Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Skyline Drifter]

10 hours ago, Speroni*1 said:

The deals that he's pedaled as the 'best ever' have been absolutely shambolic. What exactly is this 'pretty good job' he's done? He's tied us into a 5 year deal with Sky that was painted as 'amazing' because it represented a 20% increase on the previous deal. Brilliant - if that wasn't a terrible deal we were tied into previously. It took him over 2 year to find a replacement sponsorship deal for the top flight just as Clydesdale stopped as he started his role. In those 2 years he earned £800k and then agreed a deal worth £2m per year with Ladbrokes. Groundbreaking stuff from Doncaster. This is all before we get into his negativity during the Rangers saga and predicting 'armageddon' if the clubs didn't allow Rangers straight back into the top flight.

Just because you didn't hear any suggestions doesn't mean it's not the case either. I know you're in the loop with QotS, but that doesn't mean you'll have access to all the other clubs thought processes.

Finally, why is fan criticism 'tedious'? Yes, some of it may well be misplaced, but to just dismiss it as 'tedious' and not recognise some of the reasons is arrogant at best, moronic at worst.

Of course, given your clear commercial expertise you could have done a better deal on all these before lunch on Day One and been on the golf course by 2pm, aye?

It's easy to run your mouth off with criticism. It's meaningless without any basis in fact though. Back in the days before the interweb existed people used to actually TALK to one another. You know, like using their mouths and tongues. Some people still do. I've heard no significant criticism within the game of Doncaster prior to this. It's pretty radical for Rangers to come out with this and smacks of appeasing their fanbase more than any genuine belief he's doing a bad job. I reserve the right to reappraise that though if they come up with compelling evidence to the contrary. We'll have to wait and see on that one.

It's tedious because it's largely ill informed and counter-productive. Continually calling him "cockwomble" for instance on here as many do says more about them than him. And moronic is a very good word for it. As he's said before himself, it goes with the territory to an extent. He's well paid for it and has broad shoulders but Scotland is an extraordinaryily difficult environment for a football administrator. Vast hordes of football fans believe at any given time the League administration (and the SFA) are biased towards or against one of two clubs, and the rest think he's biased towards both of them at the expense of everyone else!

[Skyline Drifter]

2 hours ago, Speroni*1 said:

Mike Mulraney saying Alloa could probably do one season without fans if it ever came to that.

I doubt it would involve paying the players on the same level as they do now though. Presumably it includes an acceptance that squad spots not already contracted for next year would need filled on a borderline amateur basis. And it also assumes the League funding is able to be held at the same levels as now.

[Ludo*1]

20 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Of course, given your clear commercial expertise you could have done a better deal on all these before lunch on Day One and been on the golf course by 2pm, aye?

It's easy to run your mouth off with criticism. It's meaningless without any basis in fact though. Back in the days before the interweb existed people used to actually TALK to one another. You know, like using their mouths and tongues. Some people still do. I've heard no significant criticism within the game of Doncaster prior to this. It's pretty radical for Rangers to come out with this and smacks of appeasing their fanbase more than any genuine belief he's doing a bad job. I reserve the right to reappraise that though if they come up with compelling evidence to the contrary. We'll have to wait and see on that one.

It's tedious because it's largely ill informed and counter-productive. Continually calling him "cockwomble" for instance on here as many do says more about them than him. And moronic is a very good word for it. As he's said before himself, it goes with the territory to an extent. He's well paid for it and has broad shoulders but Scotland is an extraordinaryily difficult environment for a football administrator. Vast hordes of football fans believe at any given time the League administration (and the SFA) are biased towards or against one of two clubs, and the rest think he's biased towards both of them at the expense of everyone else!

I find it quite outrageous that you have decided to dismiss my post in your first sentence with an analogy that's not far off the ol' embarrassing trotted line that you need to have been a good footballer to be a good manager. I don't get paid £388,000 a year (Before a hefty bonus) to bring in deals that just about pay more than my salary.

Your condescending tone and unwillingness to accept legit fan criticism throughout that whole post is unsurprising from someone actively involved with the inner workings of a Scottish football club.

Do you think he done a 'pretty good job' when it took him 2 year to find a league sponsor? Do you think he was doing a 'pretty good job' when he was detailing that Scottish football would crumble without Rangers in the top flight and that clubs would go bust?

ETA: For what it's worth, I don't think Rangers have any evidence and they should have the book thrown at them for the allegations, but as you say, will wait to be proven wrong.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Speroni*1

[jagfox]

There's an argument that the clubs have fundamental biases towards two big clubs. The leagues are organised around who gets to be in the top flight with Rangers and Celtic and how many times they come to visit their grounds.

A simplistic argument but the economics of football instil that bias.

 

[parsforlife]

3 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Of course, given your clear commercial expertise you could have done a better deal on all these before lunch on Day One and been on the golf course by 2pm, aye?

It's easy to run your mouth off with criticism. It's meaningless without any basis in fact though. Back in the days before the interweb existed people used to actually TALK to one another. You know, like using their mouths and tongues. Some people still do. I've heard no significant criticism within the game of Doncaster prior to this. It's pretty radical for Rangers to come out with this and smacks of appeasing their fanbase more than any genuine belief he's doing a bad job. I reserve the right to reappraise that though if they come up with compelling evidence to the contrary. We'll have to wait and see on that one.

It's tedious because it's largely ill informed and counter-productive. Continually calling him "cockwomble" for instance on here as many do says more about them than him. And moronic is a very good word for it. As he's said before himself, it goes with the territory to an extent. He's well paid for it and has broad shoulders but Scotland is an extraordinaryily difficult environment for a football administrator. Vast hordes of football fans believe at any given time the League administration (and the SFA) are biased towards or against one of two clubs, and the rest think he's biased towards both of them at the expense of everyone else!

I do get your sentiment about it being a thankless task. However he has repeatedly been quoted supporting OF agendas.    He was keen to see sevco put in the top 2 tiers. He had talked of B teams very positively.  You can’t deny that.

[Skyline Drifter]

8 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

I do get your sentiment about it being a thankless task. However he has repeatedly been quoted supporting OF agendas.    He was keen to see sevco put in the top 2 tiers. He had talked of B teams very positively.  You can’t deny that.

I don't deny either of those. And I don't agree with either and I never claimed he was faultless. I think a lot of Scottish football, particularly the hierarchy, misjudged the Rangers situation badly, failing to appreciate the threat to competition integrity of parachuting them straight back to the top level was greater than the short term commercial threats. Fortunately they eventually had to see sense. The B teams entering the League structure nonsense is something than the authorities should bin too (though I don't have any issue with the inclusion in the Challenge Cup. I think if everyone believed it wasn't a means towards levering them into the Leagues there would be far less opposition to it in the Cup too but the SPFL brought that on themselves to an extent).

[HoBNob]

Not surprised to see 

2 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I don't deny either of those. And I don't agree with either and I never claimed he was faultless. I think a lot of Scottish football, particularly the hierarchy, misjudged the Rangers situation badly

Not allot of Scottish football, just the pathetic clubs voting to parachute the Rangers into the top two tiers, absolutely ignoring their fans in the process. 

 

In that regards it should come as absolutely no shock to anyone to see someone involved within the inner workings of Queen of the South proclaiming that Doncaster is doing a good job. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

52 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

Not surprised to see 

Not allot of Scottish football, just the pathetic clubs voting to parachute the Rangers into the top two tiers, absolutely ignoring their fans in the process. 

 

In that regards it should come as absolutely no shock to anyone to see someone involved within the inner workings of Queen of the South proclaiming that Doncaster is doing a good job. 

Your arse! No club can claim the moral high ground. The top tier wanted them straight back, the second tier objected as they'd miss out on big gates, third and fourth tier objected to that because they'd miss out. No morality was applied to that situation by anyone.

[Rudolph Hucker]

5 hours ago, Flash said:

Having the people who run Scottish football clubs assess your performance is a bit like having Amanda Holden as a judge in a talent contest.

Maybe, but having the posters on here assess it is far, far worse.

Let’s face it, we know nothing of what the guy, or the organisation as a whole, do on a day to day basis; nor do we have to. Therefore we hear nothing, and naturally enough some will feel that’s because they DO nothing.

i haven’t been a fan of Doncaster since his “Armageddon” comment when the original Rainjurs disappeared up their own orifice, but  if the clubs didn’t feel they were getting a reasonable return on his thirty-odd thousand per MONTH salary I’m sure he would’ve been dumped well before now. Scottish football must be a tough sell to investors or sponsors, in that regard they must feel he’s doing okay and as an administrator I take it that in general he does what’s needed. Yesterday’s interview certainly gave that impression.

Yes, they admit that the vote could’ve been handled better, but as far as the “bullying” allegations go - a chief exec gets the big bucks for making the big decisions; not everyone will like it but unless Rangers come up with concrete evidence I think he will ride this one out.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I don't deny either of those. And I don't agree with either and I never claimed he was faultless. I think a lot of Scottish football, particularly the hierarchy, misjudged the Rangers situation badly, failing to appreciate the threat to competition integrity of parachuting them straight back to the top level was greater than the short term commercial threats. Fortunately they eventually had to see sense. 

Interesting.

Does this mean that the stance adopted then by Queens, one you defended at the time, is now something you recognise as at best, stupid?

[Guest Flash]

53 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Your arse! No club can claim the moral high ground. The top tier wanted them straight back, the second tier objected as they'd miss out on big gates, third and fourth tier objected to that because they'd miss out. No morality was applied to that situation by anyone.

Queens voted Rangers into the second tier when we were going into the third tier. 

[Skyline Drifter]

51 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Interesting.

Does this mean that the stance adopted then by Queens, one you defended at the time, is now something you recognise as at best, stupid?

I never said that, I'll thank you not to misquote me.

I defended their rights to make a decision as they saw it best for QoS and Scottish football at the time. It wasn't as simple as 'what level do you want Rangers back at?". It was part of a package of reconstruction including playoffs from 2nd tier to top tier and financial prize money redistribution that it was said were only available as an option if Rangers were retained as a top tier side. In fact of course history shows we eventually got the playoffs and financial model changes anyway and that it was the correct decision for Rangers to have to start again at the bottom.  I didn't agree with the way we voted at the time, and I think I said so on here though I'm not going back to look through it now. I did however understand why they voted the way they did and why they thought it was better for both the club and the game in the long run.  I think history shows that it was the wrong vote, that doesn't make it "stupid".

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I never said that, I'll thank you not to misquote me.

I defended their rights to make a decision as they saw it best for QoS and Scottish football at the time. It wasn't as simple as 'what level do you want Rangers back at?". It was part of a package of reconstruction including playoffs from 2nd tier to top tier and financial prize money redistribution that it was said were only available as an option if Rangers were retained as a top tier side. In fact of course history shows we eventually got the playoffs and financial model changes anyway and that it was the correct decision for Rangers to have to start again at the bottom.  I didn't agree with the way we voted at the time, and I think I said so on here though I'm not going back to look through it now. I did however understand why they voted the way they did and why they thought it was better for both the club and the game in the long run.  I think history shows that it was the wrong vote, that doesn't make it "stupid".

I didn't misquote you at all.  I asked about how you now regarded things, and you've answered, so thank you.

You said on here that you did broadly agree with the vote the club made (shortly ahead of it happening actually) because of all the wider benefits you thought it could bring, all of which subsequently arrived anyway.

As you know, I do think it was bloody stupid, as well as utterly shameful.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Interesting.

Does this mean that the stance adopted then by Queens, one you defended at the time, is now something you recognise as at best, stupid?

 

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I didn't misquote you at all.  I asked about how you now regarded things, and you've answered, so thank you.

You said on here that you did broadly agree with the vote the club made (shortly ahead of it happening actually) because of all the wider benefits you thought it could bring, all of which subsequently arrived anyway.

As you know, I do think it was bloody stupid, as well as utterly shameful.

Ok, you didn't "quote" it but you did try to imply I acknowledged it was stupid when I did no such thing. And before you come back to say it was phrased as a question, it was quite clearly intended rhetorically with deliberate use of a word I never used.

I can't recall exactly what I said at the time, I expect you'll be able to dig out quotes, I certainly didn't say anything about it "shortly ahead of it happening" since nobody even knew the way the club had voted until after the event. I think I was clear that it wasn't the way I personally would have voted though.

[Ludo*1]

On 13/07/2012 at 12:35, Skyline Drifter said:

Green dot because I think it's a very brave stance to take given the general mood on this site. It's not far away from my own thinking to be honest.

I'm split on what the best thing to do would be but not really for the right reasons. Firstly, I genuinely couldn't care less what division Rangers play in. I don't watch them or care how they get on so it makes no direct odds to me. And I don't fall into the "it's a new company they start at the bottom" credo. It's Rangers. It walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck and this particular duck is Rangers. So for me its about whether Rangers should be relegated one division or three for their "crimes against football".

As I said, I actually don't care enough about what the answer to that question is to get too upset about it. However, the following would all be great things for the future of Scottish football in my opinion:

- Fairer income distribution amongst the clubs.

- Playoffs from the top division to the next one meaning it's possible for more than one club to be promoted.

- A pyramid system to enable ambitious non-league clubs to reach the SPL.

- A merged league again with only two (or better still even just one) governing bodies.

All of that is on the table here and when it's there I'd grab it. We've been pleading for it for years. What's the alternative? Rangers aren't going to pop out of existence. If they start in division three then two years from now they'll be in division one anyway and we'll quite likely have none of these things. There's even a possibility that faced with potential implosion amongst their member clubs the SPL will suddenly re-visit last week's vote and bring them back in directly anyway rather than lose them for three years. And then we have nothing.

I don't actually see Rangers going down one division rather than three as any great crime against "sporting integrity" but even if it was it's maybe a price worth paying for the greater good of the game.

All that said, I dislike intensely the way Neil Doncaster and his employers (the other 11 SPL clubs) have handled this whole mess and punted it to the SFL to sort out, clapping themselves on the back along the way whilst working in the background to get them back asap. A part of me would like to stick two fingers up at the idea and punt the problem right back at them.

So am I overly bothered about the ultimate outcome of this vote? No, I'm not. There are positives and negatives either way. But I do think the better outcome so we can all just get on with things would be a yes to letting them into division 1, take what's on offer and get things planned and underway. The alternative is just going to leave even more ongoing uncertainty.

It seems likely it will be a "no" though so we can only wait and see what happens.

For the avoidance of any potential doubt - This is my own opinion. I do not speak for Queen of the South FC and I do not know what way the chairman will ultimately vote today.

 

On 13/07/2012 at 13:04, Monkey Tennis said:

Well, we differ on the subject of Rangers. You're "If it walks like a duck..." line doesn't hold up because if it was any other club (but one) they would be required to apply as a new club. You and I both know that.

I simply don't have your capacity for not caring about the nature of the competitions we watch, beyond how they impact on Queens. There's something bigger at stake here.

I do actually have some sympathy for the argument that suggests if they got to the 3rd and there are therefore no concessions, we might wonder 5 years down the line whether a chance was missed. I'll live with that danger though, because the alternative is to accept that one club (or two) can be treated differently from the others.

Do you not also see a contradiction in criticising the behaviour of the governing bodies, while biting at their vague offer?

At the risk of coming across like an utter sad act - here's a post from 8 year ago and you two arguing on pretty much the same subject.

[Sergeant Wilson]

28 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It wasn't as simple as 'what level do you want Rangers back at?"

There should've been no decision to make, they should have been forced to hock their mutton around the juniors or South League until a pyramid was established.

[Monkey Tennis]

43 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said:

 

At the risk of coming across like an utter sad act - here's a post from 8 year ago and you two arguing on pretty much the same subject.

Yes, and the exchange did indeed take place at lunchtime on the day of the vote, before it took place.  

It followed a Daily Record article that morning, in which ex-chairman Davie Rae, outlined his view that Rangers should be put in SFL 1.

As can be seen, SD endorsed the vote subsequently made by the club, for reasons that came to pass anyway.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Monkey Tennis

[eibbod nehpets]

4 hours ago, Speroni*1 said:

Your condescending tone and unwillingness to accept legit fan criticism throughout that whole post is unsurprising from someone actively involved with the inner workings of a Scottish football club.
 

He's always like that.

Now he's having a meltdown. 

 

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, Flash said:

Queens voted Rangers into the second tier when we were going into the third tier. 

Yes, removing even the defence that it was cynically self serving.

It really was rather stupid.

[Skyline Drifter]

17 minutes ago, eibbod nehpets said:

He's always like that.

Now he's having a meltdown. 

 

Oh look, Truthy has crawled back.

A meltdown, hardly. MT and I will never see entirely eye to eye on that, or on the issue of Jim McIntyre. It's not a new debate and it's probably in the wrong place but such s the way of P&B.