|
Post by drj1956 on Apr 29, 2020 10:35:10 GMT
I'd be very surprised if Sevco had anything startling. All I really want is for those who made these crazy decisions to admit they screwed up. Apologise for fucking up and if necessary heads can roll. To just bury their heads in the sand and hope this goes away is the thing that annoys me most,
|
|
|
Post by parkhead98 on Apr 29, 2020 10:36:11 GMT
Except from SPFL statement
We live in a democracy and the SPFL Articles are clear - if 75% of the clubs in the Premiership, as well as 75% of the clubs in the Championship and 75% of the clubs in Leagues One and Two vote that we should spend our executives‘ time on matters other than Seasons 2019/20 & 2020/21, and clubs’ money on lawyers’ fees, then we will.
They truly are a bunch of egotistical morons.
In a proper democracy...
Majority rules. (The highest percentage of all votes cast.) Not a fixed percentage that will almost certainly influence the outcome. You don't influence that outcome with threats of prize money being withheld. You make it clear what voters are actually voting for and allow adequate time for them to decide. You don't announce the result before all votes are cast. You accept the final result based on all votes cast. You don't allow a vote to be changed once the original votes are cast. And finally, you don't continue your lying and bullying tactics when doubts are cast over the validity of a vote. That's a dictatorship.
As for spending their time on matters relating to seasons 2019/20 and 2020/21, if they were doing that competently, we wouldn't be in the fucking mess we are now.
|
|
|
Post by countyjambo on Apr 29, 2020 11:25:58 GMT
They could use Doncasters wage cut to fund it, never sure why these things are so expensive to run either?
|
|
|
Post by drj1956 on Apr 29, 2020 11:41:06 GMT
They are not that expensive (not cheap either tho) based on what my companies have paid for a QC going to a tribunal, I would estimate around 50k.
|
|
|
Post by countyjambo on Apr 29, 2020 13:18:41 GMT
Well that would covered by Doncaster taking a 20 % hit then DRJ 😄😄💥
|
|
|
Post by baldbobby on Apr 29, 2020 13:21:18 GMT
Except from SPFL statement
We live in a democracy and the SPFL Articles are clear - if 75% of the clubs in the Premiership, as well as 75% of the clubs in the Championship and 75% of the clubs in Leagues One and Two vote that we should spend our executives‘ time on matters other than Seasons 2019/20 & 2020/21, and clubs’ money on lawyers’ fees, then we will.They truly are a bunch of egotistical morons. In a proper democracy... Majority rules. (The highest percentage of all votes cast.) Not a fixed percentage that will almost certainly influence the outcome. You don't influence that outcome with threats of prize money being withheld. You make it clear what voters are actually voting for and allow adequate time for them to decide. You don't announce the result before all votes are cast. You accept the final result based on all votes cast. You don't allow a vote to be changed once the original votes are cast. And finally, you don't continue your lying and bullying tactics when doubts are cast over the validity of a vote. That's a dictatorship. As for spending their time on matters relating to seasons 2019/20 and 2020/21, if they were doing that competently, we wouldn't be in the fucking mess we are now. KABOOM for this Parkie!
|
|
|
Post by Dedrokstar on Apr 29, 2020 17:08:18 GMT
Except from SPFL statement We live in a democracy and the SPFL Articles are clear - if 75% of the clubs in the Premiership, as well as 75% of the clubs in the Championship and 75% of the clubs in Leagues One and Two vote that we should spend our executives‘ time on matters other than Seasons 2019/20 & 2020/21, and clubs’ money on lawyers’ fees, then we will. Is this not another case of bullying clubs. It seems to me to be saying that even if you do believe we are guilty of wrongdoing do you really want to spend funds proving it? Typical head in the sand attitude. Perhaps if they admitted getting it wrong in the first place we might be able to move on. I agree with them that it is a use of funds and resources that should be avoided but you cant make the errors they have without paying the price If its less than 75% then we'll, publically and privately shame the last to vote into changing their minds.
|
|
|
Post by drj1956 on Apr 29, 2020 17:21:03 GMT
Lol. The whole thing is just a sham. Im fed up with everything about football. Totally disillusioned
|
|
|
Post by baldbobby on Apr 29, 2020 17:34:20 GMT
Except from SPFL statement We live in a democracy and the SPFL Articles are clear - if 75% of the clubs in the Premiership, as well as 75% of the clubs in the Championship and 75% of the clubs in Leagues One and Two vote that we should spend our executives‘ time on matters other than Seasons 2019/20 & 2020/21, and clubs’ money on lawyers’ fees, then we will. Is this not another case of bullying clubs. It seems to me to be saying that even if you do believe we are guilty of wrongdoing do you really want to spend funds proving it? Typical head in the sand attitude. Perhaps if they admitted getting it wrong in the first place we might be able to move on. I agree with them that it is a use of funds and resources that should be avoided but you cant make the errors they have without paying the price If its less than 75% then we'll, publically and privately shame the last to vote into changing their minds. And if that disnae work then offer them some money spinning friendlies against our two brothers in arms!
|
|
|
Post by drj1956 on Apr 29, 2020 18:26:18 GMT
I honestly think that if being a jambo wasnt so ingrained in me, I would be considering walking away from scottish football. It's probably that allegiance thatt the morons running our game bank on.
|
|
|
Post by HerefordBull on Apr 29, 2020 18:31:52 GMT
Correct drj. They know at the SPFL that when crowds are allowed back into Tynecastle your allegiance to your club will take you back there, along with the other 20000 and they will kid themselves they are doing a good job.
|
|
|
Post by countyjambo on Apr 30, 2020 7:54:44 GMT
Spot on Newhaven they don't give a monkey for what the fans think
|
|
|
Post by dav 21/5/16 on Apr 30, 2020 10:55:22 GMT
Except from SPFL statement
We live in a democracy and the SPFL Articles are clear - if 75% of the clubs in the Premiership, as well as 75% of the clubs in the Championship and 75% of the clubs in Leagues One and Two vote that we should spend our executives‘ time on matters other than Seasons 2019/20 & 2020/21, and clubs’ money on lawyers’ fees, then we will.They truly are a bunch of egotistical morons. In a proper democracy... Majority rules. (The highest percentage of all votes cast.) Not a fixed percentage that will almost certainly influence the outcome. You don't influence that outcome with threats of prize money being withheld. You make it clear what voters are actually voting for and allow adequate time for them to decide. You don't announce the result before all votes are cast. You accept the final result based on all votes cast. You don't allow a vote to be changed once the original votes are cast. And finally, you don't continue your lying and bullying tactics when doubts are cast over the validity of a vote. That's a dictatorship. As for spending their time on matters relating to seasons 2019/20 and 2020/21, if they were doing that competently, we wouldn't be in the fucking mess we are now. Parkie going by your statement Dundee vote doesn’t count but majority rule to end the lower leagues regardless and probably the top league also? Yes / No ??
|
|
|
Post by drj1956 on Apr 30, 2020 12:14:16 GMT
Yeah the majority rule thing wouldnt work in our favour in either the end the league or reconstruction debate.
I'm not so concerned about the 75% thing as by the inconsistency aspect of it. There seems to be many a different voting system for different debates.
Also, it seems to be that the SPFL quote rules that must be obeyed when it suits them but break them when it suits also
For example They quote rules that would deny them the ability to give loans. Yet They say that it would have been impractical to use the 28 day voting rule so they CHOSE to ignore that rule
As a footnote the reasons for saying they couldn't give "loans" was nonsense. It wouldnt have been unsecured loans. It would be secured against the prize money due, that the loanee held anyway. In effect it wouldnt have been a loan but an Advance.
|
|
|
Post by drj1956 on Apr 30, 2020 12:21:58 GMT
To be honest, I just want it over. I'm sceptical over what Sevco have in the "dossier" and fear the opprobrium of being caught up with that football club.
Just relegate us, so we can get on with it
|
|