Scottish Football Reconstruction (Mod Note #55)

SantryRed

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

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

Are deliberately not listening to me? Or is it just your posting style because no need for the attitude tbh.

The games are of a higher quality. I didn't say the players would be. Teams don't know each other as well and so there isn't as many stalemates in games. By the 4th series of games in the LoI, the games can be quite boring and monotonous to watch, and that's not just because I'm watching Shels.

Watching the Scottish league and it feels the same. So many dead games by the end.

BhoscaCapall

SantryRed wrote: »

Are deliberately not listening to me? Or is it just your posting style because no need for the attitude tbh.

The games are of a higher quality. I didn't say the players would be. Teams don't know each other as well and so there isn't as many stalemates in games. By the 4th series of games in the LoI, the games can be quite boring and monotonous to watch, and that's not just because I'm watching Shels.

Watching the Scottish league and it feels the same. So many dead games by the end.

Maybe it's you that isn't listening to me. Your experience of Irish league, fascinating as it may be, is not really relevant here. You are telling me that I would rather play SFL1 clubs than SPL clubs and you are basing that on your experience of the Irish league. I am telling you otherwise, and I am basing that on my experience of the Scottish league.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing my team booted around the park in awful scrappy games on tatty fields in shít heap stadiums as much as the next guy, but we get that 2 or 3 times in the Cup (and often in the league...). And we don't want to spoil ourselves after all.

Kirby

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

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

I know exactly what happened. You seem to have misinterpreted my admission to not being a rangers supporter as an admission of ignorance. It's not. I don't support many teams but I like football so have knowledge of them.

If you refrained from trying to points score or belittle the fans of your rivals for a second, which is what you are doing by referring to them as SEVCO instead of merely Rangers........... you would probably wind up with a much better thread. But the bitterness is too ingrained I feel. And that's sad really.

SantryRed

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Maybe it's you that isn't listening to me. Your experience of Irish league, fascinating as it may be, is not really relevant here. You are telling me that I would rather play SFL1 clubs than SPL clubs and you are basing that on your experience of the Irish league. I am telling you otherwise, and I am basing that on my experience of the Scottish league.

You really are a cracking contribution around here.

BhoscaCapall

SantryRed wrote: »

You really are a cracking contribution around here.

Sometimes I feel a bit out of my depth when faced with such intelligent debate but it's nice to have a vote of confidence.

Tell me again about Bohs and Rovers games.

SantryRed

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Sometimes I feel a bit out of my depth when faced with such intelligent debate but it's nice to have a vote of confidence.

Tell me again about Bohs and Rovers games.

The fact I go to games is a pretty decent contribution about the drawbacks of 4 games a season. But you don't see that and all you see is me directly comparing the League of Ireland to the Scottish League, which I clearly amn't doing.

BhoscaCapall

Kirby wrote: »

I know exactly what happened. You seem to have misinterpreted my admission to not being a rangers supporter as an admission of ignorance. It's not.

I was simply basing it on the incorrect point you made. Perhaps your post came out badly and you actually do know the score. I apologise if the conclusion I drew from your mistake was incorrect.

If you refrained from trying to points score or belittle the fans of your rivals for a second, which is what you are doing by referring to them as SEVCO instead of merely Rangers........... you would probably wind up with a much better thread. But the bitterness is too ingrained I feel. And that's sad really.

I believe it was Dempesy that everyone was crying about over the "Sevco" thing, not me. I also believe he offered valid explanation that seems to have been ignored in favour of further whinging.

That said, we obviously have a mod who's overly keen to dish out bans for it so personally I will be taking his advice and referring to them as The Rangers in future, in addition to reporting every post that winds me up.

Dempsey

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/22153662?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Doncaster says that clubs discussed a 16 team top flight several weeks ago but thought it was not financially viable

He also said that individual proposals werent cherry picked because its a case of "somes clubs cherries werent cherries for others.

It really is starting to sound like the the SPL & clubs didnt present the information properly to everyone concerned, didnt break down the numbers to show why a 16 and 14 team league wasnt viable. A PR nightmare for all those that wanted change. But if St. Mirren/Ross County knew these numbers, then it makes it stranger that they ignore them.

Dempsey

Have to lol at this statement by Green

The vast majority of supporters did not want 12-12-18 and the two clubs who voted against this should not be singled out for criticism. They stood up for what they and their fans believe..."

Oh, the irons!!

Madworld

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.

Thanks for the insight about Cliftonville and Linfield. :rolleyes:

Suppose they are more Oirish than Celtic though.

dfx-

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.

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.

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.

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Stop winding me up please.

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Maybe it's you that isn't listening to me. Your experience of Irish league, fascinating as it may be, is not really relevant here. You are telling me that I would rather play SFL1 clubs than SPL clubs and you are basing that on your experience of the Irish league. I am telling you otherwise, and I am basing that on my experience of the Scottish league.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy seeing my team booted around the park in awful scrappy games on tatty fields in shít heap stadiums as much as the next guy, but we get that 2 or 3 times in the Cup (and often in the league...). And we don't want to spoil ourselves after all.

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Sometimes I feel a bit out of my depth when faced with such intelligent debate but it's nice to have a vote of confidence.

Tell me again about Bohs and Rovers games.

BhoscaCapall, do not post in this thread again. If you do so even once, you will be banned. Furthermore, consult the forum charter to retain your access to this forum in the future.

PauloMN

Have to be honest, I haven't paid much heed to these reform proposals, as they never seemed to be going anywhere, but I found this quote from St. Mirren chairman Gilmour interesting:

"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 principal reason why Scottish League Football has not been able to restructure prior to this time, a view St Mirren have held for some time."

Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't it ironic that he's giving out about the 11-1 vote, but in this case the 11-1 vote is the very thing that has allowed him to carry his club's opinion through to scrapping these proposals!

PauloMN

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

You are right of course but I think there is a couple of points. The 11-1 vote could have been done away with last year but Milne of Aberdeen decided to side with Celtic and went against it. As I see it turning up on the day of the meeting and offering a sweetener to do away with this as was done yesterday may just have annoyed Gilmour even more annoyed. We also had Lawell in the sun at the weekend telling everyone how he would talk the Ross County guy round. There is a lot if ill feeling in the SPL just now

What exactly did he say? I don't think you are being quite accurate in your comment above.

stooge

In reference to my earlier post I was asking if the Ross County chairman had given reasons for opposing the changes? I saw the statement St Mirren put out which seems like a bit of a smokescreen to be honest. I dont see how they can oppose something which will benefit them more in the long run.

Also, I agree on the comment that Lawwell et all tried to force this through.

Off topic:

Have to laugh at the whole Sevo/Newco/Oldco/Rangers/New Rangers argument.

Debt? We're New Co
Titles? We're Old Co
Punishment? We're New Co
History? Were Old Co
EBT's? New Co
SFA License? Old Co
...
...

To me, calling them sevco/new rangers makes it clear that they are the new club in the third division with new players and contracts. It's not a wind up but it does provide some clarity when talking about the topics listed above. e.g. If someone said to me "Rangers are in trouble again" I'd be wondering whether it was the new Rangers in 3rd Div or Rangers FC who played in the premier last year.

Dempsey

PauloMN wrote: »

What exactly did he say? I don't think you are being quite accurate in your comment above.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/4887318/Celtics-Peter-Lawwell-confirms-the-club-will-back-league-reconstruction.html

“With the greatest of respect, let’s take the supporters’ view on what we have right now.

“Forty eight thousand fans paid for our game against Hibs last Saturday — and 9,000 didn’t turn up.

“So that is a vote for what is happening right now.

“When Ross County had a meeting about it I think there were 130 fans there against it. With the greatest of respect, we have 9,000 fans not turning up — and they’ve paid for it. That puts it into a context I think.

“Sometimes you have to take their views on board, as we do. We regularly consult with our supporters on a range of issues.

“But at some point you have to make the call yourself about what is best. Not just for yourself, but for the game as a whole.

“Maybe in two or three years, if it doesn’t happen, Roy might say ‘That was an opportunity lost’. When the novelty factor has worn off and the quality has kept coming down.

“Maybe he’s right, but 10 of us don’t agree — and we’ve been around for years.

“Roy has said to me that in December County were 11th and now they are fourth. And I said well next year you might be third or fourth in December and 11th now. That’s football. You take your chances.

“For me the whole purpose of this is to create more excitement, more drama. And the first 22 games would do that.

“Therefore, your season books would be unaffected — in fact, they’d probably grow. The statistics show you that.

“If you’re in the top eight, you’re going for Europe. If you’re in the bottom eight, you’re fighting against being in the bottom four.

“It’s not perfect, but with the cards we’ve been dealt, I think it’s the best.”

League Reconstruction going ahead meant a financial hit for Celtic but dont let that fact get in the way of an agenda by the likes of Broxi who are only interested in one thing :rolleyes:

PauloMN

Dempsey wrote: »

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/4887318/Celtics-Peter-Lawwell-confirms-the-club-will-back-league-reconstruction.html



League Reconstruction going ahead meant a financial hit for Celtic but dont let that fact get in the way of an agenda by the likes of Broxi who are only interested in one thing :rolleyes:

Lawwell is spot on on this one imo. And like he says, it's a bigger loss to the other clubs, especially outside of the SPL than it is to Celtic.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/4887318/Celtics-Peter-Lawwell-confirms-the-club-will-back-league-reconstruction.html



League Reconstruction going ahead meant a financial hit for Celtic but dont let that fact get in the way of an agenda by the likes of Broxi who are only interested in one thing :rolleyes:

And this one thing is what exactly

I sad yesterday what I would like to see is a 16-16-10 with that I would like to see a pyramid system put in place and the cups revamped. I am more in line with the majority of fans in Scottish football but hey because your CEO didn't get his own way everyone else is wrong.

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

And this one thing is what exactly

I sad yesterday what I would like to see is a 16-16-10 with that I would like to see a pyramid system put in place and the cups revamped. I am more in line with the majority of fans in Scottish football but hey because your CEO didn't get his own way everyone else is wrong.

You want your own club promoted a division to vindicate this season. The thoughts of winning a division and not actually changing division seems like a punishment to ye and thats why you have Charlie Green shouting nonsence despite having no input into the running of the game, i.e. a condition of getting into Division 3.

A 16 team top flight is not financially viable according to all clubs, they didnt do their PR correctly on this imo. Thats what they all agreed on a couple of weeks ago and thats why the official vote for 12-12-18 was set. Any increase in gate receipts is negated by commerical partners getting cold feet according to the consesus done by the SPL

Fans, myself included, dont want a system that has failed before but wanting one where the numbers just dont add up doesnt make much sense either, does it?

As for Lawwell not getting his way, Celtic make more money by the vote failing but wanting a better system for the majority of other clubs makes him greedy? Great logic there! :rolleyes: And who's everyone else? I see your now championing fan power, you were singing a different tune a while back when fan power didnt suit you. No surprises there!

You continually demonstrate only what suits yourself and only focus on one point of the vote, you are being very petty and bitter because most of the SPL and most of the SFL clubs wanted all these changes because most of the changes would make a huge difference for the vast majority of clubs in Scotland. Thats the point of reconstruction, there is no silver bullet to this.

PauloMN

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

And this one thing is what exactly

I sad yesterday what I would like to see is a 16-16-10 with that I would like to see a pyramid system put in place and the cups revamped. I am more in line with the majority of fans in Scottish football but hey because your CEO didn't get his own way everyone else is wrong.

Surprised you are having a go at Lawwell (for no reason) rather than Milne:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aberdeen-chairman-stewart-milne-blasts-1834757

Broxi_Bear_Eire

PauloMN wrote: »

Surprised you are having a go at Lawwell (for no reason) rather than Milne:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/aberdeen-chairman-stewart-milne-blasts-1834757

I have already spoken about Milne and the point he could have changed this voting system but he made the choice to stay with the status quo so he'll mend him

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I have already spoken about Milne and the point he could have changed this voting system but he made the choice to stay with the status quo so he'll mend him

Gilmour could have changed the voting system yesterday but didnt.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

You want your own club promoted a division to vindicate this season. The thoughts of winning a division and not actually changing division seems like a punishment to ye and thats why you have Charlie Green shouting nonsence despite having no input into the running of the game, i.e. a condition of getting into Division 3.

A 16 team top flight is not financially viable according to all clubs, they didnt do their PR correctly on this imo. Thats what they all agreed on a couple of weeks ago and thats why the official vote for 12-12-18 was set. Any increase in gate receipts is negated by commerical partners getting cold feet according to the consesus done by the SPL

Fans, myself included, dont want a system that has failed before but wanting one where the numbers just dont add up doesnt make much sense either, does it?

As for Lawwell not getting his way, Celtic make more money by the vote failing but wanting a better system for the majority of other clubs makes him greedy? Great logic there! :rolleyes: And who's everyone else? I see your now championing fan power, you were singing a different tune a while back when fan power didnt suit you. No surprises there!

You continually demonstrate only what suits yourself and only focus on one point of the vote, you are being very petty and bitter because most of the SPL and most of the SFL clubs wanted all these changes because most of the changes would make a huge difference for the vast majority of clubs in Scotland. Thats the point of reconstruction, there is no silver bullet to this.

You say I am championing fan power and I didn't last year yet here you are going against fan power when it was all important to you a year ago so don't try that one.
As for me wanting a failed system the system that was wanted yesterday has failed in two countries of similar footballing size etc. why would it work here.

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

You say I am championing fan power and I didn't last year yet here you are going against fan power when it was all important to you a year ago so don't try that one.
As for me wanting a failed system the system that was wanted yesterday has failed in two countries of similar footballing size etc. why would it work here.

Fans were far more polarized and vocal last summer about the issue with Rangers. I'm not going against "fan power" at all as most want the very same things as me.

• One league body to replace SPL and SFL
• Pyramid system
• Larger Promotion/Relegation
• Playoffs
• Better Financial Distribution of Wealth Generated
• Better Voting System
• Etc

I'm not a supporter of the 12-12-18 system, said that from day dot but the proposal yesterday wasnt just about the league format which you seem to be fixated on. There was alot more to it and the overall package should have been voted in.

To put it simply for you, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow and the plan yesterday was far far superior to the status quo going forward. Also if we need to change the structure again, it would be far easier to do so with a 9-3 voting mechanism than a 11-1.

Switzerland & Austria currently use league formats that Scotland dont want now either, what does that tell you? It tells me that Scotland isnt the same as those countries, it has different needs and require different solutions. This 'it failed there so it will definately fail here' thought process is ridiculously simplistic.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Fans were far more polarized and vocal last summer about the issue with Rangers. I'm not going against "fan power" at all as most want the very same things as me.

• One league body to replace SPL and SFL
• Pyramid system
• Larger Promotion/Relegation
• Playoffs
• Better Financial Distribution of Wealth Generated
• Better Voting System
• Etc

I'm not a supporter of the 12-12-18 system, said that from day dot but the proposal yesterday wasnt just about the league format which you seem to be fixated on. There was alot more to it and the overall package should have been voted in.

To put it simply for you, a good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow and the plan yesterday was far far superior to the status quo going forward. Also if we need to change the structure again, it would be far easier to do so with a 9-3 voting mechanism than a 11-1.

Switzerland & Austria currently use league formats that Scotland dont want now either, what does that tell you? It tells me that Scotland isnt the same as those countries, it has different needs and require different solutions. This 'it failed there so it will definately fail here' thought process is ridiculously simplistic.

Somehow I will stick with they were right to vote against it. I will add coming up with an offer to change the voting system on the day stinks of desperation IMO

League reconstruction rules could have created literally pointless games
By Andy Coyle 18 April 2013 14:32 BST

Proposed SPFL rule C14 is designed to prevent outstanding fixtures holding up the split.STV
The proposed league reconstruction rulebook that was blocked in Monday’s Scottish Premier League vote could have delivered scenarios where pointless games were played or teams had no motivation to win championship-deciding matches.

While the fallout from the Hampden meeting that saw St Mirren and Ross County has centred on the broader outlook for Scottish football, STV has studied the proposed rules and found that the new structure could have delivered a potentially embarrassing situation for the governing body of the new league.

After getting enough backing to progress with the restructure plan, a draft rulebook was drawn up which, if both the SPL and Scottish Football League had voted in favour, would have been the rules applied to set up next season’s new “Scottish professional Football League”.

STV obtained a copy of the draft rulebook and were told that the rules specific to the composition of the league would apply as written if given approval by SPL and SFL clubs.

The rules set out how the leagues would initially follow a 12-12-18 format before splitting into three groups of eight after 22 games. The top eight would play for the title and European places, the middle eight would contest promotion/relegation from the top flight and second tier, while the third group would decide who would be relegated to the third tier.

Under the proposal, points earned by teams in the middle eight in the first phase of the season would be reset to zero as they would have been earned in different leagues, starting every side on a level footing as they contested the promotion/relegation places.

The parties involved in drafting the plan said that the new format would deliver “more meaningful games” with most clubs having something to play for until the season end.

When the plans were floated, critics voiced concern that the 22-match cut-off point came at a time when games are regularly postponed in Scotland due to the weather. In this season’s SPL, the first teams to complete 22 games did so on January 2, with Ross County being the last to hit the 22-match mark on January 26, though there was a two-week break.

The proposed new rules sought to avert unnecessary delay with a rule specifying when the post-split matches could start.

Rule C14 stated: “The Play-Off Eight Competition shall take place after all of the Clubs in Divisions One and Two have each Played two fixtures, one home and one away against each of the other Clubs their respective Division (twenty two fixtures in total for each such Club) or where the Board have determined that any as yet not Played such fixtures in Division One and/or Two cannot change the Clubs which shall occupy positions 9 to 12 inclusive in Division One and positions 1 to 4 inclusive in Division Two after all of the Clubs shall have Played 22 such fixtures in any Season.”

Essentially, the rule states that if there is an outstanding match that won’t affect who is placed where in the top eight, or is in the middle eight, then that match can be played post-split.

This would avert a scenario where a fixture between two sides who could not move up or down the league based on a game in hand would hold up the fixtures for sixteen teams.

While addressing the problem where a postponement would delay the split, the rule creates hypothetical scenarios where sporting integrity could be called in to question and could theoretically create a “pointless” match.

Scenario one: One team may have no interest in a match that decides the championship title.

One side from the top eight and one from the bottom have an outstanding match to play. For argument’s sake, say Celtic’s match against Aberdeen at Pittodrie was postponed.

If Celtic are in first place in the league and Aberdeen are 12th when each has played 21 games, and all other top-flight teams have played 22, then C14 allows the split to take place. Aberdeen’s points are set to zero when they enter the middle eight in the second phase.

The re-arranged fixture is scheduled for midweek between post-split games. Aberdeen could have a crucial match the following Saturday against a relegation rival.

The game has to be played since Celtic are chasing the title. Aberdeen, however, would have nothing competitively to gain from the match as their points have already been reset to zero.

Aberdeen would be expected to play a full-strength side to maintain the integrity of the title race, while facing a match that could define their season just days later.

Scenario two: Sides in the middle eight play a game that is literally pointless.

Instead of Aberdeen, let’s say St Mirren and Dundee have an outstanding match to play. After 21 games Dundee can’t rise higher than 12th, St Mirren are locked into 11th place. Rule C14 says the split can take place and second phase games begin.

St Mirren and Dundee both have their points reset to zero and begin contesting the promotion/relegation places with six other sides.

The outstanding game would have to be rescheduled, presumably in midweek, possibly days before the teams face each other in their middle eight game.

The re-arranged game applies to the league before the split so would have no bearing on promotion/relegation and would carry no meaningful points as the points gained from the phase of the competition where it applies have already been wiped. Neither team would have a competitive reason to win the fixture.

The only scenario in which this game would have an impact is where the sides could not affect the league placing of others but could swap places in the first phase table, changing the prize money earned at that point. For example, the difference between 11th and 12th after 22 games is worth £86,000.

Dempsey

I already pointed out some of those issues when the 12-12-18 was first mooted, its not news to me.

Somehow I will stick with they were right to vote against it. I will add coming up with an offer to change the voting system on the day stinks of desperation IMO

Well done genius but the thing you are failing to grasp is that St.Mirren agreed to the changes prior to the official vote. The fans view was already known at this stage but they decided to go with the vote in a private meeting and then against the vote in public. What was the point of that? Their behaviour doesnt make much sense tbh considering that if they voiced their opinion when first asked, there wouldnt have been a vote on monday.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

I already pointed out some of those issues when the 12-12-18 was first mooted, its not news to me.



Well done genius but the thing you are failing to grasp is that St.Mirren agreed to the changes prior to the official vote. The fans view was already known at this stage but they decided to go with the vote in a private meeting and then against the vote in public. What was the point of that? Their behaviour doesnt make much sense tbh considering that if they voiced their opinion when first asked, there wouldnt have been a vote on monday.

See to be honest all you have done is had wee jibes at me. All that matters to me was the vote went against what was proposed as it was being rushed for know good reason that anyone could see. I am perfectly happy
So St Mirren aren't allowed to have a rethink just because it doesn't suit everyone's agenda doesn't mean a thing. I mean your club changed there mind about going to Japan but hey themselves the breaks

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

See to be honest all you have done is had wee jibes at me. All that matters to me was the vote went against what was proposed as it was being rushed for know good reason that anyone could see. I am perfectly happy
So St Mirren aren't allowed to have a rethink just because it doesn't suit everyone's agenda doesn't mean a thing. I mean your club changed there mind about going to Japan but hey themselves the breaks

they just wasted peoples time is all, what actually change in the weeks between the meeting and the vote? nothing as far as I can see

lol, japan

PauloMN

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I mean your club changed there mind about going to Japan but hey themselves the breaks

:eek: :pac: Jaysus BBE, let it go man!!!!

Broxi_Bear_Eire

PauloMN wrote: »

:eek: :pac: Jaysus BBE, let it go man!!!!

Of course Paul after all sporting integrity and all that

PauloMN

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Of course Paul after all sporting integrity and all that

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself now.

Lennonist

What's this about Japan?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

PauloMN wrote: »

Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself now.

Of course I am your club changed its mind at the last minute (well I am being genorous). So chairmen of other clubs are perfectly entitled to as well.
You by your own admittance said you did not know much about the proposals but felt the need to have a go at Gilmour. When I read even on the day of the vote the people in charge were still not tevealing the full information on the changes to the set up. I for one am glad they stuck by their guns. And when I see the SFL don't wish the SFA to intervene / mediate I have to wonder why and one conclusion I come to is that they don't have faith in Doncaster or Regan but that does not surprise me

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Of course I am your club changed its mind at the last minute (well I am being genorous). So chairmen of other clubs are perfectly entitled to as well.
You by your own admittance said you did not know much about the proposals but felt the need to have a go at Gilmour. When I read even on the day of the vote the people in charge were still not tevealing the full information on the changes to the set up. I for one am glad they stuck by their guns. And when I see the SFL don't wish the SFA to intervene / mediate I have to wonder why and one conclusion I come to is that they don't have faith in Doncaster or Regan but that does not surprise me

Rangers were in the position they were in because they evoked unused rules that allowed them to postpone fixtures. Yer own stategy spectacularly backfired and blaming one other club for your fixture congestion is laughable. You do realise that other clubs had plans and were against the season dragging on aswell?? Its easier to blame Celtic i suppose!

Also, Longmuir had a hand in the proposal that went to SPL vote but you go ahead and talk up the SFL as if they are some sort of shining example. :rolleyes:

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Rangers were in the position they were in because they evoked unused rules that allowed them to postpone fixtures. Yer own stategy spectacularly backfired and blaming one other club for your fixture congestion is laughable. You do realise that other clubs had plans and were against the season dragging on aswell?? Its easier to blame Celtic i suppose!

Also, Longmuir had a hand in the proposal that went to SPL vote but you go ahead and talk up the SFL as if they are some sort of shining example. :rolleyes:

I did not blame Celtic I merely pointed out changing your mind at the last minute is not a crime. As for Longmuir he has more Scottish football knowledge that the two numpties surely even you can see that or them again maybe not

PauloMN

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Of course I am your club changed its mind at the last minute (well I am being genorous). So chairmen of other clubs are perfectly entitled to as well.
You by your own admittance said you did not know much about the proposals but felt the need to have a go at Gilmour. When I read even on the day of the vote the people in charge were still not tevealing the full information on the changes to the set up. I for one am glad they stuck by their guns. And when I see the SFL don't wish the SFA to intervene / mediate I have to wonder why and one conclusion I come to is that they don't have faith in Doncaster or Regan but that does not surprise me

Yeah, Celtic's Japan tour was all about Rangers..... don't believe everything you read in the Daily Record.

As for Gilmour, I didn't have a go at him, he's perfectly entitled to vote whatever way he wanted. Read back my post and you'll find what I thought was ironic about his stance, specifically wrt to 11-1 voting structure he doesn't like, but which worked in his favour on this vote.

You really are a master at twisting stuff I have to say.

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I did not blame Celtic I merely pointed out changing your mind at the last minute is not a crime. As for Longmuir he has more Scottish football knowledge that the two numpties surely even you can see that or them again maybe not

He was the one that proposed the colt idea and was shot down immediately by everyone. He had an equal input into the failed reconstruction talks and vote. His clairvoyant outlook on Scottish Football isnt as good as you think. As for being better than the other 2 numpties, i wouldnt regard that are a benchmark to be proud of.

EDIT

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4894049/Wrongmuir.html

Seems some of the clubs he's suppose to represent arent happy with his decision making.

Strange that it only seems to be certain fans championing Longmuir...

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

He was the one that proposed the colt idea and was shot down immediately by everyone. He had an equal input into the failed reconstruction talks and vote. His clairvoyant outlook on Scottish Football isnt as good as you think. As for being better than the other 2 numpties, i wouldnt regard that are a benchmark to be proud of.

EDIT

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4894049/Wrongmuir.html

Seems some of the clubs he's suppose to represent arent happy with his decision making.

Strange that it only seems to be certain fans championing Longmuir...

Yeah it's a big conspiracy lol

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Yeah it's a big conspiracy lol

Not really, its something I noticed in people's posts since last summer. Before that, ye had nothing of note to say about Longmuir and his vision for Scottish Football. Its quite obvious that he's not much better, if any at all, than Regan & Doncaster when under media/public scrutiny.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Not really, its something I noticed in people's posts since last summer. Before that, ye had nothing of note to say about Longmuir and his vision for Scottish Football. Its quite obvious that he's not much better, if any at all, than Regan & Doncaster when under media/public scrutiny.

Really that is surprising I am pretty sure the vast majority of fans of the clubs who don't flirt in and out of the lower divisions hadn't a lot to say about him either. Its no surprise therefore when we found out what was going to/did happen to us fans started to have a look at the man. He has also had less time to deal with the media scrutiny that revolves round Scottish football.

Dempsey

I see clubs got together to talk about introducing playoffs but that wont work without the financial restructuring and that wont work long term without remodelling the whole league structure, introducing a pyramid structure and amalgamating the SFL & SPL.

The lack of leadership on reconstruction talks is frightening. The SPL & SFL have to move away from the "we get our mandate from the clubs" approach. Its a cop out for when things dont work out.

Dempsey

Gordon Waddell ‏@GordonWaddell 10m

Breaking: 11 clubs about to resign en masse from SFL. All of SFL1, with the exception of Airdrie, plus QotS and Dundee are signatories

Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence 1m

The Ten clubs have taken independent legal advice over the two year notice period required to leave the SFL.

A vote of no confidence in Longmuir after he rejected SFA help without consulting the clubs it seems

No surprise that its SFL1 clubs leading the march

Jelle1880

More insecurity then...

I wonder who the 12th club will be that they need in the set up :rolleyes:

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

More insecurity then...

I wonder who the 12th club will be that they need in the set up :rolleyes:

Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence 14m

Rangers are not among the ten clubs involved in signing the letter to the SPL and threatening to leave the SFL.

Not threatening but I'm sure they'll be asked.

Looks like Gilmour got his wish despite all the public posturing.

thebaz

the answer to Scotlands league problem (well in my mind) would be for Celtic and Rangers to join an English league at some level, be that the tier below league 2 - you now have the 2 main Welsh clubs in the EPL , so why not get Rangers and Celtic somehow involved , they are both too big for the Scottish league in any format - just my thoughts , i know many object to this , but to me it would be the right fit . end of my thoughts for today.

Dempsey

Most of the answers were in the reconstruction vote but the proposed league format sank it along with poor leadership from the SPL & SFL. The reason the SFL & SPL have no real leadership is that they get their mandate from the clubs which say they want one thing then vote for another. Not to mention that it only takes 2 clubs to spoil any vote.

Jelle1880

Chris Jack ‏@Chris_Jack89 51m
SPL announce a new single merged league of 42 clubs will be formed. 12-10-10-10 structure, play-offs to the top flight and new finance model

Eirebear

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Chris Jack ‏@Chris_Jack89 51m
SPL announce a new single merged league of 42 clubs will be formed. 12-10-10-10 structure, play-offs to the top flight and new finance model

This almost sounds like a sensible decision....I can't help but feel suspicious!

PauloMN

So how does the promotion/demotion work? 1 team or 2?

Is this expected to be in place for next season?

Eirebear

PauloMN wrote: »

So how does the promotion/demotion work? 1 team or 2?

Is this expected to be in place for next season?

1 Automatic, 2nd bottom SPL team plays off with 2,3,4 in Div 1...I think.

Dempsey

The idea of a SPL2 maybe the catalyst for getting the SPL clubs to thrash out a proper solution. The plan isnt without its faults but its definately a huge step in the right direction.