Can we ever imagine a Scotland without the Old Firm?

[RB-Scotland]

20 minutes ago, ahemps said:

The MLS has a wage structure and it still attracts players. It has found its level and I think the wage caps are moving up the way so they will continue to attract better players year on year.

There are countless ways to look at wage and transfer spends, you need to find a balance that allows you to be competitive with other leagues while creating your own competitive league. You would find your place in the food chain but is that not what happens anyway with no structure?

You could maybe cap it outside of marquee players, which I think the MLS does too. If we were on a level playing field recruitment wise outside of 3 or 4 players they pay stupid money for, I think the league would be a lot more even.

[gannonball]

11 minutes ago, kennie makevin said:

The Old Firm are vermin and sadly very much still with us. When one of Rangers or Celtic put forward proposals for a more equitable distribution of wealth in the SPLF resulting in Celtic & Rangers voting against each other I will revise my opinion. Until such time that happens their is still an 'Old Firm' however much pissing on the wind people like you indulge in.

 

You can thank ex Aberdeen chairman Milne for failing to change that tbh. That vote restructure change was the moment for real wealth distribution change in Scottish football. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by gannonball

[AJF]

What was the in's and out's of the Milne vote? I can't really recall it well, but what would it have meant had Aberdeen voted the other way? Has there been any votes since where the outcome would've been materially different had he voted the other way?

[gannonball]

8 minutes ago, AJF said:

What was the in's and out's of the Milne vote? I can't really recall it well, but what would it have meant had Aberdeen voted the other way? Has there been any votes since where the outcome would've been materially different had he voted the other way?

From what I can recall the voting structure was 11-1 to pass certain stuff through thus meaning any significant change that would distribute resources more fairly could be blocked by 2 clubs (ie: Celtic and Rangers). When the latter fucked off a proposal was put forward to change the voting structure to less of a majority vote and  Aberdeen/Milne rejected it as they felt they could hoover up the 2nd place money for a good while and become a real second force given the shite state Hibs and Hearts were in at the time.

Edited April 8, 2022 by gannonball

[AB1872]

40 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

All it really does is cement an order further.

Or incentivise others to be successful 

[VincentGuerin]

5 minutes ago, gannonball said:

From what I can recall the voting structure was 11-1 to pass certain stuff through thus meaning any significant change that would distribute resources more fairly could be blocked by 2 clubs (ie: Celtic and Rangers). When the latter fucked off a proposal was put forward to change the voting structure to less of a majority vote and  Aberdeen/Milne rejected it as they felt they could hoover up the 2nd place money for a good while and become a real second force given the shite state Hibs and Hearts were in at the time.

This is how I remember it at the time. Milne was always a c**t, and this was incredibly short-sighted faux Billy Big Baws behaviour.

This kind of thinking perhaps explains how Aberdeen ended up with no medium-term advantage from a situation with Rangers liquidated, Hearts in administration, and Hibs managing to relegate themselves. Incredibly stupid.

[DukDukGoose]

I've always found it hilarious that folk think Milne voted no so that we could become the 'second force'.

Anyone with a brain could see free spending Sevco were going to push away from the other 10 clubs very quickly.

[coprolite]

5 minutes ago, gannonball said:

From what I can recall the voting structure was 11-1 to pass certain stuff through thus meaning any significant change that would distribute resources more fairly could be blocked by 2 clubs (ie: Celtic and Rangers). When the latter fucked off a proposal was put forward to change the voting structure to less of a majority vote and  Aberdeen/Milne rejected it as they felt they could hoover up the 2nd place money for a good while and become a real second force given the shite state Hibs and Hearts were in at the time.

Pretty sure milne was still fuming about the other clubs voting through the Setanta deal. 

[VincentGuerin]

6 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

I've always found it hilarious that folk think Milne voted no so that we could become the 'second force'.

Anyone with a brain could see free spending Sevco were going to push away from the other 10 clubs very quickly.

I think I've found your error.

[Dons_1988]

5 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

I've always found it hilarious that folk think Milne voted no so that we could become the 'second force'.

Anyone with a brain could see free spending Sevco were going to push away from the other 10 clubs very quickly.

It’s a nice story for them though. 

[Squonk]

The sheer audacity of a supporter of a club that died a self-inflicted death through insolvency giving lectures on where we're all failing is quite breath-taking in its arrogance and lack of awareness.

[VincentGuerin]

5 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

It’s a nice story for them though. 

So, what was the reason then?

[Jacksgranda]

It seemed like a good idea at the time...

[gannonball]

12 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Pretty sure milne was still fuming about the other clubs voting through the Setanta deal. 

He was right like Celtic and Rangers were at the time over the scepticism of Setanta but surely he wasn’t voting purely from what happened on a deal from a decade ago on the vote change ?  For me its quite obvious what he thought Aberdeen could do at the time with the extra money in comparison to their rivals of similar size. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by gannonball

[DukDukGoose]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

So, what was the reason then?

 

8 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Pretty sure milne was still fuming about the other clubs voting through the Setanta deal. 

Milne and the OF didn't want to go with Setanta as the numbers didn't add up. Other teams pushed ahead and voted for it. Setanta went bust. Sky swooped in the save the day with a low ball offer. 

[VincentGuerin]

2 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

 

Milne and the OF didn't want to go with Setanta as the numbers didn't add up. Other teams pushed ahead and voted for it. Setanta went bust. Sky swooped in the save the day with a low ball offer. 

No, I know about the Setanta thing.

But why did Aberdeen block the voting change?

I can't see any reason other than that Milne thought they'd skoosh the old Rangers cash.

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

No, I know about the Setanta thing.

But why did Aberdeen block the voting change?

I can't see any reason other than that Milne thought they'd skoosh the old Rangers cash.

Obviously felt that setanta going through on a simple majority was harmful. 

Not defending it as it was a c**t move but this idea that he had any ambition to become a force is absolutely laughable. 

They day after rangers had finished trying to poach our manager he literally did an interview saying ‘everyone wants to see rangers back at full strength’ at a time when we were actually competing to finish above them. 

Milne was an arsehole but folk have got the reasons why wrong. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Dons_1988

[DukDukGoose]

1 minute ago, VincentGuerin said:

No, I know about the Setanta thing.

But why did Aberdeen block the voting change?

I can't see any reason other than that Milne thought they'd skoosh the old Rangers cash.

And then what?

He clearly blocked the voting change to have a stronger hand over such issues as the voting deal that had stung the club in the past.

[yoda]

Wasn't the voting structure thing at the same time as County and the Paisley Saints blocking the 8-8-8 nonsense? 

What does Setanta have to do with it? 

[VincentGuerin]

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Obviously felt that setanta would have gone through on a simple majority. 

Not defending it as it was a c**t move but this idea that he had any ambition to become a force is absolutely laughable. 

They day after rangers had finished trying to poach our manager he literally did an interview saying ‘everyone wants to see rangers back at full strength’ at a time when we were actually competing to finish above them. 

Milne was an arsehole but folk have got the reasons why wrong. 

I think that's a generous take on it.

The interview is just standard football-politician stuff. What is he meant to say in public?

But you like Aberdeen, so you go for the generous view. I don't really like Aberdeen, so I'll stick to my view that they're c***s. Cheers.