The SPFL vote vote

[Pet Jeden]

21 minutes ago, paranoid android said:

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.

It's not up on their own website yet. Do they have some kind of IT problem?

[The DA]

3 hours 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 

 

Someone else posted that everyone in the Premiership has already had already had the lion's share of the prize money - everybody had received about £1M and Celtic, Rangers and Motherwell had received about £1.5M. 

Since Hearts aren't due much more prize money for 12th, is it fair to give them 1/12th of the remaining £11.5M?

 

[LordHawHaw]

2 minutes ago, Romeo said:

14 minutes ago, LordHawHaw said:

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.
 

Offft....

Indeed. Mr Park?

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

"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?

It's a good question, maybe they dont have the end of season cash, outgoing broadcaster stumped up, new broadcaster need to be calmed they will get what they will be paying for. All guesses methinks unless it a simple rule chance that you would have thought could be accomodated easily

[bennett]

 

 

Tom English@TEnglishSport

 

 

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.

 

 

[craigkillie]

Just now, bennett said:

 

 

Tom English@TEnglishSport

 

 

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.

 

 

I don't think this is what happened, but emails with attachments do tend to take longer to arrive than those which are just text.

[The DA]

9 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

"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?

Company law?

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

8 minutes ago, Romeo said:

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.

WTF???

So can any club just withdraw their vote after it has been received and get a another chance?

The SPFL admit they got Dundee signed vote but decided not to count it. All the evidence of jiggery pokey is right there. A valid vote was cast and they ignored it.

 

[Guest JTS98]

18 minutes ago, LordHawHaw said:

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
 

It's not a very convincing statement.

Firstly, there's no explanation for why the SPFL cannot pay out money without drawing a line under the season. He just says that they can't. Yet, they're a members' organisation, so who exactly is stopping them? They have never explained this.

Secondly, the section relating to the famous Dundee vote is 'honest guv' stuff. "Err, aye, well, they, err, voted, but, err, you see, it's.. errr". In no way allays concerns that something fishy is going on.

Thirdly, the 85% support bit is utterly irrelevant. It's of no consequence.

Finally, he has some nerve after giving no explanation for his stance on paying out money, after the dodgy-as-f**k Dundee debacle, he says basically 'Trust me' to Rangers in regards to whatever evidence they may or may not have.

It's a load of bollocks.

[bennett]

Has Jim Traynor hacked Tom English' account?

 

Tom English@TEnglishSport

 

 

Took almost two days to offer some ‘clarity’ around this. Still unanswered: Did Dundee register a No vote? Why didn’t they resubmit a No vote? Before sending the email cancelling the vote, who did they speak to and what was discussed? We’re all looking to talk to Mr Nelms

[LordHawHaw]

Just now, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

WTF???

So can any club just withdraw their vote after it has been received and get a another chance?

The SPFL admit they got Dundee signed vote but decided not to count it. All the evidence of jiggery pokey is right there. A valid vote was cast and they ignored it.

 

I would have thought you could change it up to when you cannot,ie  when the deadline is reached

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, The DA said:

Company law?

Meaning?

The SPFL is a members' organisation.

What outside force do you think will intervene if they give their members their money?

The police? On what basis? It's the clubs' money. The SPFL is keeping it from them for reasons unclear.

[Jammyp]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

Meaning?

The SPFL is a members' organisation.

What outside force do you think will intervene if they give their members their money?

The police? On what basis? It's the clubs' money. The SPFL is keeping it from them for reasons unclear.

9 in a row. More important than any clubs future. But don't say it out loud.

[Pet Jeden]

9 minutes ago, Romeo said:

20 minutes ago, LordHawHaw said:

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....

Boom. Oh, no you can't. There's yer legal case right there. Vote was sent (and received). The 5pm deadline either matters - in which case there was no 75% in favour in the Championship. Or the 5 pm deadline doesn't matter - but no proper voting slip was sent by Dundee in favour and also they couldn't have 2 votes. Again  - no 75%. Any actions founded on an assumption of a vote in favour are now fair game for legal action lasting yonks. IMO. Nae luck McLennan/Doncaster.

As for the "money can't be dished out without final placings" line - pffft.  Yes they can if the SPFL change their normal rules. After all, that's what they are proposing regarding numbers of games played, play-offs, promotion, relegation etc.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

As for the "money can't be dished out without final placings" line - pffft.  Yes they can if the SPFL change their normal rules. After all, that's what they are proposing regarding numbers of games played, play-offs, promotion, relegation etc.

There's no reason to even change the rules. Just give out the money.

There is no outside force stopping them doing so. They are just refusing to do it.

 

[Kenny fae Partick]

7 minutes ago, LordHawHaw said:

I would have thought you could change it up to when you cannot,ie  when the deadline is reached

Is it not the case that Dundee's vote has been legally cast , and therefore the proposition falls.

[bennett]

The spfl appears to tying themselves in knots,  it's like the left hand doesn't know what the right hands doing. 

 

A spokesman for Rangers advised that Rangers Company secretary, James Blair, has had several email exchanges with the SPFL legal adviser, Rod McKenzie.
Remarkably, we have learned from an email received from Mr McKenzie that our proposed resolution is deemed unnecessary because
the SPFL board already has the authority to provide loans to member clubs which can be exercised by the SPFL at any time.
The Inverness CEO, Scot Gardiner, confirmed on national radio yesterday that SPFL representatives made it clear on several conference calls that it was necessary to approve the SPFL resolution in order to release funds which would relieve the financial hardship being experienced by many clubs.

Member clubs will be shocked to learn this is not the case and any club facing short term financial difficulties should request a loan from the SPFL immediately.
Our resolution was never intended to release end of season fee payments but instead to provide loans as an advance on
such payments. It is now apparent that this is already within the power of the SPFL.
This provides further evidence that an independent investigation is urgently required

 

 

[The_Kincardine]

MacLennon say, to quote, "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. "

So it's 'wholly proper' to issue the votes cast in a ballot while the ballot is in progress?  The man is delusional.

[Green Day]

2 minutes ago, Kenny fae Partick said:

Is it not the case that Dundee's vote has been legally cast , and therefore the proposition falls.

Dundee are all over the place. Seems like the Chairman contacted SPFL before the "vote" arrived to say "ignore the vote, we are still in discussion".

Dundee have fucked this and until their owner/chairman confirms their vote the one shown to the ICT fanny doesn't count.

[Guest JTS98]

6 minutes ago, Jammyp said:

9 in a row. More important than any clubs future. But don't say it out loud.

It's now about 48 hours on from the Dundee farce and the SPFL board have come up with no convincing explanation for the events surrounding that. Who spoke to whom and when? Is there any connection between any communications with Dundee and their failure to simply resubmit? Are Dundee being 'induced' to change their vote? If so, by whom?

And, of course, they still haven't answered the question of why they keep insisting that they cannot give out money to their own members without drawing a line under the season.

It's hard to avoid drawing the conclusion that somebody is manipulating this. And when asking who that is, it is perhaps most sensible to ask who benefits most from simply calling the season as it lies.

It is becoming increasingly difficult in the face of the unanswered questions and illogical justifications around this, and considering who has most to gain from this attempt to railroad the process, not to look towards the east end of Glasgow.

[JamieThomas]

Fair play to the sticky buns, they've got these ****s on toast.