Scottish Football Reconstruction (Mod Note #55)

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Lennonist wrote: »

What's the real agenda going on here. Why did St Mirren and Ross County vote against, is it because Div 1 would become harder to qualify out of if they were to get relegated. In the new proposal was there 2 up and 2 down into the SPL as opposed to the current 1 up and 1 down? Whatever about the arguments against the failed proposals, maintaining the status quo is not the answer. Sad after all that talking that they got nowhere at all as regards restructuring the leagues.

Maybe the fact that the majority of fans didn't want a 12-12-18 league. Something like 87% in the survey that was done. So they listened to their fans thats what everyone kept crying out for before this

Lennonist

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Maybe the fact that the majority of fans didn't want a 12-12-18 league. Something like 87% in the survey that was done. So they listened to their fans thats what everyone kept crying out for before this

If that was the case then why were they the only two to veto the failed proposals? In that survey you are talking about, what did the fans say they wanted?

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Maybe the fact that the majority of fans didn't want a 12-12-18 league. Something like 87% in the survey that was done. So they listened to their fans thats what everyone kept crying out for before this

St. Mirren complained about the 11-1 vote on reconstruction as a significant stumbling block in their official stance, a concession for 9-3 was offered for reconstruction votes now and the future which was huge and they backed away from it, why? Gilmour ran away from Hampden without comment, spineless tbh

They threw out the baby with the bath water for what? An SPL2 with Rangers? Whatever about the 12-12-18 structure, the package was as a whole would have improve Scottish Football and the structure could have been changed easier in the future if need be.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/football/st-mirren-shun-craig-whyte-approach-1-2181099

Hmmm, murky waters got murkier

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

St. Mirren complained about the 11-1 vote on reconstructionas a significant stumbling block in their official stance, a concession for 9-3 was offered for reconstruction votes now and the future which was huge and they backed away from it, why? Gilmour ran away from Hampden without comment, spineless tbh

And the guy who could have changed that left almost in tears if he had't sided with Celtic it would have went through so no sympathy for Milne.
And I have to Laugh at the last minute compromise of changing the voting system. Why are all the others panicking something to hide.
Spineless because he didn't comment why should he. He made it clear before the meeting why he was voting no

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Lennonist wrote: »

If that was the case then why were they the only two to veto the failed proposals? In that survey you are talking about, what did the fans say they wanted?

Because the others didn't I dont no but I am sure you will find it on the SFA/SPL websites

stooge

Would be interesting to see if there was money exchanged between certain clubs in order to influence the vote. In my opinion, voting a certain way and then not being able to justify the reason for such a vote raises some big questions.

Oh and I'll just add that I personally didnt care whether the vote was passed or not. I can understand the opinions of people thinking that this is being pushed through and the opinion of New Rangers/Sev Co fans who were against playing in the bottom division again. I dont think it would have made that much of a difference to Scottish football, but then again, there were no other offers/ideas available.

Lennonist

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

And the guy who could have changed that left almost in tears if he had't sided with Celtic it would have went through so no sympathy for Milne.
And I have to Laugh at the last minute compromise of changing the voting system. Why are all the others panicking something to hide.
Spineless because he didn't comment why should he. He made it clear before the meeting why he was voting no

Did he? and the reason he gave was.....

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Lennonist wrote: »

Did he? and the reason he gave was.....

There you go

After a very studied consideration of the Structure, Articles of Association, Rules and Shareholders Agreement, the Board of St Mirren Football Club have decided that they will be unable to support the motion at next Monday’s Meeting of SPL Clubs regarding this proposal for League Reconstruction.

This view has been taken after careful thought regarding this proposal including engagement with fans and the views of our coaching staff.

The principles of a new league structure, single league body and all through distribution model are part of many aspects of this we fully support, however the proposal as presented does not, in our view, move the game forward.

The concept of playing 22 games prior to breaking into three leagues of eight, including the middle eight losing their points gained in the first series of games, is not a system we see as taking the game forward in the long term. You will be aware that other countries have tried this system and have since rejected such a set up.

We also feel that this system is not fair to fans who buy into their club by way of a season ticket, who are then unsure of what they are purchasing. It is also against the basic wishes of the fans for larger leagues as highlighted in all recent fan surveys.
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.

The restriction on any change for three years is also very much against our view. When engaging with any new rule book there will always be oversight and anomalies that need to be revised on an annual basis.

An area St Mirren are very uncomfortable with is the lock down on various financial rules. The credibility of Scottish Football has been tarnished badly in recent times by financial mismanagement and the time has come for strong financial rules to be in place.

Another concern to us is the hard line taken by some in certain areas, like season start date, home-grown talent, under-21 rules. This is not an exhaustive list, however we do think these items require negotiation for the betterment of Scottish Football in general.

We also do not accept that this is a take it or leave it situation. We do wish to keep working towards one organisation, an all through distribution model and getting closer to our supporters’ wishes of a larger league, while being fully aware of the commercial and financial pressures of operating a football club.

On behalf of the Board of Directors of St Mirren Football Club

Broxi_Bear_Eire

stooge wrote: »

Would be interesting to see if there was money exchanged between certain clubs in order to influence the vote. In my opinion, voting a certain way and then not being able to justify the reason for such a vote raises some big questions.

Oh and I'll just add that I personally didnt care whether the vote was passed or not. I can understand the opinions of people thinking that this is being pushed through and the opinion of New Rangers/Sev Co fans who were against playing in the bottom division again. I dont think it would have made that much of a difference to Scottish football, but then again, there were no other offers/ideas available.

Who didn't justify it though both Chairmen gave their reasons over the last few days

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

And the guy who could have changed that left almost in tears if he had't sided with Celtic it would have went through so no sympathy for Milne.
And I have to Laugh at the last minute compromise of changing the voting system. Why are all the others panicking something to hide.
Spineless because he didn't comment why should he. He made it clear before the meeting why he was voting no

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.

After a very studied consideration of the Structure, Articles of Association, Rules and Shareholders Agreement, the Board of St Mirren Football Club have decided that they will be unable to support the motion at next Monday’s Meeting of SPL Clubs regarding this proposal for League Reconstruction.

This view has been taken after careful thought regarding this proposal including engagement with fans and the views of our coaching staff.

The principles of a new league structure, single league body and all through distribution model are part of many aspects of this we fully support, however the proposal as presented does not, in our view, move the game forward.

The concept of playing 22 games prior to breaking into three leagues of eight, including the middle eight losing their points gained in the first series of games, is not a system we see as taking the game forward in the long term. You will be aware that other countries have tried this system and have since rejected such a set up.

We also feel that this system is not fair to fans who buy into their club by way of a season ticket, who are then unsure of what they are purchasing. It is also against the basic wishes of the fans for larger leagues as highlighted in all recent fan surveys.

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.

The restriction on any change for three years is also very much against our view. When engaging with any new rule book there will always be oversight and anomalies that need to be revised on an annual basis.

An area St Mirren are very uncomfortable with is the lock down on various financial rules. The credibility of Scottish Football has been tarnished badly in recent times by financial mismanagement and the time has come for strong financial rules to be in place.

Another concern to us is the hard line taken by some in certain areas, like season start date, home-grown talent, under-21 rules. This is not an exhaustive list, however we do think these items require negotiation for the betterment of Scottish Football in general.

We also do not accept that this is a take it or leave it situation. We do wish to keep working towards one organisation, an all through distribution model and getting closer to our supporters’ wishes of a larger league, while being fully aware of the commercial and financial pressures of operating a football club.

On behalf of the Board of Directors of St Mirren Football Club

1) Status quo will have a detrimental effect on most clubs, I hope the buddies can survive that

2) 11-1 was no longer an issue, 10 clubs were willing to compromise

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

1) Status quo will have a detrimental effect on most clubs, I hope the buddies can survive that

2) 11-1 was no longer an issue, 10 clubs were willing to compromise

Well they stood by their principles unlike Milne. Unlike the ones who last year were telling everyone how important it was to listen to the fans.
So only time will tell

BhoscaCapall

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Well they stood by their principles unlike Milne. Unlike the ones who last year were telling everyone how important it was to listen to the fans.
So only time will tell

Out of interest, in a totally hypothetical situation where an SPL2 was pushed forward and your club was invited to the top division despite not earning it on merit, would you be in favour of that undeserved promotion?

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Well they stood by their principles unlike Milne. Unlike the ones who last year were telling everyone how important it was to listen to the fans.
So only time will tell

St.Mirren reneged on one of their principles today aswell

SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster says he will not be resigning despite failure to push through restructuring plans. Doncaster has told BBC Scotland he feels most sorry for First Division clubs who are in a precarious financial position. He also said the current television deals would not be affected by today's decision.

Thick neck is staying

Lennonist

Dempsey wrote: »

St. Mirren complained about the 11-1 vote on reconstruction as a significant stumbling block in their official stance, a concession for 9-3 was offered for reconstruction votes now and the future which was huge and they backed away from it, why? Gilmour ran away from Hampden without comment, spineless tbh

They threw out the baby with the bath water for what? An SPL2 with Rangers? Whatever about the 12-12-18 structure, the package was as a whole would have improve Scottish Football and the structure could have been changed easier in the future if need be.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/football/st-mirren-shun-craig-whyte-approach-1-2181099

Hmmm, murky waters got murkier

But there will be no changes at all now, it will just go on like before? The 12-12-18 structure was the only proposal for change on the table. Rangers will be in Div 2 next season, they wouldn't be able to cobble together an SPL 2 with Rangers in it between now and August surely? The whole thing is very messy and you'd be wondering about the motives behind those who scuppered it.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Lennonist wrote: »

But there will be no changes at all now, it will just go on like before? The 12-12-18 structure was the only proposal for change on the table. Rangers will be in Div 2 next season, they wouldn't be able to cobble together an SPL 2 with Rangers in it between now and August surely? The whole thing is very messy and you'd be wondering about the motives behind those who scuppered it.

Personally I wonder about the motives of those who were desperate to push it through;)

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Personally I wonder about the motives of those who were desperate to push it through;)

Sustainability of the game would be a big reason. New commerical partners ready to sign up aswell. Seems you are only interested in what suits Sevco by your comments today

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Sustainability of the game would be a big reason. New commerical partners ready to sign up aswell. Seems you are only interested in what suits Sevco by your comments today

No if you look back you will se that I didn't like these proposals from the start but then you know that and just can't resist with your silly digs

Lennonist

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Personally I wonder about the motives of those who were desperate to push it through;)

What do you think their motives were?

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

No if you look back you will se that I didn't like these proposals from the start but then you know that and just can't resist with your silly digs

You didnt like any of the proposals? Care to explain?

I'm not making a dig at all, stop choosing to be offended

GavRedKing

Can ye ease off with the SEVCO comments and refer to them as Rangers or the Rangers?

Constantly referring to them as SEVCO will wind up their fans.

Thanks.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Lennonist wrote: »

What do you think their motives were?

No idea I prefer not to speculate and thats all it would be. But I found it strange Doncaster and co have been adamant all along it was this or nothing. No room for discussion always makes me uneasy

BhoscaCapall

GavRedKing wrote: »

Can ye ease off with the SEVCO comments and refer to them as Ranagers or the Rangers?

Constantly referring to them as SEVCO will wind up their fans.

Thanks.

I'm wound up by your bold font, does that mean you should stop using it?

Dempsey

GavRedKing wrote: »

Can ye ease off with the SEVCO comments and refer to them as Ranagers or the Rangers?

Constantly referring to them as SEVCO will wind up their fans.

Thanks.

I refer to them as Sevco to make a distinction between the newco and oldco. Always have as both companies still exist. Its not a wind up

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

You didnt like any of the proposals? Care to explain?

I'm not making a dig at all, stop choosing to be offended

Why not Celtic fans do it all the time. As I said I didn't think 12-12-18 was the way to go from a personal viewpoint and I have said it for years. I believe a 16-16-16-10 with a Pyramid system put in place and Scottish cup games two legged

GavRedKing

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

I'm wound up by your bold font, does that mean you should stop using it?

As a Mod, we use bold to get our point across, sort of as a little on thread warning.

So will I stop using it, no, all Mod's across Boards.ie use it.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

I refer to them as Sevco to make a distinction between the newco and oldco. Always have as both companies still exist. Its not a wind up

Yes it is as no company involved with Rangers is called Sevco and you know it

BhoscaCapall

GavRedKing wrote: »

As a Mod, we use bold to get our point across, sort of as a little on thread warning.

So will I stop using it, no, all Mod's across Boards.ie use it.

Clearly that went over your head so I'll explain what I meant.

Just because someone is wound up by something does not mean the person saying it was trying to wind them up, nor does it mean there is anything wrong with it.

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Why not Celtic fans do it all the time. As I said I didn't think 12-12-18 was the way to go from a personal viewpoint and I have said it for years. I believe a 16-16-16-10 with a Pyramid system put in place and Scottish cup games two legged

Years? Has this been proposed before?

There were other proposals on the table, changes that badly need implementing ASAP. You seem only focussed on what suits yourself tbh

SantryRed

12-12-18 is stupid. 12 teams in the top league is stupid. Games mean so much less when you play 4 times a season.

GavRedKing

Dempsey wrote: »

I refer to them as Sevco to make a distinction between the newco and oldco. Always have as both companies still exist. Its not a wind up

Whats the problem with referring to them as Rangers though? Its going to wind their fans up when you keep on about the SEVCO business.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Years? Has this been proposed before?

There were other proposals on the table, changes that badly need implementing ASAP. You seem only focussed on what suits yourself tbh

Sorry it was the way I posted it. it should have read. I have said for years a 16-16-10 etc
That ok

BhoscaCapall

SantryRed wrote: »

Games mean so much less when you play 4 times a season.

No they don't.

Since the SPL started at not one single point did I ever say to myself "oh man we've already played Motherwell 3 times, this game is so meaningless to me".

Not sure why you think replacing these fixtures with games against pish First Division sides is better.

GavRedKing

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Clearly that went over your head so I'll explain what I meant.

Just because someone is wound up by something does not mean the person saying it was trying to wind them up, nor does it mean there is anything wrong with it.

Which is all well and good but when it involves 2 of Britains biggest footballing rivals, what way is going to be picked up other then a wind up attempt if SEVCO is mentioned in every other post?

Dempsey

GavRedKing wrote: »

Whats the problem with referring to them as Rangers though? Its going to wind their fans up when you keep on about the SEVCO business.

They are choosing to get offended



Seems appriopriate tbh

SantryRed

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

No they don't.

Since the SPL started at not one single point did I ever say to myself "oh man we've already played Motherwell 3 times, this game is so meaningless to me".

Not sure why you think replacing these fixtures with games against pish First Division sides is better.

Yes they do. Maybe watching it on tv isn't so bad and going over for the odd game. As a Shels fan, Pats, Bohs, Rovers games don't mean half as much. It's not a game you look forward to as you know it'll come back around again in 9 weeks times. It makes games a lot more staler too at times as teams know their opposition a lot more in depth.

EDIT: Btw, I'm not having a pop at people not going to games and the likes before someone jumps down my throat over it.

Lennonist

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

No idea I prefer not to speculate and thats all it would be. But I found it strange Doncaster and co have been adamant all along it was this or nothing. No room for discussion always makes me uneasy

The proposals meant distributing money more evenly to Div 1 teams and meant a bit less money for Celtic as it is right now. I'm still at a loss as to why St Mirren and Ross County voted against it, oh I know the official line that you linked to earlier but I wonder about their real motives.

BhoscaCapall

GavRedKing wrote: »

Which is all well and good but when it involves 2 of Britains biggest footballing rivals, what way is going to be picked up other then a wind up attempt if SEVCO is mentioned in every other post?

Consider it a polite service to Sevco fans that other supporters are making a distinction between them and the club known as Rangers who disgraced the Scottish game.

You obviously feel a pressing need to wade in and 'moderate' the situation just because it's the "old firm". Nobody is getting wound up other than yourself it seems.

If we need your impressive moderating authority we'll be sure yo let you know using the Report Post function, thanks for your concern.

Deedsie

GavRedKing wrote: »

Can ye ease off with the SEVCO comments and refer to them as Ranagers or the Rangers?

Constantly referring to them as SEVCO will wind up their fans.

Thanks.

Ranagers it is :-)

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Sorry it was the way I posted it. it should have read. I have said for years a 16-16-10 etc
That ok

Still nothing to say about all the other changes, you seem fixated on the league structure only.

I'm against the 12-12-18 proposal but the other aspects of the package were hugely important

BhoscaCapall

SantryRed wrote: »

Yes they do. Maybe watching it on tv isn't so bad and going over for the odd game. As a Shels fan, Pats, Bohs, Rovers games don't mean half as much. It's not a game you look forward to as you know it'll come back around again in 9 weeks times. It makes games a lot more staler too at times as teams know their opposition a lot more in depth.

So you're telling us we would rather play Morton and Livingston than Hearts and Dundee Utd, based on the fact you find the Irish league boring.

Thanks for that insight mate.

GavRedKing

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Consider it a polite service to Sevco fans that other supporters are making a distinction between them and the club known as Rangers who disgraced the Scottish game.

You obviously feel a pressing need to wade in and 'moderate' the situation just because it's the "old firm". Nobody is getting wound up other than yourself it seems.

If we need your impressive moderating authority we'll be sure yo let you know using the Report Post function, thanks for your concern.

Thanks, also be reminded abuse of the Report Post system is a cardable offence so I wouldnt go reporting everything little thing, wouldnt want people to be carded/banned now would we?

Nobody is getting wound up other than yourself it seems.

No, a few others are, which is why I'm here.

BhoscaCapall

GavRedKing wrote: »

Thanks, also be reminded abuse of the Report Post system is a cardable offence so I wouldnt go reporting everything little thing, wouldnt want people to be carded/banned now would we?

Stop winding me up please.

SantryRed

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

So you're telling us we would rather play Morton and Livingston than Hearts and Dundee Utd, based on the fact you find the Irish league boring.

Thanks for that insight mate.

Overall, it would bring the quality of the league up, as games as better to watch and more enjoyable.

also, the bottom half teams would get stronger from the increased exposure and money deals, meaning the gap between bottom and 2nd would close.

Kirby

Dempsey wrote: »

I refer to them as Sevco to make a distinction between the newco and oldco. Always have as both companies still exist. Its not a wind up

Do you honestly think anybody is buying that? I mean.....really?

I'm not a Rangers or Celtic supporter so I've no dog in this fight. Rangers going belly up and being demoted and Scottish football reform doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

But it is obvious as hell what your insistence on calling them "SEVCO" is all about. It's a dig. It's petty and it's not clever. Any argument or point you make in this thread is being nullified by your childishness.

If you actually want to be heard and have a decent discussion, listen to what about a dozen different posters have told you and just call them Rangers. It's what they are. Be an adult about it.

RoryMac

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

So you're telling us we would rather play Morton and Livingston than Hearts and Dundee Utd, based on the fact you find the Irish league boring.

Thanks for that insight mate.

I'd agree with him and I think many others would too, any report I've read that spoke to fans in Scotland about reconstruction came back with fans wanting a bigger top league and to do away with the split.

BhoscaCapall

SantryRed wrote: »

Overall, it would bring the quality of the league up, as games as better to watch and more enjoyable

Could you explain how putting even worse teams in the league brings thw quality up? It seems an interesting concept.

Kirby wrote: »

Rangers going belly up and being demoted and Scottish football reform doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

But it is obvious as hell what your insistence on calling them "SEVCO" is all about. It's a dig. It's petty and it's not clever. Any argument or point you make in this thread is being nullified by your childishness.

With all due respect, you think Rangers were demoted to the Third Division so your opinion does not appear to be particularly well informed.

Dempsey

Kirby wrote: »

Do you honestly think anybody is buying that? I mean.....really?

I'm not a Rangers or Celtic supporter so I've no dog in this fight. Rangers going belly up and being demoted and Scottish football reform doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

But it is obvious as hell what your insistence on calling them "SEVCO" is all about. It's a dig. It's petty and it's not clever. Any argument or point you make in this thread is being nullified by your childishness.

If you actually want to be heard and have a decent discussion, listen to what about a dozen different posters have told you and just call them Rangers. It's what they are. Be an adult about it.

Go check all my posts on this forum, I have always done it. It only seems to be an issue when some people want it to be.

And I stopped reading your post at the bolded

BhoscaCapall

RoryMac wrote: »

I'd agree with him and I think many others would too, any report I've read that spoke to fans in Scotland about reconstruction came back with fans wanting a bigger top league and to do away with the split.

I can see why the fans of other clubs may want it. I'm sure Hibs would rather take 6 points off a SFL1 club than get pumped by us 4 times a year.

Their chairmen are probably less keen on the idea of missing out on 2-3 full away ends in favour of 30 fans from Hamilton.

Kirby

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Could you explain how putting even worse teams in the league brings thw quality up? It seems an interesting concept.


With all due respect, you think Rangers were demoted to the Third Division so your opinion does not appear to be particularly well informed.

Do they not play in the same stadium? Do they not use the same coloured kit? The same facilities? Have the same coaching staff? The same manager? Some of the same players?

Legal and financial technicalities aside, it would appear to a blind monkey to be the same club in reality. Any notions to the contrary are just pointless arguments from try-hards and opposition fans. As I said, it's quite low brow and it's petty.

BhoscaCapall

Kirby wrote: »

Do they not play in the same stadium? Do they not use the same coloured kit? The same facilities? Have the same coaching staff? The same manager? Some of the same players?

Legal and financial technicalities aside, it would appear to a blind monkey to be the same club in reality. Any notions to the contrary are just pointless arguments from try-hards and opposition fans. As I said, it's quite low brow and it's petty.

I don't see what any of this has to do with me correcting you regarding the notion of 'demotion'.

We're getting a bit off topic here (nb: I'm not accusing you of posting off topic, I was banned for a month last time I did that :pac:). If you're actually interested in learning about what happened to their club I guess we should continue that discussion in a more relevant thread