The SPFL vote vote

[Frank Grimes]

35 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I thought his point was fairly clear.

He said ICT were opposed to clubs being relegated and suffering the consequent financial damage, job losses, pay-cuts that entails when they hadn't actually been relegated.

He went on to say he saw no reason for these extremely drastic consequences for certain clubs to be linked to all of the clubs receiving their money. He said he had brought this up in SPFL meetings and had not been given a satisfactory answer as to why the two things were linked.

ICT believe the money can be paid out without arbitrary financial hardship being imposed on certain clubs and those employed by those clubs.

It seems pretty clear to me.

Call me cynical but I think it’s extremely naive to think Gardiner’s position is 100% wholesome

“His only thoughts” were to Partick Thistle when casting the vote 

Drivel

They want league construction and wanted promoted

Nothing wrong with that but like Sevco, me thinks their intentions aren’t as honourable as some want to believe 

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Frank Grimes said:

Call me cynical but I think it’s extremely naive to think Gardiner’s position is 100% wholesome

“His only thoughts” were to Partick Thistle when casting the vote 

Drivel

They want league construction and wanted promoted

Nothing wrong with that but like Sevco, me thinks their intentions aren’t as honourable as some want to believe 

Don't know. I don't know the guy, and I don't know the chairman etc.

Regardless, it's a position that makes sense.

[Lobby Dossar]

See below for money each club would receive if it was paid as the league stands at present.
Celtic                        £3.35M

Rangers                  £2.4M

Motherwell             £2.06M

Aberdeen               £1.81M

Livingston               £1.68M

Hibs                           £1.56M

St Johnstone         £1.43M

Kilmarnock              £1.37M

St Mirren                   £1.31M

Ross Co                    £1.25M

Hamilton                   £1.18M

Hearts                        £1.12M

 

If it was split evenly each club would receive £1.71M

Top 3 would be loose out Aberdeen and Livi would just about get what they were due and 6 to 12 would gain out of it 

 

[EdTheDuck]

17 minutes ago, Lobby Dossar said:

See below for money each club would receive if it was paid as the league stands at present.
Celtic                        £3.35M

Rangers                  £2.4M

Motherwell             £2.06M

Aberdeen               £1.81M

Livingston               £1.68M

Hibs                           £1.56M

St Johnstone         £1.43M

Kilmarnock              £1.37M

St Mirren                   £1.31M

Ross Co                    £1.25M

Hamilton                   £1.18M

Hearts                        £1.12M

 

If it was split evenly each club would receive £1.71M

Top 3 would be loose out Aberdeen and Livi would just about get what they were due and 6 to 12 would gain out of it 

 

It would make virtually no difference to Celtic but Sevco need every penny so they'd say nay. Would Motherwell be willing to pass on £300K? It would need to be 11-1 to change, wouldn't it? Not that the fucking idiots will do anything along these lines anyway...

[bennett]

1 minute ago, EdTheDuck said:

It would make virtually no difference to Celtic but Sevco need every penny so they'd say nay. Would Motherwell be willing to pass on £300K? It would need to be 11-1 to change, wouldn't it? Not that the fucking idiots will do anything along these lines anyway...

Sevco have already mooted  the idea tho....

 

[EdTheDuck]

1 minute ago, bennett said:

Sevco have already mooted  the idea tho....

 

Have they? Equal shares? Mind you, words are cheap, innit

[cyderspaceman]

3 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Absolutely serious suggestion.

The meeting should be broadcast live. No more he says, she says. Say your bit, produce your evidence and deal with the response.

Is popcorn classed as an essential purchase in this scenario?

[Mr Heliums]

 

23 minutes ago, EdTheDuck said:

Sevco need every penny so they'd say nay. 

Not sure.  They've wasted £50m-odd this year failing to challenge Celtic's nine in a row.

This is a much more cost-effective option.

[flyingscot]

I still can’t think that Dundee didn’t engineer this situation. I can’t think the SPFL are competent enough to arrange this conspiracy. 

[cyderspaceman]

I'd like to see the leagues completed. Even if it means playing every 2 days behind closed doors. The matches could be reduced to 30 mins each way. Just get them played and results obtained.

(I have obtained extra PPE to deal with incoming )

[NorthBank]

I'd like to see the leagues completed. Even if it means playing every 2 days behind closed doors. The matches could be reduced to 30 mins each way. Just get them played and results obtained.
(I have obtained extra PPE to deal with incoming [emoji14])

I think everyone would. However since most players' contracts end at the beginning of June the chances are next to zero.

[paranoid android]

SPFL statement incoming. 

[DA Baracus]

4 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

SPFL statement incoming. 

They've said no payments can be made at all until positions are declared.

So the argument saying that the SPFL should pay out the minimum amount to each club is no longer valid.

[Bohemian]

13 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

SPFL statement incoming. 

On a Sunday, wow.  Love statements.. any guess on what time we will get it?

[craigkillie]

9 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

They've said no payments can be made at all until positions are declared.

So the argument saying that the SPFL should pay out the minimum amount to each club is no longer valid.

They haven't said this. They have said that they can't pay out all of the prize money until the positions are declared. They could pay out the minimum amounts to each club, but it would be a very small amount for each given that they've already received the vast majority of that over the season as normal.

[paranoid android]

12 minutes ago, Bohemian said:

On a Sunday, wow.  Love statements.. any guess on what time we will get it?

They just read it on Sportsound, so I guess it must be going on Twitter etc soon - it wasn't on the SPFL site when I looked.

Apart from the financial stuff, they're also saying they're disappointed that rangers haven't supplied evidence of alleged jiggery-pokery.

rangers have already said they'll only share info once an investigation is launched - bit of a stand-off, then.

Edited April 12, 2020 by paranoid android

[Bohemian]

3 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

They just read it on Sportsound, so I guess it must be on Twitter etc soon - it wasn't on the SPFL site when I looked.

Apart from the financial stuff, they're also saying they're disappointed that rangers haven't supplied evidence of jiggery-pokery.

rangers have already said they'll share info once an investigation is launched - bit of a stand-off, then.

Cheers.. 

[LordHawHaw]

Please find below correspondence from SPFL Chairman Murdoch MacLennan, which has been issued to all 42 SPFL clubs this afternoon.

TO ALL SPFL CLUBS Sunday April 12th 2020

Dear All,

I am writing to you all to correct significant misinformation appearing in the media. This misinformation is damaging to Scottish football as a whole – and to each and every member club of the SPFL. Several suggestions have been made in recent days about the treatment of a resolution requisition by Rangers FC, about fee payments to clubs, and about the votes cast by Ladbrokes Championship clubs. This letter is intended to set the record straight.

It has been suggested that the Board rushed to get a resolution out to members. In fact, the dates and times of a number of recent SPFL Board meetings were delayed specifically to ensure that one director had the time that he needed to be able to reach a decision. The SPFL Board spent around an hour discussing in great detail the resolution requisitioned by Rangers. Only then did the Board, based on clear and unequivocal advice from a QC, determine that the resolution was not effective. The Rangers director on the Board confirmed that he was content with the time given over to that discussion. He was also offered the opportunity of the SPFL’s legal counsel Rod McKenzie working with Rangers’ Company Secretary on a resolution that might be effective. To date, no further requisition has come forward from Rangers or from any other SPFL member.

It has been suggested that it is open to the SPFL Board to distribute end-of-season fee payments to clubs now, in the absence of league placings being finalised. That is simply not the case. For the Board to be able to authorise end-of-season fee payments to clubs (amounting to £9.3million gross), final league placings must be determined. Those who have suggested that the SPFL may make such payments, without a line being drawn under Season 2019/20, are wrong.

Further, it has been suggested that all Ladbrokes Championship club votes were cast on Friday night. One Ladbrokes Championship club attempted to submit a voting slip, which did not reach the SPFL until late that evening. Earlier, at 6pm on Friday, that club had confirmed in writing to the SPFL that any attempted vote from that club should not be considered as cast. We have had a number of conversations with the chairman of that club over the weekend, in which he reiterated that his club had not yet voted on the SPFL resolution. The SPFL has proceeded on the basis of the unequivocal instruction from that club received at 6pm on Friday.

At the time of writing, 40 of our 42 clubs have voted, with one Ladbrokes Championship club and one Ladbrokes League 1 / League 2 club yet to cast a vote on the SPFL resolution. They have the remainder of the 28-day period to do so, should they wish. The current level of support for the Board resolution is 85% of clubs in favour.

I have seen allegations made by the Rangers FC Interim Chairman Douglas Park, in a statement issued by Rangers at 3pm on Saturday, about the SPFL, its corporate governance, its culture, its office-bearers and its business operations. I wrote to Mr Park on Saturday evening, requesting any material to support these allegations. I regret to inform you that, at the time of writing, I have received nothing from Mr Park. It is difficult to understand why Mr Park should not wish to share this alleged material with me.

I am entirely satisfied, based on all the information at my disposal, that the SPFL and its executives and legal advisers have acted wholly properly at every stage in this process. Should any member club have evidence to the contrary they should bring it to me – indeed, I would argue they have a duty to do so – and I will deal with it in an entirely even-handed way. To do otherwise is harmful to the standing, performance and effective operation of the SPFL and runs counter to the wider interests of our game.

Edited April 12, 2020 by LordHawHaw

[Romeo]

Please find below correspondence from SPFL Chairman Murdoch MacLennan, which has been issued to all 42 SPFL clubs this afternoon.

TO ALL SPFL CLUBS Sunday April 12th 2020

Dear All,

I am writing to you all to correct significant misinformation appearing in the media. This misinformation is damaging to Scottish football as a whole – and to each and every member club of the SPFL. Several suggestions have been made in recent days about the treatment of a resolution requisition by Rangers FC, about fee payments to clubs, and about the votes cast by Ladbrokes Championship clubs. This letter is intended to set the record straight.

It has been suggested that the Board rushed to get a resolution out to members. In fact, the dates and times of a number of recent SPFL Board meetings were delayed specifically to ensure that one director had the time that he needed to be able to reach a decision. The SPFL Board spent around an hour discussing in great detail the resolution requisitioned by Rangers. Only then did the Board, based on clear and unequivocal advice from a QC, determine that the resolution was not effective. The Rangers director on the Board confirmed that he was content with the time given over to that discussion. He was also offered the opportunity of the SPFL’s legal counsel Rod McKenzie working with Rangers’ Company Secretary on a resolution that might be effective. To date, no further requisition has come forward from Rangers or from any other SPFL member.

It has been suggested that it is open to the SPFL Board to distribute end-of-season fee payments to clubs now, in the absence of league placings being finalised. That is simply not the case. For the Board to be able to authorise end-of-season fee payments to clubs (amounting to £9.3million gross), final league placings must be determined. Those who have suggested that the SPFL may make such payments, without a line being drawn under Season 2019/20, are wrong.

Further, it has been suggested that all Ladbrokes Championship club votes were cast on Friday night. One Ladbrokes Championship club attempted to submit a voting slip, which did not reach the SPFL until late that evening. Earlier, at 6pm on Friday, that club had confirmed in writing to the SPFL that any attempted vote from that club should not be considered as cast. We have had a number of conversations with the chairman of that club over the weekend, in which he reiterated that his club had not yet voted on the SPFL resolution. The SPFL has proceeded on the basis of the unequivocal instruction from that club received at 6pm on Friday.

At the time of writing, 40 of our 42 clubs have voted, with one Ladbrokes Championship club and one Ladbrokes League 1 / League 2 club yet to cast a vote on the SPFL resolution. They have the remainder of the 28-day period to do so, should they wish. The current level of support for the Board resolution is 85% of clubs in favour.

I have seen allegations made by the Rangers FC Interim Chairman Douglas Park, in a statement issued by Rangers at 3pm on Saturday, about the SPFL, its corporate governance, its culture, its office-bearers and its business operations. I wrote to Mr Park on Saturday evening, requesting any material to support these allegations. I regret to inform you that, at the time of writing, I have received nothing from Mr Park. It is difficult to understand why Mr Park should not wish to share this alleged material with me.

I am entirely satisfied, based on all the information at my disposal, that the SPFL and its executives and legal advisers have acted wholly properly at every stage in this process. Should any member club have evidence to the contrary they should bring it to me – indeed, I would argue they have a duty to do so – and I will deal with it in an entirely even-handed way. To do otherwise is harmful to the standing, performance and effective operation of the SPFL and runs counter to the wider interests of our game.

Offft....

[Guest JTS98]

"That is simply not the case. For the Board to be able to authorise end-of-season fee payments to clubs (amounting to £9.3million gross), final league placings must be determined. Those who have suggested that the SPFL may make such payments, without a line being drawn under Season 2019/20, are wrong."

It is not explained here why this is the case.

What outside force is stopping the SPFL supplying this money to its member clubs?