• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Entertainment
  • Football
Scottish Fitba Thread (Part 21)
<<
<
88 of 126
>>
>
crofter
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by SilvioDante:
“Any names? A league splitting into 3 mini leagues of 8 would have been awesome and the cash would have rolled in. Eh? ”

Well today has been a bit of a Carlsberg day thus far - I think it may well have been them they had lined up.

SPL2 anyone?? How will that help the whole of Scottish football which is what this reconstruction was supposed to be about according to some ...
bunk_medal
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by crofter:
“The fact that 10 clubs have basically voted against their fans wishes seems to have been lost in all this”

I'm all for taking supporters' views into account, but football isn't a democracy. What most fans want is league expansion for the sake of it. A 16 team league makes no sense whatsoever for SPL clubs - lower shares of revenue and more meaningless games against smaller sides (two things proven to reduce attendances). The basic fixture list doesn't even work out because you only get 30 games.

Voting for that would be a complete nonsense and SPL chairmen know it. This was their attempt at a constructive alternative.
bhoy07
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“What's the point?

Read my post again - the 9-3 proposal was for this issue only*. It was not an overarching change to 9-3 for everything. So all they would be doing is voting in a measure that meant their vote in the real issue would count for nothing.

*with respect to those other issues that are 11-1; some are already 9-3.”

According to Richard Gordon it wouldve enabled the chance to vote on a bigger league further down the lne.
carnoch04
15-04-2013
I said when the SPL clubs failed to change the 11-1 voting system that it would come back to haunt them. Now we will have SPL 2 and in July next year, the SPL will once again be run solely by Celtic & Rangers. Serious missed opportunity.
bhoy07
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by crofter:
“Well today has been a bit of a Carlsberg day thus far - I think it may well have been them they had lined up.

SPL2 anyone?? How will that help the whole of Scottish football which is what this reconstruction was supposed to be about according to some ...”

SPL2 is not on the table.
carnoch04
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“SPL2 is not on the table.”

Watch this space. SPL 2 will be on the table very soon. The Hamilton chairman said a couple of weeks ago if reconstruction was voted down he would push for SPL 2 for next season (and Rangers will be invited to join)
Mark.
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“According to Richard Gordon it wouldve enabled the chance to vote on a bigger league further down the lne.”

Well that's OK then - be stuck with something you don't want for three years just so there's the chance of expanding the league at a later date.

It was a cynical ploy by Celtic, nothing more nothing less.
carnoch04
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“Well that's OK then - be stuck with something you don't want for three years just so there's the chance of expanding the league at a later date.

It was a cynical ploy by Celtic, nothing more nothing less.”

Do you get the 11-1 voting system? If Celtic don't want something but everyone else does, it goes through!
The clubs should have voted down the 11-1 thing as soon as Rangers died but for some strange reason, they failed.
crofter
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by carnoch04:
“I said when the SPL clubs failed to change the 11-1 voting system that it would come back to haunt them. Now we will have SPL 2 and in July next year, the SPL will once again be run solely by Celtic & Rangers. Serious missed opportunity.”

Ironically it was Celtic and Aberdeen who vetoed the change to the 11-1 voting system ... fast foward 6 months and they want to then use that 9-3 option. You couldn't make this shit up ...
Mark.
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by carnoch04:
“Do you get the 11-1 voting system? If Celtic don't want something but everyone else does, it goes through!
The clubs should have voted down the 11-1 thing as soon as Rangers died but for some strange reason, they failed.”

I'm sorry, what?

This morning, Celtic proposed taking "league reconstruction" off the list of issues requiring 11-1, and putting it in the 9-3 camp. That was designed to push through the reconstruction measures on the table.

This is nothing to do with changing the 11-1 as a whole.
carnoch04
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“I'm sorry, what?

This morning, Celtic proposed taking "league reconstruction" off the list of issues requiring 11-1, and putting it in the 9-3 camp. That was designed to push through the reconstruction measures on the table.

This is nothing to do with changing the 11-1 as a whole.”

So, Celtic proposed a voting structure that would make them less powerful, to force through a reconstruction plan that would give them less money and that was a "cynical ploy"?
Mark.
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by carnoch04:
“So, Celtic proposed a voting structure that would make them less powerful, to force through a reconstruction plan that would give them less money and that was a "cynical ploy"?”

Less powerful only for voting on league reconstruction.

And yes, it remains a cynical ploy. I don't know why Celtic were in favour, but they were and tried to force it through while making St Mirren look bad.
bunk_medal
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“This morning, Celtic proposed taking "league reconstruction" off the list of issues requiring 11-1, and putting it in the 9-3 camp. That was designed to push through the reconstruction measures on the table.”

You're basically describing a simple compromise that was offered to try and reach an agreement. I don't see why that should be labelled a "cynical ploy", it's exactly what clubs should be doing - offering a compromise to try and reach a position that everyone can get behind. St Mirren wanted to change the voting system (or at least said they did) so they were offered it. I don't see them offering anything constructive in return other than a 14 team league that nobody else wants.
Mark.
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by bunk_medal:
“You're basically describing a simple compromise that was offered to try and reach an agreement. I don't see why that should be labelled a "cynical ploy", it's exactly what clubs should be doing - offering a compromise to try and reach a position that everyone can get behind. St Mirren wanted to change the voting system (or at least said they did) so they were offered it. I don't see them offering anything constructive in return other than a 14 team league that nobody else wants.”

Please read my post again, because it seems you've not understood what happened.

Celtic wanted to change the voting structure only for reconstruction. Nothing more. That's not what St Mirren or anyone else (except Celtic, and Aberdeen for some reason) want - they want it changed for everything (that's currently subject to 11-1).
carnoch04
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“Less powerful only for voting on league reconstruction.

And yes, it remains a cynical ploy. I don't know why Celtic were in favour, but they were and tried to force it through while making St Mirren look bad.”

St Mirren didn't need any help to look bad. A poor decision, with poor reasoning and the SFL clubs will pay the price.
carnoch04
15-04-2013
In other news, Charles Green faces an internal investigation by Rangers International.
carnoch04
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“Less powerful only for voting on league reconstruction.

And yes, it remains a cynical ploy. I don't know why Celtic were in favour, but they were and tried to force it through while making St Mirren look bad.”

Is it just possible, that Celtic were thinking of the long term future of Scottish football and not short term gain?
bunk_medal
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“Please read my post again, because it seems you've not understood what happened.

Celtic wanted to change the voting structure only for reconstruction. Nothing more. That's not what St Mirren or anyone else (except Celtic, and Aberdeen for some reason) want - they want it changed for everything (that's currently subject to 11-1).”

I understand exactly what you're trying to say. You're attempting to argue that because the rest of the SPL clubs didn't offer to abolish the 11-1 vote entirely that it doesn't count as a compromise. That's a decidedly odd argument.

St Mirren wanted the 11-1 vote changed full stop, the rest of the SPL offered them a change to a 9-3 vote in certain areas. That's precisely what a compromise is - you get some of what you want but not everything.
bhoy07
15-04-2013
Stewart Gilmour said last week the 11-1 vote for league reform was a 'big ticket' item that he wasnt happy with.

Call it a ploy or a compromise but the fact is he voted against changing it to 9-3.
Mark.
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by bunk_medal:
“St Mirren wanted the 11-1 vote changed full stop, the rest of the SPL offered them a change to a 9-3 vote in certain areas. That's precisely what a compromise is - you get some of what you want but not everything.”

No, they offered a 9-3 in one area. And it just so happened that area was the one which was about to be voted on.

That's not a compromise.
Mark.
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by bhoy07:
“Stewart Gilmour said last week the 11-1 vote for league reform was a 'big ticket' item that he wasnt happy with.”

Why don't we look at what he actually said:

Quote:
“"In the proposed rules the voting structure is remaining, in all items that are of importance, an 11-1 vote. In our opinion, this is fundamentally wrong in any structure and is the principle reason why Scottish League Football has not been able to restructure prior to this time, a view St Mirren have held for some time."

Gilmour added: "We fundamentally disagree with what we call 'big ticket items' like the league reconstruction formula.

"Also, the 11-1 voting structure hasn't been properly sorted and that's a huge thing.”

Not quite the same, is it?
carnoch04
15-04-2013
"In our opinion, this is fundamentally wrong in any structure and is the principle reason why Scottish League Football has not been able to restructure prior to this time, a view St Mirren have held for some time."

So, to prove 11-1 is the reason that there has been no reconstruction, they decide to vote against reconstruction? That is some strange logic!
bunk_medal
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“No, they offered a 9-3 in one area. And it just so happened that area was the one which was about to be voted on.

That's not a compromise.”

If St Mirren want the 11-1 vote abolished in all areas, and the SPL offer to abolish it in one area, then it's closer to what St Mirren want than the status quo. I don't see on what planet that can't be described as a compromise. By all means argue it wasn't enough of a compromise, but to discount it entirely and try and pretend it was some sort of cynical trick is bizarre.
bhoy07
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“Why don't we look at what he actually said:



Not quite the same, is it?”

I was listening to him last week on sportsound and he did specifically mention the 11-1 vote on the proposals.

I thought thats why Scott Gardiner was so incensed by what he was saying.
Mark.
15-04-2013
Originally Posted by carnoch04:
“"In our opinion, this is fundamentally wrong in any structure and is the principle reason why Scottish League Football has not been able to restructure prior to this time, a view St Mirren have held for some time."

So, to prove 11-1 is the reason that there has been no reconstruction, they decide to vote against reconstruction? That is some strange logic!”

It's the fact that the voting structure was staying the same they disagreed with. What's the point in voting for reconstruction if it's the same rotten setup that governs it?
<<
<
88 of 126
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map