at least, the best place for them. Malcolm Murray, has today released a statement , apologising to all Scottish clubs and supporters for the current position that they are in, and accepting responsibility for the same. So why cant SFA/SPL/SFL not make the 3rd Div. happen, with the proviso that Sevco cover any shortfall in football revenue that occurs because of the Sevco situation. That way majority of the fans are happy, clubs have security for three years, and can plan accordingly, and Sevco are punished. Everybody's happy (?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) So so sorry... www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSHaCzb3yYk Edited July 3, 2012 by Guest 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Dogma Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I'd be surprised if sky were minded to pull the plug given all the newscorp kerfuffle...they would Just Looking bad again and an eighty million investment to them is just loose change ...they may well take the viewthat supporting the spl will be great publicity and maintain subscriptions here.companies like to be seen as good guys and the PR would be very welcome for a firm that shows the likes of the Irish leagues and wants to be seen as contributing more to sport than its competitors. I doubt the ratings for of games justified the original dealfrom a purely commercial viewpoint 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) Some people see the whole picture .. fucked as it is. Do you think it today's global financial market that renegotiating the same deal will be that simple? You'll find investors money in shorter supply ,.. So anyone with a different view is a creepy apologist c**t ... because you are the voice of reason I take it? Your "different view" consists of the idea that television money (or the prospect of less television money) should sanction the ability for an organisation in this country to blatantly, deliberately and repeatedly cheat for more than a decade and have absolutely no punishment served upon it whatsoever in order to deter it or any other club from repeating the cheating. I'd say 'c**t' sums you up pretty well, to be honest. Edited July 3, 2012 by Monster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Why? They signed a deal that says someone pays £ABC, for a product they regard as having a certain value... and that if that product alters significantly (through removal of something which contributes a large amount of the value) they can renegotiate or walk away. It doesn't say Rangers must be in SPL... it says TV doesn't have to pay £ABC for something whose value has reduced. Well yes and no. While I agree with the business contract side that if agreed to provide a certain criteria then that criteria cannot be provided then a suitable recourse should be acceptable. However, SPL clubs seemed happy enough to sign up to a deal that stipulated that there must be 4 OF games a season, and I believe the unsigned extension was to amend that simply to state that both OF clubs must be in the league, and as a result have locked themselves into a position where "sporting integrity" was possibly at stake. For example with the 4 OF games a season situation, should one of the OF were playing the 32nd game and needed to win in order for them to retain a top 6 position we could have the case where the club they were playing against would earn more my losing than winning in terms of the television deal and the amount that the league position would bring in. It's a contrived situation, but one that demonstrates the stupidity of tying any deal towards a set criteria based on a league that technically cannot guarantee that criteria. All this chat about clubs possibly going to the wall is hyperbole to the max (well perhaps Killie considering the amount of blue cock Johnston has sucked) but they have painted themselves entirely into a corner on this. I don't blame Sky for wishing to renegotiate but they should never have been allowed to be in this position where they could renegotiate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Whatever the outcome of this fiasco, there must be resignations from those responsible for the threat that teams would be barred from promotion to SPL2. The scottish game is about EVERY team, not just the perceived giants. Turnbull Hutton is the ideal person to idemand an inquiry into the blackmail attempts by certain people. It is not acceptable to let this go once the dust settles. I am being careful to avoid names of those to be thrown out. I believe a 'good guy' 'w**k' list is currently being drawn up on this thread. This could be used for starters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 The majority of Sevco supporters comments that I have seen, indicate that they want to be put in the 3rd Div. The majority of other clubs' supporters seem to think that this is, at least, the best place for them. Malcolm Murray, has today released a statement , apologising to all Scottish clubs and supporters for the current position that they are in, and accepting responsibility for the same. So why cant SFA/SPL/SFL not make the 3rd Div. happen, with the proviso that Sevco cover any shortfall in football revenue that occurs because of the Sevco situation. That way majority of the fans are happy, clubs have security for three years, and can plan accordingly, and Sevco are punished. Everybody's happy (?) SevCo are a new club. Why should they be in 3rd ? Why not Spartans ? Why not Cove ? Why not Gala ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monrovianmonk Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Law & Philosophy @mdksterChat with the delightful @alextomo interrupted - something's happening by the looks of it.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 They're in charge of Scottish football. (Sorry!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotWeissEssen Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Get a grip SKY have a contract .. end of. If the SPL agreed to a clause they are entitled to enforce it. If the SPL are squirming because of it .. then it is not SKY's fault. You can't interfere with a business contract nor make them morally responsible for it. The reason that the clause is in their is because Celtic and Old Rangers would not shut up about leaving the league. So well done Celtic your pish helps save Rangers again. Rangers talk about abandoning scottish football for years ,now they should play in SFL3 ,but they have to be in SF1 because of the clause that they themselves created. someone should have mentioned this article http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/sfl/2009/08/06/exclusive-livingston-deserved-to-be-relegated-to-division-three-blasts-airdrie-chairman-86908-21575189/ 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.