Dons_1988 Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: He may not have an issue but that doesn't mean he is right. It was an act of crassness at the very least. Maybe even corruption if, in fact, the SPFL had only received 8 votes from Premiership teams at that point. Part of the remit of the inquiry would be to timeline when votes were received and verify if Doncaster had actually received 9 votes in favour prior to that call. Had it been an actual show of hands then Cormack would have been able to verify if Doncaster was right. It wasn't so he couldn't and this is why Doncaster's action is either crass or misleading. Definitely worth investigating, along with everything else. There's been absolutely no suggestion that Doncaster was misleading Cormack, so exactly what underhanded thing was he trying to achieve by communicating that the resolution was passed as far as the Premiership was concerned? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 There's been absolutely no suggestion that Doncaster was misleading Cormack, so exactly what underhanded thing was he trying to achieve by communicating that the resolution was passed as far as the Premiership was concerned?For once Doncaster was doing his job and lobbying for a resolution that benefited most teams.That's what he's supposed to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 6 minutes ago, coprolite said: Ok so it might have been misleading. Maybe. Is an independent investigation really required to ring round the other clubs and check if they'd all voted by 2 minutes to 5? Especially given there is no reason to suspect they hadn't, and no reason to think this information would cause cormack to vote in a particular way. Back to the bit where you said it had been established that clubs had been misled about funds. That sounded interesting. Any more on that? Dave Cormack says, 'Aberdeen were going to vote against the proposition but, when we heard that it would have been a wasted vote since the target had already been met, we changed to 'yes'. Don't want to be seen as not being one of the good guys.'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 4 minutes ago, Romeo said: For once Doncaster was doing his job and lobbying for a resolution that benefited most teams. That's what he's supposed to do. Quite. From the SPFL's Articles, the 'Powers of the Board' extend to Quote 103.9. in relation to the operation of the League, the League Cup and any other Competition operated by the Company, be entitled to make such arrangements, adopt such procedures and make such determinations as it considers appropriate in circumstances where the Rules or Regulations, as 32 the case may be, do not direct or provide for the manner in which the League, League Cup or other Competition operated by the Company should proceed or be operated; It's not even clear to me from the above that they needed to call a vote. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 1 minute ago, The DA said: Dave Cormack says, 'Aberdeen were going to vote against the proposition but, when we heard that it would have been a wasted vote since the target had already been met, we changed to 'yes'. Don't want to be seen as not being one of the good guys.'. I appreciate that it did influence how he voted. Do you think that Doncaster would have been able to predict that? Maybe he hides his machiavellian streak well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted April 29, 2020 Author Share Posted April 29, 2020 3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: There's been absolutely no suggestion that Doncaster was misleading Cormack, so exactly what underhanded thing was he trying to achieve by communicating that the resolution was passed as far as the Premiership was concerned? We need the timeline verified. The ballot was a blind one for the participants so should have been treated as such until all the votes had been cast. This 'Cormack asked for a call' nonsense is a red herring. Doncaster had no place lobbying clubs during the course of the ballot unless, of course, he is only Chief Exec of the Yes voters. Mind you, he may well be... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 1 minute ago, The DA said: Quite. From the SPFL's Articles, the 'Powers of the Board' extend to 103.9. in relation to the operation of the League, the League Cup and any other Competition operated by the Company, be entitled to make such arrangements, adopt such procedures and make such determinations as it considers appropriate in circumstances where the Rules or Regulations, as 32 the case may be, do not direct or provide for the manner in which the League, League Cup or other Competition operated by the Company should proceed or be operated; It's not even clear to me from the above that they needed to call a vote. It's not clear to me what that actually means. If only I had studied law, as my law tutor said I should have done (to my parents, years after I had finished my studies). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CambieBud Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Tell me Kinky, once you cut through all the bullshit, what is it Integrity FC actually want to achieve here? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 2 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: We need the timeline verified. The ballot was a blind one for the participants so should have been treated as such until all the votes had been cast. This 'Cormack asked for a call' nonsense is a red herring. Doncaster had no place lobbying clubs during the course of the ballot unless, of course, he is only Chief Exec of the Yes voters. Mind you, he may well be... He wasn't lobbying anyway and I'm not even sure lobbying is considered an issue here. An investigation is needed, but not at the expense of far more pressing issues. UNLESS your club can substantiate the claim that the SPFL board are not acting in everyone's interests. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Suddenly the spfl are wonderful and must not be criticised. Seeing is believing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 7 minutes ago, The DA said: Quite. From the SPFL's Articles, the 'Powers of the Board' extend to It's not even clear to me from the above that they needed to call a vote. One paragraph in isolation from the rest of a lengthy rule book. If we're being honest most lay people without a legal background would get lost in that minefield. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gannonball Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 4 minutes ago, bennett said: Suddenly the spfl are wonderful and must not be criticised. Seeing is believing. Literally not a single person has said this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 7 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: It's not clear to me what that actually means. If only I had studied law, as my law tutor said I should have done (to my parents, years after I had finished my studies). It seems to say that, where the rules & regs are silent on a matter, the Board have the power to decide what to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Just now, gannonball said: Literally not a single person has said this. Well they haven't said those exact words but their actions in defending...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 1 minute ago, bennett said: Well they haven't said those exact words but their actions in defending...... Ever thought of applying for a seat on The Rangers' Board? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, coprolite said: Ok so it might have been misleading. Maybe. Is an independent investigation really required to ring round the other clubs and check if they'd all voted by 2 minutes to 5? Especially given there is no reason to suspect they hadn't, and no reason to think this information would cause cormack to vote in a particular way. Back to the bit where you said it had been established that clubs had been misled about funds. That sounded interesting. Any more on that? Pages 6/7/8 below of QC opinion sounds like a clear intention to mislead clubs into believing only route to money was to vote yes. Who's idea was it to frame the resolution in that way and why? Needs probed. Independently. Surprised an experienced neutral chairman didn't pick that up and ask his Ch Ex to adjust the original drafts to make reference to alternatives. Can understand why the board members from Motherwell, Hamilton and Brechin wouldn't want to question the "solution" and threaten their own teams' self interest. Not sure what legal (personal)? responsibility as board members they have to all of the SPFL clubs. https://cdn-5dd296c4f911cc1c581d2ef3.closte.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/2020.04.14-FINAL-Rev_Redacted-Joint-Opinion-PTFC-.pdf Edited April 29, 2020 by Pet Jeden 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 4 minutes ago, bennett said: Well they haven't said those exact words but their actions in defending...... It's about priorities. The priority right now is the survival of the game and all member clubs. An elected board is currently working their way through that, albeit in a flawed (and likely incompetent) manner. As I see it, an investigation is due but only once the current fires have been put out and everything has settled down. If nothing else to determine best practice if such a situation arises in future. Rangers want us to believe that the SPFL board is not fit for purpose and can't be trusted to lead us through is, even suggesting forms of corruption. If that is the case they need to cough it up and explain why this needs addressed immediately, either in advance or in conjunction with dealing with this crisis. Noise about phone calls to Cormack etc are examples at worst of clumsiness, and are not a reason to act at the expense of everything else. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 8 minutes ago, The DA said: Ever thought of applying for a seat on The Rangers' Board? One paragraph from a lengthy rule book can easily be misinterpreted, even that particular paragraph wasn't very clear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 4 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: It's about priorities. The priority right now is the survival of the game and all member clubs. An elected board is currently working their way through that, albeit in a flawed (and likely incompetent) manner. As I see it, an investigation is due but only once the current fires have been put out and everything has settled down. If nothing else to determine best practice if such a situation arises in future. Rangers want us to believe that the SPFL board is not fit for purpose and can't be trusted to lead us through is, even suggesting forms of corruption. If that is the case they need to cough it up and explain why this needs addressed immediately, either in advance or in conjunction with dealing with this crisis. Noise about phone calls to Cormack etc are examples at worst of clumsiness, and are not a reason to act at the expense of everything else. If the elected board is as incompetent as you suggest then should we putting our faith in them to secure the future of our game? The way in which they handled the vote itself merits a fully independent investigation, we'll probably see similar issues with the upcoming reconstruction fiasco. It doesn't need Sevco to prove that spfl/former spl isn't fit for purpose, it's just that over the years we've came to accept it as normal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 A few questions - Whats everyone's definition of providing damning documents "well ahead" of a meeting? Is it 2 weeks? Is it 2 days? If Rangers hold off long enough, and enough clubs say "f**k it, you are just pissing around and we are not supporting any more tilting at windmills" - will they then have enough "Everyone hates us" currency in the bank to see them through the summer??? 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.