Ad Lib Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said: No, he's saying it's impossible for the SPFL Board to do so under the present rules. Which it is. If that's what he's saying he's saying something that is trivial and irrelevant. The point is the Clubs can, and several Clubs are saying "we don't want to do what you've proposed because we can do one bit of it without the other. We'd like to disburse the money without (yet) calling time on the season or consigning certain teams to relegation, please, so can we do that" This is not a time to be dense. To their credit *vomits* this was the very simple contention Rangers were making. If the SPFL doesn't want the club to change those rules, it should front up and explain why. It should not pretend that the Clubs have no other choice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 (edited) Edited April 12, 2020 by Speroni*1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fifespud Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 These are the kind of desperate articles I want to see out of this situation. People so fed up with this shitshow that null and void behind to be touted as a viable solution. The game plan is starting to work. https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-rangers-title-spat-shows-21852483I agree with every word of that, and it has the added bonus that the DABs STAY DOON [emoji4][emoji4][emoji4] 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said: Anyone work in IT or just have a sound knowledge of e-mail technology (?) able to explain a situation in which this would legitimately happen through no fault of the sender or receiver? It's suspect as hell and just raises more questions. That suggests that someone might have been voting without authority. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said: I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I presume you haven't seen the full comment. This is the danger of people tweeting part quotes. This is what I have seen, from Kheredine Idessane: "For the Board to be able to authorise end-of-season fee payments to clubs (£9.3million gross), final league placings MUST be determined. Those...suggesting..SPFL may make such payments, without a line being drawn under (the) season are wrong" The latter part suggests that the SPFL cannot under any circumstances (hence the word "may") make these payments without finishing the season. However, everyone else, including you, is of the understanding that they would be able to make such payments if a rule change was enacted. Unless those ellipses are hiding a lot of missing words (EDIT: and they're not, given what Ludo posted above), at best he is being disingenuous and closed-minded, and at worst he is lying. Someone who was genuinely neutral on the issue and wanted to report fairly to his clubs would add something like "without the rules being changed", or "without a further vote". Edited April 12, 2020 by craigkillie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said: That suggests that someone might have been voting without authority. I wouldn't be surprised that Drysdale voted without Nelms say so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 1 minute ago, johnnydun said: I wouldn't be surprised that Drysdale voted without Nelms say so. Forging Nelms' signature? Or Nelms voting without Keyes say so? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, craigkillie said: This is what I have seen, from Kheredine Idessane: "For the Board to be able to authorise end-of-season fee payments to clubs (£9.3million gross), final league placings MUST be determined. Those...suggesting..SPFL may make such payments, without a line being drawn under (the) season are wrong" The latter part suggests that the SPFL cannot under any circumstances (hence the word "may") make these payments without finishing the season. However, everyone else, including you, is of the understanding that they would be able to make such payments if a rule change was enacted. Unless those ellipses are hiding a lot of missing words, at best he is being disingenuous and closed-minded, and at worst he is lying. Someone who was genuinely neutral on the issue and wanted to report fairly to his clubs would add something like "without the rules being changed", or "without a further vote". Ludo has posted the full letter on here I see. I guess you read it how you wish. I think it's pretty clear he's saying their hands are tied under the rules as they stand and they cannot distribute funds any other way. He's also quite clear they are happy to work with any club to draft an alternative proposal to present to members. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannadeechee Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Speroni*1 said: Forging Nelms' signature? Or Nelms voting without Keyes say so Going by Gardner's radio appearance and the images.of the slips, this sounds plausible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 Just now, Speroni*1 said: Forging Nelms' signature? Or Nelms voting without Keyes say so? Does he not use his signature in the club programmes? Under his weekly statements? Is it the same? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, craigkillie said: This is what I have seen, from Kheredine Idessane: "For the Board to be able to authorise end-of-season fee payments to clubs (£9.3million gross), final league placings MUST be determined. Those...suggesting..SPFL may make such payments, without a line being drawn under (the) season are wrong" The latter part suggests that the SPFL cannot under any circumstances (hence the word "may") make these payments without finishing the season. However, everyone else, including you, is of the understanding that they would be able to make such payments if a rule change was enacted. Unless those ellipses are hiding a lot of missing words (and they're not, given what Ludo posted above), at best he is being disingenuous and closed-minded, and at worst he is lying. Someone who was genuinely neutral on the issue and wanted to report fairly to his clubs would add something like "without the rules being changed", or "without a further vote". Spot on. As John Bercow (p***k) used to say, only a man of such intelligence as the Honourable Member could fail to understand the difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolph Hucker Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 36 minutes ago, rb123! said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52262428 It gets better, from what I read of that they voted no but then changed there minds at the last minute and now want to vote yes. An absolute f**k up of the highest proportion, heads should roll at the SPFL because of this I'm not defending them here, but how the hell do you work that out? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 16 minutes ago, Ad Lib said: Your "if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. This whole thing stinks. Dundee had absolutely nothing to gain out of flip-flopping on the final day. They would be in exactly the same position now as they were then if they'd just said at the outset they were abstaining. Why go to such elaborate methods to mislead Thistle and ICT? What's in it for them. This whole thing stinks, and the plausible explanation is they were leant-on, that the No vote was in fact sent, and that someone at the SPFL had conversations with Dundee FC to get them to pretend a vote was never cast. How do you know Dundee have nothing to gain from this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 I reckon this whole thing could have been avoided if the SPFL hadn’t posted the totals as they stood on Friday. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 1 minute ago, The Master said: I reckon this whole thing could have been avoided if the SPFL hadn’t posted the totals as they stood on Friday. Yep - Massive incompetence from the SPFL. Who the f**k posts the results of a balot before all the members have voted and secondly, before the deadline has passed? Someone should get their jotters for that alone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannadeechee Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 14 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said: Anyone work in IT or just have a sound knowledge of e-mail technology (?) able to explain a situation in which this would legitimately happen through no fault of the sender or receiver? It's suspect as hell and just raises more questions. It could be a few things. It could have simply gone to spam folder of the mailbox it was going to. It could have been blocked at the SPFL side and required manual intervention to release the email. Could have been sitting in outbox of who ever sent the email ie the person's mailbox was full and it only sent once deleted emails were removed from deleted items to clear space. Those are just for starters, could be a.n. other reason. But doesn't necessarily mean it's incompetence on either side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, The Master said: I reckon this whole thing could have been avoided if the SPFL hadn’t posted the totals as they stood on Friday. As much as I agree it's wrong for the SPFL to have done so without chasing up the missing clubs first, I think the clubs themselves knew fine well how their divisional colleagues had voted and Dundee would still have known they held the balance. It's not realistic to keep that under wraps for long. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 Emails can also be set up to send at a particular time - for example I could write and send off one now but set it up for it only to actually be sent to the recipient in two hours, or on Tuesday morning or something like that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludo*1 Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 Raman tweeting a thread currently of Rangers reply. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 12, 2020 Share Posted April 12, 2020 5 minutes ago, Dee Man said: How do you know Dundee have nothing to gain from this? There is nothing obvious to be gained from faffing about in the way they have done so rather than simply to have said from the outset "we're going to abstain for now, sod your 5pm deadline". All that fannying Thistle and ICT about does is create distrust and bad will with them, for no obvious benefit in any behind the scenes "chats" with Neil Doncaster and Peter Lawwell about alternative motions or other inducements. 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.