strichener Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 1 minute ago, Cowden Cowboy said: Well if I was at a club and wanted League reconstruction I would consult my fellow clubs, maybe have some meetings, explain it, answer questions and garner support for my proposal before putting it to the League - rather different if it was the SPFL itself who had come up with a plan from itself from a working group's proposal. This though really is an SFA promoted idea as an adjunct to Project Brave This is not the way member organisations that I have been involved with in the past have worked. If there were similar proposals, they would have been taken to a members meeting, proposed and either blown out the water there and then or if sufficient interest was shown, a working group would be setup to investigate the implications, changes etc. that would be required. They would then report back to the members for it to be voted on. Clearly the SPFL is being led here rather than leading. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 This is not the way member organisations that I have been involved with in the past have worked. If there were similar proposals, they would have been taken to a members meeting, proposed and either blown out the water there and then or if sufficient interest was shown, a working group would be setup to investigate the implications, changes etc. that would be required. They would then report back to the members for it to be voted on. Clearly the SPFL is being led here rather than leading. In any good and sizeable organisation a flexible range of options can surely be considered and deployed within an overall infrastructure. These are 42 small to large businesses not a golf club - I have been involved with some very large organisations and seen all sorts of approaches - not everything needs to be top down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said: In any good and sizeable organisation a flexible range of options can surely be considered and deployed within an overall infrastructure. These are 42 small to large businesses not a golf club - I have been involved with some very large organisations and seen all sorts of approaches - not everything needs to be top down. Again I don't disagree with what you have written. However the very fact that there are substantial differences in the size of the member businesses is why it should be top down and not a case of the larger ones imposing their view on all the others. And just so we are clear here, I was referring to other sports organisations with many more members than the SPFL, not a golf club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionel hutz Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 (edited) The SPFL are spineless by sneaking this through without it going public. I ran a poll on the Twitter recently with the question, who would you prefer in League 2? EK and Cove or Celtic and Rangers U20s. It was 93% in EK and Cove's favour. Think that sums up how fans feel about this. Edited January 25, 2018 by Marr1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonytoons Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Hammyton said: You minnows will find out its accept this or reconstruction. 2 leagues only soon if this is not accepted. OF + Sevco in one league and the rest in another league with 4 subdivisions please. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Paddy Flannery Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 Why would SPFL comment - the position clearly is that the two Old Firm clubs go out and contact clubs explain the proposal and get feedback. It's not a referendum - if feedback is against it then presumably its proponents either say it's a no go or they reconsider the proposal and see if some amended version will find favour. Perfectly normal in any type of business - this was never going to fly in the first place The SPFL should comment because they are the organisation who run the fucking league these two freak shows want to join. This isn't any "normal type of business" though. It's football. They should have had a statement out at the very least, we only know what the position is because the press reported it.They are spineless c***s who know fine well they would receive a stinking backlash if they went public so they are are trying to lie low until some sort of agreement is reached. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonglum25 Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 (edited) Stenhousemuir have issued a statement on their site. The Board need to remember as well that Rangers tried to throw us and a number of other teams out of the league in the 1960's and are again at the forefront of trying to determine the make up of Scottish football. Regarding the statement I find the last paragraph quite concerning that they may surrender the club for the good of Scottish Football. The Club is aware of the current media speculation regarding the introduction of SPFL Premiership Colt Teams into the professional league set-up. At present, there is no formal proposal from the SPFL for clubs to consider. What has happened, is that a proposal for a pilot project has been put forward by Rangers and Celtic football clubs. This is being discussed at league level by the SPFL Competitions Working Group. If it is thought there is merit in looking at the proposals in further detail, it would be put to consideration and vote by all 42 clubs within the SPFL. Representatives of Rangers and Celtic are currently meeting with clubs in League 2 to present details of their pilot proposals. A number of Directors at Stenhousemuir met with a representative from Rangers and received the presentation. No formal discussions have taken place within the club on the proposals as yet. In order to take this forward, the club will be working with the SFC Supporters Trust to ensure that the views of fans can be put forward and taken into account prior to the Board formulating the club's view. There will no doubt be arguments both for and against any proposals to enter colt teams in the SPFL setup. It is important to hear both sides of the argument, and make an informed decision that is the right thing for Stenhousemuir Football Club, the League, and the future development of Scottish football. Edited January 26, 2018 by Moonglum25 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsythebinman Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 we all need to write to our own clubs to tell them how angry we are. Guarantee they will all be saying 90% of fans, or 50% of fans or whatever are against it. unless we write in the figures they say might look like there is more support than there really is 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scosha Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 17 hours ago, Randy Giles said: Still not. Next Monday I'll send a fairly more sternly worded one if I don't get one by then. Another example of our excellent communication with supporters... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 18 hours ago, Randy Giles said: Still not. Next Monday I'll send a fairly more sternly worded one if I don't get one by then. I've just emailed the SLO rather than the general club address, hopefully that'll get somewhere. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 7 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said: I've just emailed the SLO rather than the general club address, hopefully that'll get somewhere. I've now just done that as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post RiG Posted January 26, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 26, 2018 Rangers + Celtic: "We want our Colts team to play in the lower leagues. It will benefit the national team." Rangers + Celtic: "We want to host Scotland games at our grounds. It will be good for the national team." Rangers + Celtic: "You want our Scottish players to play games for Scotland? No chance, we've got friendlies against Linfield and Dundalk to think about." 30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Moonster Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 11 hours ago, Hammyton said: You minnows will find out its accept this or reconstruction. 2 leagues only soon if this is not accepted. Accept reconstruction or it'll be reconstruction? Tough choice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
haufdaft Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 You minnows will find out its accept this or reconstruction. 2 leagues only soon if this is not accepted. Made me smile when a fan of a premiership team with less than 400 season ticket holders refers to us as "you minnows". 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Brazil Forever Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Burnsythebinman said: we all need to write to our own clubs to tell them how angry we are. Guarantee they will all be saying 90% of fans, or 50% of fans or whatever are against it. unless we write in the figures they say might look like there is more support than there really is I know which club I support. I don't need to write. Which club do you support binman and have you written?????? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsythebinman Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 7 minutes ago, Blue Brazil Forever said: I know which club I support. I don't need to write. Which club do you support binman and have you written?????? was just a suggestion mate to any body that wants to write. just saying how important I think it is that we do write to clubs rather than just on here. I emailed my club - Here is what I wrote Dear Chairman It has been in the news that some clubs want to have colt teams put in to Leagues 1 and 2 in the SPFL. I, and I know many other fans dont want this to happen as it isnt what we want to see in our club. We want to watch professional teams who have earned there place in the league. Not teams who have bought there way in, especialy teams from the Old Firm who bring hate and bigotry that we dont have in our league. I wouldnt be back if we supported this as I think it would be going against fans who have went to games for years, no matter how the team has played. Please let me know if the board is going to say yes or no to what has been put forward. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 Stenhousemuir have issued a statement on their site. The Board need to remember as well that Rangers tried to throw us and a number of other teams out of the league in the 1960's and are again at the forefront of trying to determine the make up of Scottish football. Regarding the statement I find the last paragraph quite concerning that they may surrender the club for the good of Scottish Football. The Club is aware of the current media speculation regarding the introduction of SPFL Premiership Colt Teams into the professional league set-up. At present, there is no formal proposal from the SPFL for clubs to consider. What has happened, is that a proposal for a pilot project has been put forward by Rangers and Celtic football clubs. This is being discussed at league level by the SPFL Competitions Working Group. If it is thought there is merit in looking at the proposals in further detail, it would be put to consideration and vote by all 42 clubs within the SPFL. Representatives of Rangers and Celtic are currently meeting with clubs in League 2 to present details of their pilot proposals. A number of Directors at Stenhousemuir met with a representative from Rangers and received the presentation. No formal discussions have taken place within the club on the proposals as yet. In order to take this forward, the club will be working with the SFC Supporters Trust to ensure that the views of fans can be put forward and taken into account prior to the Board formulating the club's view. There will no doubt be arguments both for and against any proposals to enter colt teams in the SPFL setup. It is important to hear both sides of the argument, and make an informed decision that is the right thing for Stenhousemuir Football Club, the League, and the future development of Scottish football. Stenhousemuir statement seems quite appropriate and sensible - it also clearly sets out what is happening and the Old Firm and SPFL's involvement which again is pretty straightforward. The problem with this debate that it is to a fair degree skewed by hatred for the Old Firm, SPFL, SFA, Messrs Doncaster and Regan such that a mob rule feel starts to pervade rather than just being a sensible debate. It is up to the clubs to discuss any proposals put to them from whatever source and form a view. They need to consider both what is best for their club and also Scottish football - the latter aspect because that is also in the club's interest and also because as members of the SPFL and SFA they are duty bound to act in the best interests of those organisations. Fans of course are fully entitled to give their club's feedback which influences the club's views/decision along with any other relevant factors. For me personally on that test is it good for my club - no, does it benefit the SPFL, no, does it benefit the SFA (Scotland national team), possibly but we don't know 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Paddy Flannery Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 The problem with this debate that it is to a fair degree skewed by hatred for the Old Firm, SPFL, SFA, Messrs Doncaster and Regan such that a mob rule feel starts to pervade rather than just being a sensible debate. People are "sensibly" debating it. Just because people strongly oppose something doesn't mean it's not a sensible debate or a "mob rule feel".I've seen numerous sensible posts in this thread alone which blow this proposal out of the water, I've yet to see anything that sensibly supports it other than trolling nonsense. I've yet to see anyone opposing it due to hatred of the old firm/SFA/SPFL. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 People are "sensibly" debating it. Just because people strongly oppose something doesn't mean it's not a sensible debate or a "mob rule feel".I've seen numerous sensible posts in this thread alone which blow this proposal out of the water, I've yet to see anything that sensibly supports it other than trolling nonsense. I've yet to see anyone opposing it due to hatred of the old firm/SFA/SPFL. You see what you want to see then - and no vitriol towards those parties has been expressed on this thread in your view 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 13 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said: You see what you want to see then - and no vitriol towards those parties has been expressed on this thread in your view This is empty tone-trolling. No one really needs your permission or approval to express themselves as they wish. I must say it’s a strange thread on which to play the role of pedantic contrarian. 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.