Sportsound Watch

[Ranaldo Bairn]

9 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

'An in-play strategic heads up' you say.

Gonna ask the wife for one of those tonight.

[Sergeant Wilson]

16 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

 One club was given an in-play strategic heads-up by the governing body which quite clearly influenced their vote and may well have allowed them to seek inducement to do so.

Dundee? What did they get? The promise that reconstruction would be looked at. That was known before the vote.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Dundee? What did they get? The promise that reconstruction would be looked at. That was known before the vote.

We don't know.

I'd imagine whether Dundee got anything tangible would be covered by any proper investigation into the process.

It certainly doesn't seem unreasonable at this juncture to speculate that they might at least potentially have gained some kind of inducement to change their vote that we are not aware of.

The main thing is that the SPFL made public the ongoing status of the vote and openly gave casting-vote status to one member.

I think anybody can see that is shaky ground for any organisation, be it a local bowling club, a large corporation, or whatever. It's reasonable to investigate the circumstances of that.

[johnnydun]

Just now, JTS98 said:

That's what the investigation is for.

There's certainly very strong suspicion and circumstantial evidence that they did, as well as testimony that they did.

It's damaging to the governing body to not clear that up.

Ahhh so this is all hearsay and opinion then? That's me telt.

So you have no proof to call it unethical?

The very man who released a tear stained rant yesterday, was the same man who let the world know that it was Dundee who were yet to vote.

Gardiner is such a hypocrite, he can moan all he likes about negotiations taking place, when he was involved in negotiations with Dundee and Partick Thistle during the same vote, he posted the evidence of this himself.

 

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, johnnydun said:

Ahhh so this is all hearsay and opinion then? That's me telt.

So you have no proof to call it unethical?

The very man who released a tear stained rant yesterday, was the same man who let the world know that it was Dundee who were yet to vote.

Gardiner is such a hypocrite, he can moan all he likes about negotiations taking place, when he was involved in negotiations with Dundee and Partick Thistle during the same vote, he posted the evidence of this himself.

 

I think going public with the status of the vote before it is finished it an open and shut case of unethical behaviour, yes. There can be no justification for that happening and we should find out why it happened.

I find it remarkable that any observer can claim to not see the problem with that course of action.

We don't need evidence for that. The SPFL announced it in public.

Why?

[The DA]

4 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I think going public with the status of the vote before it is finished it an open and shut case of unethical behaviour, yes. There can be no justification for that happening and we should find out why it happened.

I find it remarkable that any observer can claim to not see the problem with that course of action.

We don't need evidence for that. The SPFL announced it in public.

Why?

Do we know whether this was to be a secret vote?  If there wasn't a pandemic, would the votes have been cast in the open and around the table?

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, The DA said:

Do we know whether this was to be a secret vote?  If there wasn't a pandemic, would the votes have been cast in the open and around the table?

If it was an open vote, then why would the SPFL's public statement not have told us that Dundee had not voted?

[The DA]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

If it was an open vote, then why would the SPFL's public statement not have told us that Dundee had not voted?

Because they knew the ICT chairman would do that job for them?

[Sparticus]

Doncaster already stated there was some mistakes made.At the end of the day the only goal was to get clubs votes in.That was achieved.

[invergowrie arab]

It's not a secret ballot FFS.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, The DA said:

Because they knew the ICT chairman would do that job for them?

Which makes the SPFL look like they have something to hide. They had no reason to do that.

Also, if the vote had taken place around a table in real-time, no club can disappear for a few days and go radio-silence while potentially negotiating in the knowledge that they have the casting vote.

It seems that is what happened here.

[johnnydun]

8 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I think going public with the status of the vote before it is finished it an open and shut case of unethical behaviour, yes. There can be no justification for that happening and we should find out why it happened.

I find it remarkable that any observer can claim to not see the problem with that course of action.

We don't need evidence for that. The SPFL announced it in public.

Why?

However it is ok for Hearts, Rangers and Livingston to come out publicly before they voted to say what way they intended to vote?

This was not a secret vote.

[DukDukGoose]

23 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Tbf Willie Miller has absolutely despised Saints since the 5-1 win away at Pittodrie.

He got roundly hounded for trying to claim Saints got lucky and Aberdeen were comfortably a better side.

Never heard his comments but that was a weird game of football. Easton rattling in a volley from 30 yards, another couple of crazy goals and we had the ball constantly across the Saints six yard box with Rooney nowhere to be seen.

[The DA]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

Which makes the SPFL look like they have something to hide. They had no reason to do that.

Also, if the vote had taken place around a table in real-time, no club can disappear for a few days and go radio-silence while potentially negotiating in the knowledge that they have the casting vote.

It seems that is what happened here.

I'm coming round to your way of thinking.  

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, johnnydun said:

However it is ok for Hearts, Rangers and Livingston to come out publicly before they voted to say what way they intended to vote?

This was not a secret vote.

It was also not an equal vote.

If this kind of behaviour had happened to a business you run, you would probably avoid dealing with the business that had behaved like this in the future.

I find it baffling that grown adults claim not to see the problem with the governing body knowing they are one vote short of passing their proposal and then publicly telling the last voter that they have the casting vote.

If you think that's ok, then that's up to you. We completely disagree.

[johnnydun]

3 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

 

Also, if the vote had taken place around a table in real-time, no club can disappear for a few days and go radio-silence while potentially negotiating in the knowledge that they have the casting vote.

It seems that is what happened here.

Yes they could, they would have still had 28 days.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Merkland Red said:

Never heard his comments but that was a weird game of football. Easton rattling in a volley from 30 yards, another couple of crazy goals and we had the ball constantly across the Saints six yard box with Rooney nowhere to be seen.

I haven't heard his comments either but I have absolutely no doubt that 'Willie Miller has absolutely despised Saints since the 5-1 win away at Pittodrie' is utter garbage.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, johnnydun said:

Yes they could, they would have still had 28 days.

The clubs would already have played their hand in public. We'd have known for sure who had voted how because it would have been done in front of other clubs.

You're not comparing like with like. i think you know that.

[johnnydun]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

The clubs would already have played their hand in public. We'd have known for sure who had voted how because it would have been done in front of other clubs.

You're not comparing like with like. i think you know that.

Clubs had already played their hands in public.

You were the one that brought the 'sitting round the table vote' into it so it is you that is not comparing like for like.

[Sparticus]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

The clubs would already have played their hand in public. We'd have known for sure who had voted how because it would have been done in front of other clubs.

You're not comparing like with like. i think you know that.

What do you think would have happened if the clubs voted no?