The SPFL vote vote

[Nightmare]

52 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

If you're resting your hopes on Particks board being competent in terms of legal situations, then your miles out. This is the club who spent a fortune signing Souleymane Coulibaly, only to find he was banned from playing football for years and ended with them having to give him a lump sum to get him off the wage bill.

I'm one of the first to criticise Britton & Low on just about everything, but that’s a wildly incorrect summary of what happened with Coulibaly.

He was always allowed to play with us, and in fact did so occasionally, but Gary Caldwell didn’t like him (apparently) due to his attitude in training. He was a waste of money, but only because our manager was a fucking idiot and not for any legal reason whatsoever.

[Pet Jeden]

13 minutes ago, Green Day said:

I dont have a dog, but if I find any jobbies they will end up through your letterbox.

So (in case I misunderstand) you dont want those in top spot promoted, you dont want those in relegation spots relegated.

What is it that you want?

Ooooh. That’s not very nice. You Hibbies - full of jokes and banter. But scratch the surface, eh?

[The DA]

There are two different issues here and I think the SPFL board are being blamed for both whereas only the second issue is their fault.

First, there's the fact that no solution is going to be fair to all parties.  No matter how often they vote on it, they're unlikely to hit an agreed solution: those being promoted and those being relegated are going to have diametrically opposed views and needing 8 out of 10 or 9 out of 12 in each division is almost certainly going to be a serious stumbling block.  This isn't the SPFL board's fault - that's the constitution and articles that all clubs agreed to.

Second, there's the cock-up of last week's vote.  I'm still not sure of the timeline but Dundee's 'we want to revoke the 'no' vote we sent earlier' email suggests that they did vote 'no'.  It'll be a point of law whether a club are allowed to revoke a 'no' vote (but not a 'yes' vote) but I'm sure there's precedent that'll determine that one way or the other.  Based on the legal excerpts we've seen on here, it looks like they are allowed to do so, in which case the proposal will lapse in 3 weeks' time.

If Dundee are allowed to change their vote, then the SPFL have done nothing wrong.  Mishandled it certainly but not wrong.  If instead Dundee are not allowed to change a 'no' vote then the proposal has failed immediately and we need a new proposal.

Unless Dundee change their vote to a 'yes', I can't see how we get out of this.  ACAS maybe?

[Tony Wonder]

Not a fan of Sevco at all and I'd be surprised if their claim of evidence was true, however, people asking if they've shown it as if it's proof it doesn't exist aren't necessarily right either.  If they released anything just now they'd be trusting the SPFL to act impartially on it, why would they release the evidence to the people they are actively making claims against?

[craigkillie]

Not a fan of Sevco at all and I'd be surprised if their claim of evidence was true, however, people asking if they've shown it as if it's proof it doesn't exist aren't necessarily right either.  If they released anything just now they'd be trusting the SPFL to act impartially on it, why would they release the evidence to the people they are actively making claims against?

Why would releasing the evidence be such a problem? It's not like it's a single item that the SPFL could destroy and pretend never existed. If it's hard evidence that would prove their case then it doesn't matter who sees it.

[Tony Wonder]

Just now, The DA said:

There are two different issues here and I think the SPFL board are being blamed for both whereas only the second issue is their fault.

First, there's the fact that no solution is going to be fair to all parties.  No matter how often they vote on it, they're unlikely to hit an agreed solution: those being promoted and those being relegated are going to have diametrically opposed views and needing 8 out of 10 or 9 out of 12 in each division is almost certainly going to be a serious stumbling block.  This isn't the SPFL board's fault - that's the constitution and articles that all clubs agreed to.

Second, there's the cock-up of last week's vote.  I'm still not sure of the timeline but Dundee's 'we want to revoke the 'no' vote we sent earlier' email suggests that they did vote 'no'.  It'll be a point of law whether a club are allowed to revoke a 'no' vote (but not a 'yes' vote) but I'm sure there's precedent that'll determine that one way or the other.  Based on the legal excerpts we've seen on here, it looks like they are allowed to do so, in which case the proposal will lapse in 3 weeks' time.

If Dundee are allowed to change their vote, then the SPFL have done nothing wrong.  Mishandled it certainly but not wrong.  If instead Dundee are not allowed to change a 'no' vote then the proposal has failed immediately and we need a new proposal.

Unless Dundee change their vote to a 'yes', I can't see how we get out of this.  ACAS maybe?

Numerous clubs, including ones who've voted yes have voiced their disappointment at the speed the SPFL have tried to rush through the resolution and the lack of discussion.  They've gotten more than just the handling of the vote wrong.

As for Dundee voting yes, it shouldn't matter now.  The way it's been handled means the vote has lost all integrity to force it through.  At the very least it needs a brand new vote, but even that won't wash the stink of this one away.

[Romeo]

4 minutes ago, Tony Wonder said:

Not a fan of Sevco at all and I'd be surprised if their claim of evidence was true, however, people asking if they've shown it as if it's proof it doesn't exist aren't necessarily right either.  If they released anything just now they'd be trusting the SPFL to act impartially on it, why would they release the evidence to the people they are actively making claims against?

They could just release their evidence to the press, the public, the fans. They don't have one copy of this "evidence" that the SPFL will make disappear. 

eta f**k you @craigkillie 

Edited April 15, 2020 by Romeo

[Tony Wonder]

Just now, craigkillie said:

3 minutes ago, Tony Wonder said:

Not a fan of Sevco at all and I'd be surprised if their claim of evidence was true, however, people asking if they've shown it as if it's proof it doesn't exist aren't necessarily right either.  If they released anything just now they'd be trusting the SPFL to act impartially on it, why would they release the evidence to the people they are actively making claims against?

Why would releasing the evidence be such a problem? It's not like it's a single item that the SPFL could destroy and pretend never existed. If it's hard evidence that would prove their case then it doesn't matter who sees it.

They want it to be used as part of an investigation against the SPFL, why would they let the SPFL see it beforehand?

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Tony Wonder said:

They want it to be used as part of an investigation against the SPFL, why would they let the SPFL see it beforehand?

They would anyway if it went to court.

[craigkillie]

They want it to be used as part of an investigation against the SPFL, why would they let the SPFL see it beforehand?

Because there can't be an investigation until the people who have the power to order an investigation know what has to be investigated.

It's the equivalent of me going to the police station and saying "I want to report a crime, please investigate it", but then refusing to tell them what the crime is.

[Green Day]

1 minute ago, Tony Wonder said:

Not a fan of Sevco at all and I'd be surprised if their claim of evidence was true, however, people asking if they've shown it as if it's proof it doesn't exist aren't necessarily right either.  If they released anything just now they'd be trusting the SPFL to act impartially on it, why would they release the evidence to the people they are actively making claims against?

Well, for one thing if it demonstrated - as they have suggested - that this evidence was strong enough to require removing the legal counsel and the Chief Exec of the SPFL, then it must be very very compelling.

If true, Doncaster and the lawyer would not survive 5 minutes if this was made public, indeed every club (even those that voted Yes) would demand they resign if it was proven they did something quite as bad as Rangers suggest.

That Rangers are not publishing, and demanding a delay to facilitate an independent enquiry - how long will that take in the current lockdown????? - suggests they have nothing concrete, or just some questionable Whatsapps from diddy club chairmen.

[Tony Wonder]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

They would anyway if it went to court.

Well quite, it doesn't mean they'd want to turn it over to them now.

I know they could release it into the public domain, but to what end?  To satisfy fans on messageboards?  They've made claims and they'll have to back it up, it wouldn't surprise me if it was pish, it'd fit in with plenty recent behaviour.  But because it hasn't been released doesn't also mean it doesn't exist.

[Tony Wonder]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

Because there can't be an investigation until the people who have the power to order an investigation know what has to be investigated.

It's the equivalent of me going to the police station and saying "I want to report a crime, please investigate it", but then refusing to tell them what the crime is.

It's only the equivalent of that if your complaint was against the police.

As I said, it could well be pish, but it not being made public at this point doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Romeo]

1 minute ago, Tony Wonder said:

It's only the equivalent of that if your complaint was against the police.

As I said, it could well be pish, but it not being made public at this point doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So you say to the police I'd like to report you but i'm not telling you why?

Please launch an investigation 1st

Edited April 15, 2020 by Romeo

[Bohemian]

35 minutes ago, Green Day said:

I dont have a dog, but if I find any jobbies they will end up through your letterbox.

So (in case I misunderstand) you dont want those in top spot promoted, you dont want those in relegation spots relegated.

What is it that you want?

Hes gone full sevco, he wants null and void, crying about it all week.

[paranoid android]

26 minutes ago, Green Day said:

I think you are right.

However if Rangers are relying on Gardiner, it perhaps makes sense why they have withheld this "vital evidence" they think they have.

He was played like a fiddle by Dundee, went all in with Rangers on the conspiracy theories, realised he had been made to look a fool and was frankly embarrassing - almost at the rambling stage - during that Sportsound interview. 

Compare that with the Forfar chairman - who came on after Scott had to "walk the dog"  code for allow Rangers to release their statement - who was reasoned and rational.

I'm still glad Gardiner went on Sportsound to try and clarify the vote issue - he highlighted important issues that shouldn't be ignored.

[paranoid android]

23 minutes ago, Romeo said:

Hearst fans all in with Sevco, their fans and crackpot conspiracy theories.

 

Nope.

[bennett]

9 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Because there can't be an investigation until the people who have the power to order an investigation know what has to be investigated.

It's the equivalent of me going to the police station and saying "I want to report a crime, please investigate it", but then refusing to tell them what the crime is.

You do see how absurd that is. 

Hi Neil here's our grievance against you and your organisation, I'm sure that we can trust you and Rod McKenzie to get to the bottom of it.

An investigation of this nature has to be independent and impartial.

5 minutes ago, Romeo said:

So you say to the police I'd like to report you but i'm not telling you why?

Please launch an investigation 1st

 

The police have a professional standards department to deal with police complaints, another great point though,  keep up the good work etc.

[The DA]

2 minutes ago, bennett said:

You do see how absurd that is. 

Hi Neil here's our grievance against you and your organisation, I'm sure that we can trust you and Rod McKenzie to get to the bottom of it.

An investigation of this nature has to be independent and impartial.

 

The police have a professional standards department to deal with police complaints, another great point though,  keep up the good work etc.

I think Rangers should feel free to pay for an independent tribunal.

[Granny Danger]

4 minutes ago, The DA said:

I think Rangers should feel free to pay for an independent tribunal.

Wouldn’t cost a lot.  I’m sure the United, Raith and Cove chairmen would sit on it free of charge.