"The ICT Thread - From the Premiership to the Seaside"

[Sir Tarmo]

The idea that Dodds is being fully blamed, and Ferguson absolved of any blame, is a tiresome and ignorant narrative being repeatedly pushed by posters that haven’t a clue what they’re talking about.

Dodds was an absolutely horrific manager who was quite substantially backed and failed season after season. He was wrongly given a new deal and heavily derailed the start of our new season, only managing a win and a draw in his eight matches including a few embarrassing losses, the only win being a 2-1 home win over Bonnyrigg. We were coming dead last under Dodds, there’s no doubt about it. 
 

The notion that Dodds had fixed our defence before he departed is pushing it to say the least. We continued to concede goals every match under Dodds (like we did beforehand) after he signed Ujdur and Boyes. Boyes was a very good signing but I think Ujdur was a bit overrated by our fanbase. Yes he was better than the likes of Savage and Carragher who replaced him, but I can hardly blame Dunc for barely looking at him again after that horror show at Cappielow where he co-starred alongside Jake Davidson with the most car crash defensive performance I’ve ever seen.

Ferguson is also a poor football manager, who seems to believe you can win games of football by not scoring and treats draws every week as ‘excellent results’. He had ample time and resources to keep us up, but he signed sub-par players in positions we barely needed and his negative style really held us back. Nobody has ever really disputed these facts, the majority of The Caley fans want him nowhere near the club. Ferguson holds a share of the blame for relegation along with Gardiner, Dodds, Robertson and Morrison. 

[Savage Henry]

14 hours ago, HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows said:

Boer Bizkets before that. 

Let’s never speak of what happened to hottentot biscuits.  

[KirkieRR]

Unlikely source but a neat new-readers-start-here summary.

https://www.thetimes.com/sport/scottish/article/invernesss-latest-disaster-is-symptomatic-of-a-club-in-decline-dnsvl3t77

[SandyCromarty]

Charlie Bannerman and two fans, Andrew and Nathan, in a good discussion on our problems on Sportsound this afternoon, apparently if no investment by next Wednesday we're looking at administration, Bannerman and the fans say administration is inevitable as investors unlikely to come in to cover debt.

[North Terrace Gazza]

What’s the punishment for administration these days?

[ayrunitedfw]

3 minutes ago, North Terrace Gazza said:

What’s the punishment for administration these days?

15 point deduction 

[Claudia Gentile]

19 minutes ago, North Terrace Gazza said:

What’s the punishment for administration these days?

A stale Dream Ring.

[rockson]

17 hours ago, Spyro said:

Only after you pick out all the raisins and sultanas out if it. 

 

 

Absolutely.

[welshbairn]

35 minutes ago, ayrunitedfw said:

15 point deduction 

Plus 5 the following season. 

[TxRover]

48 minutes ago, North Terrace Gazza said:

What’s the punishment for administration these days?

44 minutes ago, ayrunitedfw said:

15 point deduction 

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Plus 5 the following season. 

The one huge difference is the recent addition of the Bronze License requirement. That hasn't been a factor in any previous admin scenario, and the phrasing of the Bronze criteria does raise the possibility that the second 5 points might be irrelevant as the Club involved might no longer qualify for/hold the License. I suspect it would be smoothed over/swept under the rug (as long as the Club/Owner/Ownership hasn't pissed off the SPFL), but it's not really clear.

[EdinburghBlue]

27 minutes ago, TxRover said:

The one huge difference is the recent addition of the Bronze License requirement. That hasn't been a factor in any previous admin scenario, and the phrasing of the Bronze criteria does raise the possibility that the second 5 points might be irrelevant as the Club involved might no longer qualify for/hold the License. I suspect it would be smoothed over/swept under the rug (as long as the Club/Owner/Ownership hasn't pissed off the SPFL), but it's not really clear.

A literal interpretation of the rules suggests that any team going into administration would not qualify for a bronze license at the next review, and no bronze license means no participation in the SPFL. However, there’s clearly an inconsistency in the rules now, as why have a 5 points deduction in year 2 if you are not going to be allowed to participate anyway? Perhaps a commonsensical approach might be to say that if a club post-administration would otherwise qualify for bronze then a license derogation would be given but with a points deduction. 

[SandyCromarty]

We were warned repeatedly by other clubs fans when Gardiner started with us, but all his fuckups at other clubs are nothing compared to what's happening with us. 

Would we be in this mess if all the grandiose money grabbing ideas, Concert fiasco and Battery Farm dud,  that failed had never happened, sure we would have debt but we would still have a reputation with local businesses who might have helped us out if the liquidated Concert Company didn't owe them money. 

[Pete the Jakey]

On 07/06/2024 at 12:22, HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows said:

Boer Bizkets before that. 

Another Derek Adams loan signing?

[Todd_is_God]

2 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said:

A literal interpretation of the rules suggests that any team going into administration would not qualify for a bronze license at the next review, and no bronze license means no participation in the SPFL. However, there’s clearly an inconsistency in the rules now, as why have a 5 points deduction in year 2 if you are not going to be allowed to participate anyway? Perhaps a commonsensical approach might be to say that if a club post-administration would otherwise qualify for bronze then a license derogation would be given but with a points deduction. 

Yeah I can't imagine a scenario where any club which enters administration is automatically expelled from the league not on the spot, but at the end of the current / next season.

I suspect the rule is intended to prevent financial basket cases being promoted into the SPFL.

[Dunning1874]

2 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said:

A literal interpretation of the rules suggests that any team going into administration would not qualify for a bronze license at the next review, and no bronze license means no participation in the SPFL. However, there’s clearly an inconsistency in the rules now, as why have a 5 points deduction in year 2 if you are not going to be allowed to participate anyway? Perhaps a commonsensical approach might be to say that if a club post-administration would otherwise qualify for bronze then a license derogation would be given but with a points deduction. 

Obviously the rules on point deductions predate the requirement for a bronze licence, but I don't see that as a contradiction anyway. You get the 15 point deduction in the season you enter administration then if you've exited administration in time to secure a licence for the following season, you'll remain in the league and get the 5 points deduction. If you remain in administration into the following season so aren't eligible for the bronze licence then are expelled as a result, the five points become irrelevant.

As said by others I doubt they would actually expel a club for it anyway and you'd likely see derogation if the SPFL judge there's a good chance of the club surviving given more time to exit administration; they won't want to find themselves blamed for driving the final nail in anyone's coffin. That's also dependent on the severity of the financial situation though, in the case of Gretna when they were obviously going to be liquidated with no prospect of survival and they had to piss about sticking them in the Third Division before it was confirmed they wouldn't be able to take part and they could get on with replacing them, they'd now have the licence process to expel them.

Unlikely you'll ever see a club in so hopeless a situation as Gretna again though.

[EdinburghBlue]

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

Obviously the rules on point deductions predate the requirement for a bronze licence, but I don't see that as a contradiction anyway. You get the 15 point deduction in the season you enter administration then if you've exited administration in time to secure a licence for the following season, you'll remain in the league and get the 5 points deduction. If you remain in administration into the following season so aren't eligible for the bronze licence then are expelled as a result, the five points become irrelevant.

As said by others I doubt they would actually expel a club for it anyway and you'd likely see derogation if the SPFL judge there's a good chance of the club surviving given more time to exit administration; they won't want to find themselves blamed for driving the final nail in anyone's coffin. That's also dependent on the severity of the financial situation though, in the case of Gretna when they were obviously going to be liquidated with no prospect of survival and they had to piss about sticking them in the Third Division before it was confirmed they wouldn't be able to take part and they could get on with replacing them, they'd now have the licence process to expel them.

Unlikely you'll ever see a club in so hopeless a situation as Gretna again though.

You cannot get a license if you’ve experienced a solvency event in the preceding three years. 
 

Inverness not the only club that relies on loans from directors for cash flow. 

[TxRover]

5 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said:

You cannot get a license if you’ve experienced a solvency event in the preceding three years. 
 

Inverness not the only club that relies on loans from directors for cash flow. 

Yea, that's where the SPFL's penchant for making s**t up on the fly is making the rules quite simply impossible to reconcile.  As others have said, the results of a "strict" interpretation would be catastrophic to any club experiencing a financial whoopsie.

It's kinda fun this happens as they announce the grass pitch rule, as the comedic backpedaling associated with the necessary changes to make this series of utterly contradictory rules functional may bring into question other decisions. If they do change this on the fly, a club in promotion position would have a fairly decent argument about that other rule...and if they don't change it, then they might just have to string ICT up to make the point, and then (of course) change the rule...afterwards, going forward. Now that certainly wouldn't result in actions being taken after the fact, would it? And, as this is an association of members, to protect those members, decisions that adversely impact a majority of the 42 to the benefit of 16 or so might be considered questionable. Are we about to see the top league bolt again?

The Bronze License rule was designed to protect the 42 a little better...much as the Grass rule is designed to protect the 16 or so. But the law of unintended consequences was watching, and potentially just lobbed a live round into the meet.

[EdinburghBlue]

5 hours ago, TxRover said:

Yea, that's where the SPFL's penchant for making s**t up on the fly is making the rules quite simply impossible to reconcile.  As others have said, the results of a "strict" interpretation would be catastrophic to any club experiencing a financial whoopsie.

It's kinda fun this happens as they announce the grass pitch rule, as the comedic backpedaling associated with the necessary changes to make this series of utterly contradictory rules functional may bring into question other decisions. If they do change this on the fly, a club in promotion position would have a fairly decent argument about that other rule...and if they don't change it, then they might just have to string ICT up to make the point, and then (of course) change the rule...afterwards, going forward. Now that certainly wouldn't result in actions being taken after the fact, would it? And, as this is an association of members, to protect those members, decisions that adversely impact a majority of the 42 to the benefit of 16 or so might be considered questionable. Are we about to see the top league bolt again?

The Bronze License rule was designed to protect the 42 a little better...much as the Grass rule is designed to protect the 16 or so. But the law of unintended consequences was watching, and potentially just lobbed a live round into the meet.

I think the bronze rule is reasonable (although maybe not the requirement to have a doctor at home games in case of player injury), but a reasonable balance between this requirement and sporting integrity might be to give promoted clubs three years to comply (in total, not on each promotion). This could also apply to grass pitches in the top league. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

12 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said:

You cannot get a license if you’ve experienced a solvency event in the preceding three years. 
 

Inverness not the only club that relies on loans from directors for cash flow. 

I believe Livingston once had a solvency event...didn't last long though.

[Artemis]

17 hours ago, EdinburghBlue said:

A literal interpretation of the rules suggests that any team going into administration would not qualify for a bronze license at the next review, and no bronze license means no participation in the SPFL. However, there’s clearly an inconsistency in the rules now, as why have a 5 points deduction in year 2 if you are not going to be allowed to participate anyway? Perhaps a commonsensical approach might be to say that if a club post-administration would otherwise qualify for bronze then a license derogation would be given but with a points deduction. 

Could they possibly do that under the existing rules by applying Rule D6 which allows them to waive a club’s requirement to meet any part of the membership criteria? So, if the SPFL Board decided to waive the requirement for a Bronze licence (because the only failure was in relation to the 3 year insolvency rule) the club would be allowed to continue in the SPFL in year 2 but with a 5 point deduction? 
Could they argue the rules aren’t inconsistent because the 5 point deduction is there to cover the possibility of a waiver being granted? And isn’t explicitly written into the Rules in respect of Administration because each case is considered on its merits?