hoffdrankmybeer 41 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I was reading that 29 of the 30 clubs voted for us to join the SFL and 25 of the 30 voted for us to start in division three.Out of curiosity, does anyone know who didn't vote for us to join the sfl?Not that it makes any difference, just wondering. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 339 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Clyde. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebellsareblue82 15 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I am more worried about the clubs that voted for us .Why would you? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoffdrankmybeer 41 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 Clyde.Cheers mate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoffdrankmybeer 41 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 I am more worried about the clubs that voted for us .Why would you?£££! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRW. 5,631 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Raith Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEARGER 339 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 RaithSee Clyde website. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peasie 103 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 One says Clyde. One says Raith.Personally I hope it was Raith. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebellsareblue82 15 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 £££!Yes but at div3 they all get a slice of the pie so to speak. Why would div 2 and 3 clubs vote 1 and miss out? Why would div 1 clubs vote 1 and hamper their chances of promotion ?I am amazed any club voted div 1 for us tbf. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoffdrankmybeer 41 Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 Yes but at div3 they all get a slice of the pie so to speak. Why would div 2 and 3 clubs vote 1 and miss out? Why would div 1 clubs vote 1 and hamper their chances of promotion ?I am amazed any club voted div 1 for us tbf.Maybe felt the all round deal/bribe from the sfa was beneficial to them. Maybe thought it was all completely rigged, closed their eyes and stabed a pen into the voting paper and hit yes! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRW. 5,631 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 See Clyde website.I have. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 88 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 did anybody actually vote against - all the reports I have seen say 29 voted for us, and I know some clubs were talking about abstaining because they could benefit from us going into the SFL Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated 10 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Someone in work said it was Stranraer, which left me wondering what the reason behind it was. I never came to any conclusions though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
airdriebluenose 351 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I was reading that 29 of the 30 clubs voted for us to join the SFL and 25 of the 30 voted for us to start in division three.Out of curiosity, does anyone know who didn't vote for us to join the sfl?Not that it makes any difference, just wondering.It does make a difference, we should know who didn't want us and we can boycott them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Stein 4 EVA 8 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 BBC said Stranraer, I just thought it's coz we tried tae fuck them 50 odd years ago and this was their chance of revenge, the sad bastards. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robie1921 5 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 It was clyde alright. And we wont forget Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim1983 9 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Who gives a fuk WATP Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 It does make a difference, we should know who didn't want us and we can boycott them.ThisWhoever it was should be shunned. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Clyde View on SFL MeetingFri, 13th Jul 2012 10:19pmThe club chairman attended a very sobering meeting of the SFL today where the 30 clubs voted on resolutions in the manner that they felt were, on balance, for the good of the game. Nobody had arrived at decisions easily and all had been placed in intolerable positions of having to decide without the basic information that would reflect good governance and having to speculate about unresolved matters around sanctions and membership of the SFA that other bodies had so far failed to deal with.The outcome was never going to be a good one, but it was one of significant unity amongst the clubs. Even where clubs voted differently, it was not a divisive difference of views, everyone understood the complex mix of circumstances facing each club would never deliver unanimity of voting.We reported this morning prior to the vote of all clubs that “Sevco Scotland Ltd will not be playing in the Third Division in the coming season." Nothing heard today altered that opinion, in fact, it strengthened it.For the good of the game we need to see the SFA accept the will of its members, who all voted today, as members of the SFL, in the clear knowledge that the SFA had it in its power to refuse to transfer SFA membership to Sevco Scotland Ltd should the vote support the entry of Sevco Scotland Ltd into SFL3.We were asked to respect the confidentiality of those presenting today as only that agreement would allow them to be as candid as they were. We cannot therefore share what was said, however Mr Green left the SFL member clubs in no doubt about what he had been told by the SFA.The SFL saw a level of unity and unselfishness that owes significant credit to the First Division clubs who stated their intention to seek a 42 club solution and not to take part in a divisive alternative. This kind of unity, if maintained, will help deliver the change that the game so badly needs and the First Division clubs in particular will merit.If the SFA now act to support any process to undermine the clear views of the SFL members, who are also members of the SFA, then this club will join others in questioning those in leadership.Sadly for our game, this saga is not over, teams cannot plan and that includes Rangers, who may yet be denied the opportunity to play football in SFL3 because it suits the interests of others. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Club Statement: Voting IntentionsFri, 13th Jul 2012 9:14amThe proposals to change the league structure, its governance and distribution model are indeed for the good of the game. What is not for the good of the game are the circumstances in which it has been proposed. It is only on the table for short-term financial reasons. Neil Doncaster told the SFL clubs that the SPL would not allow Rangers to join the Third Division as the loss of £16m would not be countenanced, he is also on record as having said that a 16 team league would cost £20m, therefore we can hardly have confidence that the focus on finance will allow these proposals to come to life.What is also not for the good of the game is 30 clubs being asked to vote knowing that a vote for Resolution 1 has a very high chance of being ignored by the SFA attempting to avoid any suggestion of what they perceive to be a dereliction of their duty. Such statements undermine basic democracy. Equally, voting blind to admit an organisation who has no membership of the SFA at a time when there is no vacancy in the SFL is not for the good of the game. Almost everything about this long run process is not for the good of the game.It would not be for the good of the game to compound the problems of a club by refusing entry to the SFL for Rangers Football Club. We will therefore take that leap of faith and vote in favour of Resolution 1 despite not a single word of reasoning having been provided to support the Resolution.On the basis that short-term financial drivers have not been for the good of the game in the past, then we will not support Resolution 2. It has unfortunately enmeshed positive change for the game with a proposal to admit Sevco Scotland Ltd to the First Division for the purposes of shoring up the short-term financial model which has to date failed The Game.The interests of the game will be served by decisions being made genuinely for the long-term benefit of the whole of Scottish Football, and not short term benefit for a few clubs.Our decision has at times had to defy logic and question our own short term interests as others focus on theirs. Given that the SPL and SFA have signalled a clear intention to act against any decision that might result in Sevco Scotland Ltd being admitted to the Third Division, then the limited logic left in this process points to them as believing they have the monopoly of wisdom on what is good for the game. We can expect that, no matter what the SFL clubs decide, Sevco Scotland will not be playing in the Third Division in the coming season. How more short-termism can be for the good of the game really does defy logic.When the dust settles on this affair, it would be good to think that we can all get back to watching football. Sadly, no matter how it turns out today, some will not return to our game.Looks like it wasn't Clyde Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Doesn't look like it was Stranraer eitherThe committee of Stranraer FC met this evening to discuss the papers recently received in advance of the SFL clubs meeting. The papers indicate a number of proposals and scenarios to deal with the potential vacancy that would occur if the expulsion of an SPL club occurs this week.The committee unanimously agreed that the proposals are produced in haste and are unconvinced about the justification for departing from the rules and standards that the SFL represent. As a club recently faced with possible extinction and fighting our way back from financial difficulties we fully understand the position that a club could find themselves placed in and as a supporters run club, fully understand the passions of the supporters of clubs affected by such an event.We are not convinced at the emotive language currently being aired to describe the potential ramifications to our game should a NewCo not be given special case treatment and consider that the benefits that could be negotiated do not counter balance the damage that would be done to the credibility of the SFL as a governing body.We hold the stance that it is our place to act in the best long term interests of Stranraer FC and for Scottish Football as a whole and see no reason to breach the integrity of the SFL by filling a vacancy at any level other than at the lowest tier. The possibility of placing a NewCo at any other level breaches the sporting competition of our organisation and compromises the very structure of our game. There should not be a special case made for any club and we believe that the proper place for a phoenix club to restart life is at the lowest level. We believe it is right and proper than any club should have the right to apply for the resulting vacancy and we would then form a view on which club we would support for election to any vacancy based on the presentation case made by the applicants.Irrespective of the size, stature, history and resources of the club filling the vacancy, the opportunity exists for that club to find their way back to their natural tier in the league structure in a fair and equitable manner while being encouraged to trade and exist successfully within the means at their disposal.Restructuring of the league set-up and governing bodies is complex and difficult with many differing views and interests across the clubs in the spectrum. The current proposal has been compiled as a reaction to the unique and unexpected circumstances we are faced with and while there are clearly a number of ingredients that have great merit, this is too great an issue to be dealt with in this seemingly indecent haste.Stranraer FC support the opening of a vacancy in the lowest tier given the options available at present and remain open to the continuing challenge of working towards a better future for all involved in Scottish Football. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoffdrankmybeer 41 Posted July 14, 2012 Author Share Posted July 14, 2012 I wish folk would stop calling us sevco or newco or the new rangers...it's doing ma tits in! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
norgerpd 280 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I wish folk would stop calling us sevco or newco or the new rangers...it's doing ma tits in!That's why they are doing it.We know fuck all has changed.We're STILL the people! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
masonboyne 14 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 So the preceedings were 'Everybody pick a gun & shoot yourself in the right foot whilst kicking Rangers with the left foot' Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claddie 53 Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 We're Airdrie not abstaining? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.