Tannadeechee Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 28 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: The organisation's mail marshall would then have the records of that. So publish those records. Not everyone's does, will depend on its initial configuration. Ours for example if its been held and released automatically there won't be anything kept. A some systems may have a log file created every day, some its over written regularly. So it will depend on the system. Not saying they can't, just if they can't it doesn't mean its a nefarious reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, rb123! said: Because they announced the votes at 1700 on Friday night even when all votes hadn't yet been received, that's like announcing general election results when they still don't have a couple of constituencies votes, it doesn't happen. This opened to the floodgates for clubs being flung under the bus and all sorts of accusations and false rumours to start flying about. With the current sporting news being thin on the ground for obvious reasons you would have thought someone at the SPFL would realise this would get the whole Scottish sports journals interest allowing for the quick spread of fake news and leaks. Which points to foul play behind the decision to publish the results, rather than shambles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 18 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said: This in particular from Hearts statement highlights the moronic nature of the SPFL IMO: 'Our in-house lawyer contacted the SPFL to understand in what manner the Resolution was not competent, to be informed that the issue was the use of the single word “instructed” as opposed to “requested” (That the Board of the Company be authorised and instructed as follows:). I am not a lawyer but find it quite incomprehensible that this should hold up the whole process. ' What’s so amazing about that - requested and instructed are 2 very different things 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 (edited) 1 minute ago, Cowden Cowboy said: What’s so amazing about that - requested and instructed are 2 very different things That it held up the process for over 24 hours without the SPFL getting back to them and then finally dismissing it completely on the basis of 1 word is chronic from an organisation apparently trying to work with the clubs here. Edited April 12, 2020 by Speroni*1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Cowden Cowboy said: What’s so amazing about that - requested and instructed are 2 very different things But they have the same practical effect. They could have got in touch and said "we'll let you put this motion to the members if you change that word, here's why you'd need to change that word for it to be compliant legally". Instead they stonewalled and went "incompetent, go away" at the last minute. Why do you think that is? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 Just now, Ad Lib said: But they have the same practical effect. They could have got in touch and said "we'll let you put this motion to the members if you change that word, here's why you'd need to change that word for it to be compliant legally". Instead they stonewalled and went "incompetent, go away" at the last minute. Why do you think that is? I have no idea because I don’t actually have access to all the relevant facts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 East Fife confirming they were one of the no voters: 'My board met twice via video conferences on Thursday and Friday to discuss and agree our stance. Although we have no issue with current league positions being declared final from a prize money perspective, the overwhelming consensus was that we could not vote in favour of a resolution that would see fellow clubs relegated without the full conclusion of the 36 game season. You will have seen that three League One & Two clubs voted against the resolution and I can confirm, to avoid any misinformation or speculation, that we were one of the three.' https://eastfifefc.info/latest-news/792-club-statement-spfl-resolution-covid-19 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rb123! Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 Hearts statement is interesting, basically the SPFL board came up with 6 proposals, discussed them and came up with a mile long list of reasons why 5 of those options were BAD and then for the 6th option they gave a list of POSITIVES for this option and decided this was the only option the clubs would be allowed to vote on. So basically the SPFL has decided themselves what outcome out of the 6 they want and told the 42 clubs that's the only option you're being allowed to vote on, take it or leave it. That's hardly democratic voting, if the SPFL is putting 6 proposals forward the 42 clubs should be voting on each of the 6 proposals to decide on what one should be used. End of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Ad Lib said: But they have the same practical effect. They could have got in touch and said "we'll let you put this motion to the members if you change that word, here's why you'd need to change that word for it to be compliant legally". Instead they stonewalled and went "incompetent, go away" at the last minute. Why do you think that is? One is an order the other is a request so no they don’t have the same practical effect. I don’t think in the Army Officers generally request soldiers to do things 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 Just now, rb123! said: Hearts statement is interesting, basically the SPFL board came up with 6 proposals, discussed them and came up with a mile long list of reasons why 5 of those options were BAD and then for the 6th option they gave a list of POSITIVES for this option and decided this was the only option the clubs would be allowed to vote on. So basically the SPFL has decided themselves what outcome out of the 6 they want and told the 42 clubs that's the only option you're being allowed to vote on, take it or leave it. That's hardly democratic voting, if the SPFL is putting 6 proposals forward the 42 clubs should be voting on each of the 6 proposals to decide on what one should be used. End of. You mean the Brexit advisory vote process route? That’s daft - if there were 42 different proposals you are suggesting they all should be voted on? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: Which points to foul play behind the decision to publish the results, rather than shambles. Do you think rather than Dundee identifying a chance at leverage the SPFL has seen a potential casting vote in favour of their resolution? Which, if passed negates the need for lots of messy form filling, loans etc. Edited April 12, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 Just now, Cowden Cowboy said: One is an order the other is a request so no they don’t have the same practical effect. I don’t think in the Army Officers generally request soldiers to do things Read the Hearts statement. The context is about whether the SPFL Board would have the authority to do something. The feedback was that you can't "instruct" them to do something, only "request" that they do it. The point being made being that, so long as the SPFL Board then actually does what the Clubs "request" it's fine. Which prompts the question: why doesn't the SPFL Board want to do what would then be legally permitted? It's almost as though the real objection isn't a legal one at all, but that they have another motivation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bad chad Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 Dundee Sent their email with a header saying 'Here You Go C*ntos', and it got blocked. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 Just now, Sergeant Wilson said: Do you think rather than Dundee identifying a chance at leverage the SPFL has seen a potential casting vote in favour of their resolution? Which, if passed negates the need for lots of messy form filling, loans etc. Leverage over what, exactly, if this motion, unamended, passes? It's clearly not leverage over the proposal, because the proposal wouldn't change. The only leverage there sensibly can be is over a new proposal (in which case Dundee's leverage is exactly the same as if it just votes No) or leverage realised otherwise than in relation to the proposal (e.g. Dundee have been treated or promised something under the table). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Ad Lib said: Leverage over what, exactly, if this motion, unamended, passes? It's clearly not leverage over the proposal, because the proposal wouldn't change. The only leverage there sensibly can be is over a new proposal (in which case Dundee's leverage is exactly the same as if it just votes No) or leverage realised otherwise than in relation to the proposal (e.g. Dundee have been treated or promised something under the table). Dundee must be holding back for a reason, whether it is real or perceived leverage. If they vote no, it's finished. If they indicate they might vote yes they could gain concessions. I've no idea what they might be, but both sides seem to be furthering their interests one way or another. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 2 hours ago, Branch Ton said: No one likes Falkirk. Was a wee joke. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 23 minutes ago, rb123! said: Hearts statement is interesting, basically the SPFL board came up with 6 proposals, discussed them and came up with a mile long list of reasons why 5 of those options were BAD and then for the 6th option they gave a list of POSITIVES for this option and decided this was the only option the clubs would be allowed to vote on. So basically the SPFL has decided themselves what outcome out of the 6 they want and told the 42 clubs that's the only option you're being allowed to vote on, take it or leave it. That's hardly democratic voting, if the SPFL is putting 6 proposals forward the 42 clubs should be voting on each of the 6 proposals to decide on what one should be used. End of. They can't expect clubs to vote on 6 different proposals, as we've discovered some struggle on one. Its not intrinsically undemocratic. In parliament a proposal is made then the members vote on that. What is missing seems to be an adequate level of debate on the content of the propisal that was voted on. Two or three days seems unsatisfactory for going through the proposals. Theoretically a member club could have put forward the proposal of their choice with the backing of two other members as Dundee and Rangers have attempted. The Rangers one didn't even get that far. Dundee's doesn't seem to have been put to the other clubs...yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 Tam English kens" So, Dundee voted, the vote got held up somehow. In the meantime, they emailed to cancel the vote. The vote then landed and was deemed irrelevant. Funny how the email with the vote didn’t land first time but the one cancelling it did." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derry Alli Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Jock Tamson said: Tam English kens " So, Dundee voted, the vote got held up somehow. In the meantime, they emailed to cancel the vote. The vote then landed and was deemed irrelevant. Funny how the email with the vote didn’t land first time but the one cancelling it did." He only kens cos he was told. We were all told. Everybody kens. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 He only kens cos he was told. We were all told. Everybody kens. Stalker [emoji173] 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.