haufdaft Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Maybe the fans could state that "Position not yet declared, but boards views are welcome. While not determining the fans view they will of course influence whether we attend future matches" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Bazil85 said: Aw yeah I had seen that one. Weird comment, it should be the only thing they consider when making their decision! Not really - bit of a blinkered approach that would be to decision making. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Not really - bit of a blinkered approach that would be to decision making. No fans no club 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, 1320Lichtie said: No fans no club So you believe any club supporting this would then have precisely zero fans? I would question your maths and any such one dimensional logic 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 So you believe any club supporting this would then have precisely zero fans? I would question your maths and any such one dimensional logic You're being pedantic and silly. You know what I mean. If the fans don't want it then the club shouldn't support it.Because No fans no club. The fans are everything and their opinions should matter more than a handful of people in the boardroom. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Just now, 1320Lichtie said: You're being pedantic and silly. You know what I mean. If the fans don't want it then the club shouldn't support it. Because No fans no club. The fans are everything and their opinions should matter more than a handful of people in the boardroom. No the Directors should make what they think is the best decision for the club bearing in mind fan views and all other pertinent factors. Your dictum would also mean no club as no one surely would wish to act as a director if such decisions were not their ultimate responsibility but were just based on rubber stamping orders given by what would generally be a faction made up of more vociferous and active fans rather than the overall fanbase. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 No the Directors should make what they think is the best decision for the club bearing in mind fan views and all other pertinent factors. Your dictum would also mean no club as no one surely would wish to act as a director if such decisions were not their ultimate responsibility but were just based on rubber stamping orders given by what would generally be a faction made up of more vociferous and active fans rather than the overall fanbase. Yes the directors should do what's best for the club, by listening to the fans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Yes the directors should do what's best for the club, by listening to the fans. Correct and then make a judgement based on that and all other pertinent factors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clyde01 Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Disappointing level of response in general. Are the SPFL going to sit up and take notice of 1072 views? Doubtful! Probably far more idiots readers of rags like the daily record thinking this is a great idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Correct and then make a judgement based on that and all other pertinent factors. No. This is not a normal situation or decision this. This is the life and death of clubs at stake here. What the fans think, should be the only consideration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 No. This is not a normal situation or decision this. This is the life and death of clubs at stake here. What the fans think, should be the only consideration. You sound as dramatic as SimonLichtie now - that's your view fair enough but doesn't mean you are correct. Life or death of clubs, hmmm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 4 hours ago, 1320Lichtie said: Celtics vote counts the same as Cowdenbeaths vote. Yeah, but the Old Firm have a history of bullying smaller clubs to get their way. I can't imagine a threat from Cowdenbeath to have the Lichties expelled from the league taken seriously for more than a couple of seconds. However, in 1964, Rangers wanted Albion Rovers, Berwick, Brechin, Stranraer and Stenhousemuir thrown out of the league because their crowds were too small. Secret meetings had been held to discuss Rangers' proposals. At one of these meetings, on 28th April 1964, Alloa, Arbroath, Ayr, Cowdenbeath, Dumbarton, East Fife, Montrose, Queen’s Park, Raith and Stirling Albion said they were unhappy with the plans. They were told that if they did not agree with the proposals and vote with Rangers, then anyone of them could be expelled in place of one or more of the five. Unsurprisingly, the rebellion didn't go much further at that time. The proposals didn't get kicked out until 1968, after all 5 had run up significant legal bills to defend their league status. Some things aren't really decided on 'one member, one vote' 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Disappointing level of response in general. Are the SPFL going to sit up and take notice of 1072 views? Doubtful! Probably far more idiots readers of rags like the daily record thinking this is a great idea. It's not even a question of numbers. Of course the vast majority of fans in the country will be for Colt teams, but the vast majority of fans in the country are fans of Celtic and Rangers. The vast majority of fans in the lower leagues. Who this will affect. Will be totally against this and that's who they've got to take into consideration whether they want to or not. 1072 responses is actually quite good, I only managed to fill it out by chance as it was posted on a page I noticed on here. Not been advertised by any club aside from Clyde (kudos) either so it's actually done rather well I'd say. Do wish there was more responses though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Yeah, but the Old Firm have a history of bullying smaller clubs to get their way. I can't imagine a threat from Cowdenbeath to have the Lichties expelled from the league taken seriously for more than a couple of seconds. However, in 1964, Rangers wanted Albion Rovers, Berwick, Brechin, Stranraer and Stenhousemuir thrown out of the league because their crowds were too small. Secret meetings had been held to discuss Rangers' proposals. At one of these meetings, on 28th April 1964, Alloa, Arbroath, Ayr, Cowdenbeath, Dumbarton, East Fife, Montrose, Queen’s Park, Raith and Stirling Albion said they were unhappy with the plans. They were told that if they did not agree with the proposals and vote with Rangers, then anyone of them could be expelled in place of one or more of the five. Unsurprisingly, the rebellion didn't go much further at that time. The proposals didn't get kicked out until 1968, after all 5 had run up significant legal bills to defend their league status. Some things aren't really decided on 'one member, one vote' But they didn't get their way is actually the gist of your story 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 11 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said: But they didn't get their way is actually the gist of your story The 'gist of my story' is that the Old Firm are not unwilling to make threats to get their way and pressurise smaller clubs to vote for their proposals. Cowdenbeath were quick enough to vote for Rangers proposals in 1964 when they were threatened with becoming one of the five clubs facing oblivion (as were Arbroath). Are you seriously suggesting that Cowdenbeath's voice is equal to Celtic's because five diddy clubs ultimately got their way after spending four years going through the courts to defend their interests and incurring crippling legal bills to avoid oblivion? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsforlife Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Erm spfl voting isn't one club one vote anyway, this argument is pointless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Brazil Forever Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 12 minutes ago, lichtgilphead said: The 'gist of my story' is that the Old Firm are not unwilling to make threats to get their way and pressurise smaller clubs to vote for their proposals. Cowdenbeath were quick enough to vote for Rangers proposals in 1964 when they were threatened with becoming one of the five clubs facing oblivion (as were Arbroath). Are you seriously suggesting that Cowdenbeath's voice is equal to Celtic's because five diddy clubs ultimately got their way after spending four years going through the courts to defend their interests and incurring crippling legal bills to avoid oblivion? Us diddy clubs got our way when Sevco were voted in to Div 2. One member one vote is the rule. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 Erm spfl voting isn't one club one vote anyway, this argument is pointless. What do you mean? It requires to pass through 4 stages with the ultimate one being 32 out of 42 need to vote in favour??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, parsforlife said: Erm spfl voting isn't one club one vote anyway, this argument is pointless. Doesn't that depend on circumstances? My recollection is that there are 'A' shares for the Premier clubs and 'B' shares for the rest. In cases that affect the Premier league only, the 'A' shares have more value, but in cases that affect the Championship, League 1 & 2, all shares have equal value? Happy to be corrected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted June 30, 2017 Share Posted June 30, 2017 6 minutes ago, Blue Brazil Forever said: Us diddy clubs got our way when Sevco were voted in to Div 2. One member one vote is the rule. That's not my point. The Old Firm can use their muscle to help them gain votes whenever they need to. Imagine that you are a director of Diddy FC. A large SPFL club wants you to vote for a proposal, and (at the same time) are offering you a long term loan of a promising wonderkid plus a glamour preseason friendly. Does this influence your view on their unrelated proposal? 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.