Conference League Good Guys List

[craigkillie]

43 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

If the vote is "No", but there is a majority of SPFL clubs voting in favour, then I think we could see the SPFL create a new league within their own structure, which they are free to do (rubber stamped by the SFA).  It would no doubt include invitees from B Teams and LL/HL clubs, but would see a closing of ranks among the SPFL clubs to the detriment of the rest of the pyramid.  It would of course be a non starter if no teams accepted the invitation, as SPFL clubs have rejected B Teams on their own in the past.

The SPFL wouldn't just require a majority to expand the size of their organisation, they would require a supermajority which includes 11 of the 12 Premiership clubs, 8 of the 10 Championship clubs and 15 of the 20 League 1 and League 2 clubs. That is already impossible to achieve based on the existing declarations.

[Burnieman]

8 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Ah the old get other folks to do all the donkey work approach. A guy on here sets out how such a league could be created under the articles.  As far as I can see you unilaterally have then decided with no supporting rationale at all that the SFA Board itself can’t use the articles highlighted to bring in a new league - where does it say that requires a members vote?  Be very specific as a poster on here loves to say.  Or maybe acknowledge that there are other valid viewpoints as regards how best to handle this matter.  Enough said though tonight.  

No, people are asking you to back this is up;

9 hours ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

You do realise there is a counter view held by some knowledgeable  people that the SFA do have the power to create such a League?  And that presumably it is though preferable for them if they can say a majority of clubs were in favour and voted for its creation 

So, who are these people and on what grounds do they believe that the articles allow them that authority?

You're implying that the SFA Board can impose anything they like without the approval of the membership, only it doesn't work like that.

I've looked at the two articles mentioned above but can't see any indication that they provide the SFA Board the ability to ignore the membership vote and impose a new league.  They might do, but you seem certain, so over to you to explain it further to us dafties.

Edited June 3, 2023 by Burnieman

[LongTimeLurker]

6 minutes ago, 1GregStewart said:

...probably because of who cowdens chairman is . 

No probably about it and better not to take the bait and give him the attention he craves. If you ignore him, he soon toddles off and finds another thread to pick a fight in.

Winding things back to the topic, 50 votes out of 109 come from non-SPFL full member clubs. There are enough SPFL clubs declared as NO now that the diddys should win this unless all the other SPFL clubs back the OF on this issue and/or something really strange happens with clubs from leagues like the SoS and NCL that might not care so much about what happens at tier 5 and with the blazers from the various nonleague senior dominated FAs.

Hopefully lots of people have been using contact details for those smaller clubs and FAs that are readily available online to make sure they know the score ahead of time.

[perthmo]

39 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

 

I don't think either of these Articles give the SFA Board the over riding power to create a new league without the approval of the membership. If they think it does, then it's a very big gamble to go against a vote at AGM.  They won't do it otherwise you're into the territory of legal challenges and votes of no confidence etc.

Have a look at articles 62.1 and 62.2 (o).  They could be interpreted as giving the SFA Board carte blanche to do what they like.

[Cowden Cowboy]

3 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

No, people are asking you to back this is up;

So, who are these people and on what grounds do they believe that the articles allow them that authority?

You're implying that the SFA Board can impose anything they like without the approval of the membership, only it doesn't work like that.

I've looked at the two articles mentioned above but can't see any indication that they provide the SFA Board the ability to ignore the membership vote and impose a new league.  They might do, but you seem certain, so over to you to explain it further to us dafties.

The SFA Board has a good deal of power.  The point is these articles potentially allowed the board to create a new league without a vote.  It’s nothing to do with them ignoring a vote rather than there is a view that they didn’t need to even have a vote in the first place.  Rather than prompt them to do that surely a better strategy was to encourage them to go down the vote route where if they lose it is much more politically difficult to go against the clearly expressed view of the membership.  Of course that might not be the end of the matter 

[LongTimeLurker]

2 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

The SFA Board has a good deal of power.  The point is these articles potentially allowed the board to create a new league without a vote...

There are still the Club 42 playoff rules to be amended if they had created the Conference unilaterally and the HL and LL would need to sign off on that before the Conference could be part of the pyramid rather than a standalone reserve league.

[Burnieman]

Just now, Cowden Cowboy said:

The SFA Board has a good deal of power.  The point is these articles potentially allowed the board to create a new league without a vote.  It’s nothing to do with them ignoring a vote rather than there is a view that they didn’t need to even have a vote in the first place.  Rather than prompt them to do that surely a better strategy was to encourage them to go down the vote route where if they lose it is much more politically difficult to go against the clearly expressed view of the membership.  Of course that might not be the end of the matter 

So again, which particular Articles give them that explicit power? what's the point of an AGM if that power exists to implement whatever they like?

If the SFA Board have that power then they would not risk a negative membership vote, they'd present as the fabled "done deal" and get on with it.

If the SFA Board have that power, but choose to table a proposal at the AGM to legitimise it, lose, but press ahead anyway ignoring the members expressed wishes, it's suicide for the Board and likely to open them up to all sorts of challenges and Maxwell's head would be on a plate.

It makes no sense.

[Footballfirst]

13 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The SPFL wouldn't just require a majority to expand the size of their organisation, they would require a supermajority which includes 11 of the 12 Premiership clubs, 8 of the 10 Championship clubs and 15 of the 20 League 1 and League 2 clubs. That is already impossible to achieve based on the existing declarations.

I appreciate that the SPFL Articles require a qualified resolution to increase the number of members, but my suggested action was predicated on a simple majority of SPFL clubs voting for the SFA's resolution on Tuesday. I can envisage that the SPFL's Board could seek to use such a vote as leverage to persuade its members to agree to an expansion.

There is always an implied threat to the L1 and L2 clubs, that there could be a breakaway league formed, much the same as occurred when the SPL broke away from the SFL in 1998.

[moses1924]

Have we reached the 55 needed yet then? 

[LongTimeLurker]

1 minute ago, moses1924 said:

Have we reached the 55 needed yet then? 

41 at best on clubs declaring what they are going to do AFAIA so still plenty of scope for uncertainty.

[Cowden Cowboy]

4 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

So again, which particular Articles give them that explicit power? what's the point of an AGM if that power exists to implement whatever they like?

If the SFA Board have that power then they would not risk a negative membership vote, they'd present as the fabled "done deal" and get on with it.

If the SFA Board have that power, but choose to table a proposal at the AGM to legitimise it, lose, but press ahead anyway ignoring the members expressed wishes, it's suicide for the Board and likely to open them up to all sorts of challenges and Maxwell's head would be on a plate.

It makes no sense.

Because they presumably expect/ed to win a vote and then could portray it as what the member clubs wanted.  This isn’t really that difficult to grasp

[Burnieman]

9 minutes ago, perthmo said:

Have a look at articles 62.1 and 62.2 (o).  They could be interpreted as giving the SFA Board carte blanche to do what they like.

Maybe, maybe not, I'm not an expert on what powers the AoA provide, hence my question to Cowboy to educate us.

'articles of association' - written rules about running the company agreed by the shareholders or guarantors, directors and the company secretary

[Burnieman]

2 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

Because they presumably expect/ed to win a vote and then could portray it as what the member clubs wanted.  This isn’t really that difficult to grasp

You actually believe that?  Maxwell himself stated to clubs that setting the league up as an independent body required a lower approval threshold (51% at SFA AGM) than having to seek 3/4's of SPFL votes for League 2 expansion, therefore an easier route to implementation. 

That doesn't sound like a CEO who can implement it whenever he likes without approval.

Why did the creation of the WoSFL require to be passed by SFA members at AGM if that was unnecessary?

 

 

[ronaldincoo]

4 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Maybe, maybe not, I'm not an expert on what powers the AoA provide, hence my question to Cowboy to educate us.

'articles of association' - written rules about running the company agreed by the shareholders or guarantors, directors and the company secretary

No do a bit of work yer self for fecks sakes. Read the fecin articles. If you want go pay a lawyer to explain it to you. 

[Burnieman]

Just now, ronaldincoo said:

No do a bit of work yer self for fecks sakes. Read the fecin articles. If you want go pay a lawyer to explain it to you. 

OK, I already have and there is no power within the Articles to allow the Board to impose the league without being passed at AGM.

If I'm wrong, explain it to us...............

[Cowden Cowboy]

6 minutes ago, Burnieman said:

Maybe, maybe not, I'm not an expert on what powers the AoA provide, hence my question to Cowboy to educate us.

'articles of association' - written rules about running the company agreed by the shareholders or guarantors, directors and the company secretary

Not up to me to educate folks who talk about the articles but haven’t even looked at the simple list which shows article 18 is the one about creating leagues and associations.  

[ronaldincoo]

Just now, Burnieman said:

 

If I'm wrong, explain it to us...............

Nah. f**k off.

[Burnieman]

Just now, Cowden Cowboy said:

Not up to me to educate folks who talk about the articles but haven’t even looked at the simple list which shows article 18 is the one about creating leagues and associations.  

You're dancing around here like a cat on a hot tin roof.

[Burnieman]

Just now, ronaldincoo said:

Nah. f**k off.

[ronaldincoo]

Just now, Burnieman said:

You're dancing around here like a cat on a hot tin roof.

No. You're being a dick.