Guest JTS98 Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: Nah, you can't just give them powers to reconstruct the leagues and 'vote us out if you don't like it'. A reconstruction should only happen very rarely and for the right reasons/objectives. It's not a good look for the game to constantly be chopping and changing the format. I'd advocate them having more power to take decisions but there needs to be limitations. I wasn't really talking specifically about reconstruction, but about decision making in general. There's a fair argument that certain reserved issues would require more input from the clubs. But general running of the competition doesn't need to involve them. That said, we're seeing a lot of questions like "Why are they trying to link issue X to issue Y?" at the moment from clubs, fans, journalists etc. The reason seemingly unrelated issues are being linked together in proposals is that to garner enough support from enough clubs, proposals usually have to double up on issues. Everyone needs some kind of bribe in there. It grinds everything to a halt. The issue of colt teams, for example, is important. It's either right or wrong. Celtic's point of view and some lower league clubs' point of view may well be very different. In the current set-up, we don't decide on whether it's right or wrong. We decide by clubs trying to bung each other. The only way round that is to have an actual impartial governing body and remove the clubs from the process. Edited June 9, 2020 by JTS98 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 26 minutes ago, JTS98 said: I wasn't really talking specifically about reconstruction, but about decision making in general. There's a fair argument that certain reserved issues would require more input from the clubs. But general running of the competition doesn't need to involve them. That said, we're seeing a lot of questions like "Why are they trying to link issue X to issue Y?" at the moment from clubs, fans, journalists etc. The reason seemingly unrelated issues are being linked together in proposals is that to garner enough support from enough clubs, proposals usually have to double up on issues. Everyone needs some kind of bribe in there. It grinds everything to a halt. The issue of colt teams, for example, is important. It's either right or wrong. Celtic's point of view and some lower league clubs' point of view may well be very different. In the current set-up, we don't decide on whether it's right or wrong. We decide by clubs trying to bung each other. The only way round that is to have an actual impartial governing body and remove the clubs from the process. I agree to an extent. But what we really lack here is long/medium/short term goals for the SPFL as a whole. Everyone pulls in a different direction. Until we have that then you can't hand the reigns over to an executive board. The reconstruction debate is a classic example. What are we even trying to achieve here? There's so many competing objectives that you end up a load of proposals that will never pass. Do we just want to 'right the wrong' of Hearts relegation? If so, then there should be nothing permanent, because it's an awful way to start the conversation. Do we want a focus on the development of players for the national team? If so, then colts is just one option here, another is distributing young talent amongst the lower leagues. Another is enforcement of playing a certain number of youngsters. Is it to ensure as many games as possible mean something? Well then 12-10-10-10 is fine. Is it to appease Sky? Is it maximising investment? Is it a competitive league? Until we figure out what the f**k it is we're trying to do that all clubs buy into then we will fail at any half arsed proposal. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: I agree to an extent. But what we really lack here is long/medium/short term goals for the SPFL as a whole. Everyone pulls in a different direction. Until we have that then you can't hand the reigns over to an executive board. Until we figure out what the f**k it is we're trying to do that all clubs buy into then we will fail at any half arsed proposal. I think these are the key points and I'm in broad agreement. I've mentioned this before on the issue of summer or winter seasons and what our broad aims are for the clubs in our league. Are we interested in doing well in European competitions? If so, what changes are going to help? Likewise, there are conversations to be had about age-grouping players -Germany distributes a portion of its tv cash based on how much game time young players get, for example - and colt teams and indeed what the function of different levels of our game should be. What does the disparity between our full-time and part-time clubs mean for their different roles within the game? To what extent should club football exist to help the national team, if any? Should player development follow a national plan? Does the level of tv cash we get justify its influence on our game? Could we get more? Do we need more? I think these are issues best explored initially away from the immediate interest of clubs, but in consultation with them. The problem is that at the start of any long journey the destination seems far away. But without a proper appraisal of what Scottish football is, we're doomed to basically just limp on as we have been for the last couple of decades. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthBank Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 Clubs are first and foremost a business. Directors of a business have a legal duty to their shateholders. It is not their duty to help competitors. Clubs will only vote for a motion that helps them. Any proposals must show clear benefits to every single club otherwise it will be voted against. You cannot have a committee tell a business that it will lose income. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellaboz Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 I thought the club and the business were separate? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearthammer Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, NorthBank said: Clubs are first and foremost a business. Directors of a business have a legal duty to their shateholders. It is not their duty to help competitors. Clubs will only vote for a motion that helps them. Any proposals must show clear benefits to every single club otherwise it will be voted against. You cannot have a committee tell a business that it will lose income. From yesterday's podcast, i think both English and Levein placed their argument behind the "look at the money you wee teams will get/200 tickets/etc" rather than the blatantly obvious a) English has been a sevco sycophant through this and is doing his utmost to endear himself to el klan at every opportunity b) Levein wants Hearts to be saved - as he would have done if that Ann Budge hadn't been so hasty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 16 minutes ago, JTS98 said: I think these are the key points and I'm in broad agreement. I've mentioned this before on the issue of summer or winter seasons and what our broad aims are for the clubs in our league. Are we interested in doing well in European competitions? If so, what changes are going to help? Likewise, there are conversations to be had about age-grouping players -Germany distributes a portion of its tv cash based on how much game time young players get, for example - and colt teams and indeed what the function of different levels of our game should be. What does the disparity between our full-time and part-time clubs mean for their different roles within the game? To what extent should club football exist to help the national team, if any? Should player development follow a national plan? Does the level of tv cash we get justify its influence on our game? Could we get more? Do we need more? I think these are issues best explored initially away from the immediate interest of clubs, but in consultation with them. The problem is that at the start of any long journey the destination seems far away. But without a proper appraisal of what Scottish football is, we're doomed to basically just limp on as we have been for the last couple of decades. Agreed, I'm not sure if any sort of consensus on this is feasible though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthBank Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 I thought the club and the business were separate? Only Sevco tries to make that distinction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 3 minutes ago, Stellaboz said: I thought the club and the business were separate? They may be but as @NorthBankhas said, people like (say) Dempster at Hibs have a legal duty to their employer (the business) to do what is right by their business (part of which is the club, another part might be kids holiday camps, entertainment, whatever). They may decide that the best thing for the business is to take a smaller share of the prize pot, but in order to do so the business case must be compelling and not written on the back of a fag packet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellaboz Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 Just now, NorthBank said: 7 minutes ago, Stellaboz said: I thought the club and the business were separate? Only Sevco tries to make that distinction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 15 minutes ago, NorthBank said: Clubs are first and foremost a business. Directors of a business have a legal duty to their shateholders. It is not their duty to help competitors. Clubs will only vote for a motion that helps them. Any proposals must show clear benefits to every single club otherwise it will be voted against. You cannot have a committee tell a business that it will lose income. That's as may be, but by the same token clubs at different levels can take the decision that their interests don't match up with others. We're seeing this just now with the colts discussion. If Celtic and Rangers feel colt teams would benefit them, then they're just as right as the teams resisting it are. Instead of clubs holding out for bribes or indulging in damaging horse-trading, it's surely better for everyone to have some kind of clarity of vision? Put bluntly, if Celtic and Rangers decide that the smaller clubs are standing in the way of what they view as progress, why should they have to just tolerate that? Obviously, the same argument works in reverse as well, but that's exactly the point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthBank Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 20 minutes ago, JTS98 said: That's as may be, but by the same token clubs at different levels can take the decision that their interests don't match up with others. We're seeing this just now with the colts discussion. If Celtic and Rangers feel colt teams would benefit them, then they're just as right as the teams resisting it are. Instead of clubs holding out for bribes or indulging in damaging horse-trading, it's surely better for everyone to have some kind of clarity of vision? Put bluntly, if Celtic and Rangers decide that the smaller clubs are standing in the way of what they view as progress, why should they have to just tolerate that? Obviously, the same argument works in reverse as well, but that's exactly the point. There is a division of vision though. The OF are proposing what benefits them and others oppose it. If the OF do not want to tolerate the other Clubs views then they will have to find another League to play in. Why should the rest of the clubs tolerate the OF's vision? Every Club is rightfully looking after their own interest in a system that they have all agreed to. Change must be beneficial or at least acceptable to all. I do not blame any club for looking after themselves and their community. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthBank Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 33 minutes ago, Stellaboz said: I know. Was just emphasising the point in case anyone had just woken up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, NorthBank said: There is a division of vision though. The OF are proposing what benefits them and others oppose it. If the OF do not want to tolerate the other Clubs views then they will have to find another League to play in. Why should the rest of the clubs tolerate the OF's vision? Every Club is rightfully looking after their own interest in a system that they have all agreed to. Change must be beneficial or at least acceptable to all. I do not blame any club for looking after themselves and their community. I think the Old Firm's view on this would be quite straight-forward. They'd argue that they are the visible face of Scottish football, they represent the league in the Champions League and UEFA Cup, they provide players to the national team, they have more than 100,000 paying home supporters between them and away supports that provide finance for other clubs, they bring in the bulk of the tv deal cash. Their argument would very simply be that It's unreasonable for their interests to be held back by part-time clubs watched by a few hundred people. Whether they are right or not is a different argument, but their case is easy to see. I'd argue that's a power struggle the small clubs are unlikely to win and they'd perhaps be wise to take what's on the table for them now quite seriously as the Old Firm's next power move may not be done with such a friendly face. The smaller clubs saying no raises the possibility of another split, which I think is inevitable to be honest. Edited June 9, 2020 by JTS98 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthBank Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 14 minutes ago, JTS98 said: I think the Old Firm's view on this would be quite straight-forward. They'd argue that they are the visible face of Scottish football, they represent the league in the Champions League and UEFA Cup, they provide players to the national team, they have more than 100,000 paying home supporters between them and away supports that provide finance for other clubs, they bring in the bulk of the tv deal cash. Their argument would very simply be that It's unreasonable for their interests to be held back by part-time clubs watched by a few hundred people. Whether they are right or not is a different argument, but their case is easy to see. I'd argue that's a power struggle the small clubs are unlikely to win and they'd perhaps be wise to take what's on the table for them now quite seriously as the Old Firm's next power move may not be done with such a friendly face. The smaller clubs saying no raises the possibility of another split, which I think is inevitable to be honest. The OF are the biggest. However they need opposition or else they are nothing. And the cut that the teams in League 1 and 2 receive from the SPFL is relatively little. The other clubs do not exist to serve the interests of the OF. They exist to serve their communities. They rightly should not be bullied into something they do not want or is detrimental to their aims. Maybe there will be another split. Or the OF will go to any other League that offers them a place as they have indicated in the past. But in the meantime everyone agreed on a voting system so they are stuck with how a vote goes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyDD Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 One of the problems with Sportsound of late has been the regularity of the contributors. Granted, one hopes they try to get a wide range of people on and it could be that only the same voices agree to go on there, but even the lower league chairmen they get on tend to be the same ones over and over. Jim McInally is a decent listen but he's one of the very few lower league managers they ever have on. That's on top of the seemingly narrowing group of contributing pundits. This 'sameness', this sense of homogeneity, has been most keenly felt on this colts issue. Saturday in particular saw near unanimous agreement about the benefits of this latest example of old firm vampirism. In the larger context, though, we have a continued top flight lens through which every story is observed and digested. They can and should get some managers from the championship, league 1 and league 2 on there and give the likes of Neil Mccan a rest. It's getting to the stage where you know what he is going to say. He's not alone in this, but when the wider context of the game is getting discussed, you need to widen the lens accordingly. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearthammer Posted June 9, 2020 Share Posted June 9, 2020 Just started to listen to today's podcast. Kenny (***) McIntyre saying to Robbie Nielson that with Dundee Utd 14 points ahead, that they would have "comfortably" gone on to win the title. This cretin, plus others, have gone out on a limb over the past few weeks to say that the the rangers still had an outside chance of catching celtic and that the league shouldn't have been called, try to restart, etc. Strange how the embittered BBC sports guys have stretched all the options available to both deny celtic the title and to big up the the rangers' challenge. Only one EBT recipient on today. This must be a first. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted June 10, 2020 Share Posted June 10, 2020 (edited) On 09/06/2020 at 21:29, hearthammer said: Just started to listen to today's podcast. Kenny (***) McIntyre saying to Robbie Nielson that with Dundee Utd 14 points ahead, that they would have "comfortably" gone on to win the title. This cretin, plus others, have gone out on a limb over the past few weeks to say that the the rangers still had an outside chance of catching celtic and that the league shouldn't have been called, try to restart, etc. Strange how the embittered BBC sports guys have stretched all the options available to both deny celtic the title and to big up the the rangers' challenge. Only one EBT recipient on today. This must be a first. Yeah. They're not up to the task of dealing with anything beyond straight-up 'A good three points today, you must be happy with that' journalism. This whole pandemic issue and the unusual issues arising from it, like the Rangers 2012 issue before it, has badly exposed the intellectual poverty of football reporting in Scotland. They're just not up to the task. The level of interviewing even has been risible. Obvious questions not asked. Illogical and self-serving arguments allowed to stand unchallenged. Simplistic narratives presented as genuine alternatives to nuanced ones. They don't have the intellectual tools or the journalistic capability to deal with this. A media out of its depth. Edited June 10, 2020 by JTS98 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 Popcorn at the ready.1 hour to go. Got a feeling this is going to be a good one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmontheloknow Posted June 13, 2020 Share Posted June 13, 2020 "It's just proper wurds!" Neil McCann giving his verdict on the PTFC statement. And who keeps clearing their throat? 4 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.