Jump to content

Club statement | Resolution not deemed competent


OceanRain

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Summarised.

What bothers me is ........

Anne budge said in her statement that she help Nelms with his proposal He sent Anne a copy at 5:03pm

Quote

“We had a conversation in the middle of last Friday afternoon, around 4pm. “He wanted to talk to me about submitting a different resolution and he was asking me for input on his resolution, which he subsequently sent to me. “I received it at 5:03pm on the Friday.

--------------------------------------------------

Dundee sent their no vote in PDF format

image.thumb.png.17901cb25e11a128cffed39b8b43b34f.png

but the firewall intercepted it :headwall:

------------------------------------------

Nelms then held his vote because he was in a powerful position

https://soundcloud.com/dm7181/ict-ceo-scot-gardiner-on-bbc-sportsound-11th-april-2020

-----------------------------------------

In that Dundee Evening Telegraph interview the supporters group say ....

Quote

“With regards to league reconstruction we suspect that none of the 42 SPFL chairman (sic) pushed harder for it than John Nelms and, as a result, a working party has been established to discuss it, which was not on the table in the original resolution.

What I want to know is ....

Did Nelm send a copy of his proposal with his voting slip?

Did the 'firewall' read it and approve the proposal?

Was their a good Friday agreement?

Was the vote passed on the SPFL proposal with reconstruction talks planned for after it was approved or was it passed on Nelms proposal with a reconstruction panel added? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 27.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Sweetheart said:

 

Dundee Evening Telegraph

by George Cran

----------------------------------

A Dundee fans group are “happy and satisfied” chief John Nelms acted in the best intentions of the club after clear-the-air talks. 

The Dark Blues managing director took centre stage in the pantomime that has engulfed Scottish football following the SPFL’s proposed plan to end the 2019-20 season in the lower divisions and dish out much-needed prize money.

That was after the American’s initially-intended “no” vote changed to a “yes” to allow the resolution to pass in exchange for firm promises on league reconstruction five days later. That sparked an outcry from the club’s fans over the U-turn which saw Dundee United crowned Championship winners.

And the Dundee Supporters Association – which is made up of 34 clubs comprising 1,000 members – sent an email to the Dens supremo asking for “clarity” over the change in position and how it would benefit the Dark Blues.

Nelms responded with a club statement to reiterate he “got the best deal possible out of a situation that was going to be bad for us in any iteration proposed” and followed that up with a phone conversation with DSA chairman Kenny Ross.

The DSA committee then released a statement stating they were pleased that the push for league reconstruction shows Nelms and owner Tim Keyes “are in this for the long haul”.

The statement included: “We were pleased that the club not only released an updated statement later that day but that managing director John Nelms also personally contacted a member of the DSA committee by phone.

“Mr Nelms was more than able to adequately explain the club’s thought processes and position and demonstrate how he was able to get the best possible outcome for Dundee Football Club in an impossible situation.

“When Dundee realised their vote hadn’t been cast on April 10, the dynamic changed and it is clear to the DSA that Mr Nelms has worked tirelessly since and as a result of the SPFL releasing the results of the ballot before all of the member votes were in, was put in an unfair, undemocratic and difficult position.

“With regards to league reconstruction we suspect that none of the 42 SPFL chairman (sic) pushed harder for it than John Nelms and, as a result, a working party has been established to discuss it, which was not on the table in the original resolution.

“It would not have been convened had Dundee voted ‘No’ as they had originally intended and this has to be a good thing and in the best interests of Dundee FC.

“We were therefore pleased to learn that John himself will be on that working group and gives proof, if any were needed that John and Tim Keyes are in this for the long haul.

“The DSA are therefore happy and satisfied that Mr Nelms worked in best interests of both Dundee FC and Scottish football in general and got the best possible outcome for our club in a very difficult situation.

“The Dundee FC Supporters Association has had a good working relationship with Mr Nelms and his board in recent years and we are grateful that he responded to our request swiftly and satisfactorily and look forward to this relationship continuing in the future.”

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/dundee-fc-john-nelms-phone-call-spfl-vote/

Surprise, surprise, Dundee fans backing their chairman.

They seem to have forgotten that their chairman reneged on a deal with ICT and Partick, plus " for the good of Scottish football"

We love our chairman for being a  self centred cunt.

It surprises no one, after all, it is their chairman.

This is exactly how internal investigations pan out and this will be the outcome should the spfl have their own internal investigation.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

What bothers me is ........

Anne budge said in her statement that she help Nelms with his proposal He sent Anne a copy at 5:03pm

--------------------------------------------------

Dundee sent their no vote in PDF format

image.thumb.png.17901cb25e11a128cffed39b8b43b34f.png

but the firewall intercepted it :headwall:

Nelms then held his vote because he was in a powerful position

https://soundcloud.com/dm7181/ict-ceo-scot-gardiner-on-bbc-sportsound-11th-april-2020

In that Dundee Evening Telegraph interview the supporters group say ....

What I want to know is ....

Did Nelm send a copy of his proposal with his voting slip?

Did the 'firewall' read it and approve the proposal?

Was their a good Friday agreement?

Was the vote passed on the SPFL proposal with reconstruction talks planned after approved or was it passed on Nelms proposal with a reconstruction panel added? 

Not entirely sure where you're going with this. 

The Dundee fans are delighted that he's apparently been the main instigator in driving the introduction of a working group/ task force.  That could easily have been driven from communication with other clubs and/or the spfl. Which I'd agree lacks integrity.

But it doesnt need to have come from a resolution which does or doesnt pass a firewall. Theres no evidence i can see this task force is off the back of a resolution of his, though granted he was working on one prior to finding himself in a position of influence without it.  It's certainly off the back of the "series discussions" remark made in the early spfl statement prior to the vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Dundee vote a computer forensics expert will surely be able to tell us what time the email was read.....if what we all believe that the vote was received, opened and read in the timescale we believe then they really are banged to rights....from their on in it wouldn't take a genius to work out what happened for Dundee to then tell them to uncast the vote, it really is that simple....prove that and the games a bogey for the lot of them, all the other stuff will just be the icing on the cake

Link to post
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

I really do suspect at least part of our evidence is based on guidance the spfl have been given in relation to concluding leagues that they have chosen to ignore to find an option that gives the scum the title.

With everything staring us in the face then UEFA to come out with this is ridiculous. They’ve set themselves up nicely. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

The only thing I'd say we've erred is to call for folk to step down or be suspended without providing the reasons why. 

I get that we dont want to show our hand, and are right to demand impartiality and independent investigation, but if the scum demanded folk were sacked without saying why we would all likely find it absurd.

We've said there's integrity issues, by those named, imo it's right to demand an ii but that's it until the evidence is delivered. 

Tin hat on.

Bang on the money. You simply cannot call for individuals to be suspended or an II without foundation of some proof ffs and I've yet to see any official request to do so.

Simply calling for it in a club statement or via the media is hardly going to work with the cabal.

It will need to be done directly and officially to the SPFL, with due cause and underpinning evidence enough to warrant the calls. If then rejected, it is to law we go. Other than that I can only see empty rhetoric. 

As we can all see, this is causing untold damage to a game already shrouded in a lack of integrity. Both sides need to shit or get off the pot.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bornabear said:

Surprise, surprise, Dundee fans backing their chairman.

They seem to have forgotten that their chairman reneged on a deal with ICT and Partick, plus " for the good of Scottish football"

We love our chairman for being a  self centred cunt.

It surprises no one, after all, it is their chairman.

This is exactly how internal investigations pan out and this will be the outcome should the spfl have their own internal investigation.

 

What has John Nelms promised the Dundee Supporters Association?

Shares?

Board representation?

A higher level of representation if they already have some?

Something has been done to get them onside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sweetheart said:

 

Dundee Evening Telegraph

by George Cran

----------------------------------

A Dundee fans group are “happy and satisfied” chief John Nelms acted in the best intentions of the club after clear-the-air talks. 

The Dark Blues managing director took centre stage in the pantomime that has engulfed Scottish football following the SPFL’s proposed plan to end the 2019-20 season in the lower divisions and dish out much-needed prize money.

That was after the American’s initially-intended “no” vote changed to a “yes” to allow the resolution to pass in exchange for firm promises on league reconstruction five days later. That sparked an outcry from the club’s fans over the U-turn which saw Dundee United crowned Championship winners.

And the Dundee Supporters Association – which is made up of 34 clubs comprising 1,000 members – sent an email to the Dens supremo asking for “clarity” over the change in position and how it would benefit the Dark Blues.

Nelms responded with a club statement to reiterate he “got the best deal possible out of a situation that was going to be bad for us in any iteration proposed” and followed that up with a phone conversation with DSA chairman Kenny Ross.

The DSA committee then released a statement stating they were pleased that the push for league reconstruction shows Nelms and owner Tim Keyes “are in this for the long haul”.

The statement included: “We were pleased that the club not only released an updated statement later that day but that managing director John Nelms also personally contacted a member of the DSA committee by phone.

“Mr Nelms was more than able to adequately explain the club’s thought processes and position and demonstrate how he was able to get the best possible outcome for Dundee Football Club in an impossible situation.

“When Dundee realised their vote hadn’t been cast on April 10, the dynamic changed and it is clear to the DSA that Mr Nelms has worked tirelessly since and as a result of the SPFL releasing the results of the ballot before all of the member votes were in, was put in an unfair, undemocratic and difficult position.

“With regards to league reconstruction we suspect that none of the 42 SPFL chairman (sic) pushed harder for it than John Nelms and, as a result, a working party has been established to discuss it, which was not on the table in the original resolution.

“It would not have been convened had Dundee voted ‘No’ as they had originally intended and this has to be a good thing and in the best interests of Dundee FC.

“We were therefore pleased to learn that John himself will be on that working group and gives proof, if any were needed that John and Tim Keyes are in this for the long haul.

“The DSA are therefore happy and satisfied that Mr Nelms worked in best interests of both Dundee FC and Scottish football in general and got the best possible outcome for our club in a very difficult situation.

“The Dundee FC Supporters Association has had a good working relationship with Mr Nelms and his board in recent years and we are grateful that he responded to our request swiftly and satisfactorily and look forward to this relationship continuing in the future.”

https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/dundee-fc-john-nelms-phone-call-spfl-vote/

I only know 2 Dundee fans and they are far from happy! They are embarrassed by what Nelms has done abs can’t believe they voted for DU to win the league.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jintybear said:

I only know 2 Dundee fans and they are far from happy! They are embarrassed by what Nelms has done abs can’t believe they voted for DU to win the league.

And that's the strange part in it all.

If they were 2nd and believed they were also going up via a reconstruction route then it would likely be a chance worth taking.

With them sitting outside the positions needed for the talked about 14 team reconstructed league then theres something we're clearly missing in their logic or that they're working towards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BridgeIsBlue said:

The longer we sit and wait on this supposed fabled evidence we have the weaker it gets. 

That's if we do actually have anything at all. 

was just about to comment - how long do we wait and ask for an independent inquiry before it's time to release what we have (if anything). thats been over a week now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Blue Avenger said:

Bang on the money. You simply cannot call for individuals to be suspended or an II without foundation of some proof ffs and I've yet to see any official request to do so.

Simply calling for it in a club statement or via the media is hardly going to work with the cabal.

It will need to be done directly and officially to the SPFL, with due cause and underpinning evidence enough to warrant the calls. If then rejected, it is to law we go. Other than that I can only see empty rhetoric. 

As we can all see, this is causing untold damage to a game already shrouded in a lack of integrity. Both sides need to shit or get off the pot.

 

They can’t reject it, only thing they could reject is a call for an egm, the resolution for an ii would be voted on by clubs and they would look very suspicious if they voted against as they’ve nothing to lose, if they reject the call for an egm without good reason one could be called anyway at the spfl expense

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, eejay the dj said:

Good point .That is the reason we are clearly trying to get the pressure on and ultimately get them to bow to any demands . Not counting on that happening mind 

I think they are bombproof . I hope to be proved wrong 

The longer they refuse an i inquiry the more guilty they start to look imo, if I were them and I had nothing to hide I would welcome an inquiry, it would once and for all put this to bed, the question is, what's stopping them? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, the old guard said:

The longer they refuse an i inquiry the more guilty they start to look imo, if I were them and I had nothing to hide I would welcome an inquiry, it would once and for all put this to bed, the question is, what's stopping them? 

That is the main question.

No ifs or buts.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tiger Shaw said:

English is giving me the fear, starting to think we have nothing that will stick on the spfl and he’s trying to set us up for a fall, call our bluff and make us out to be the cunts again. 

 

How would he know tbf 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tiger Shaw said:

He won’t know mate but him appearing to be on our side makes me feel uneasy.  

Just used to him being on the attack against us.

I don’t think he’s in our side ,neither is he on their side,what he’s doing is agreeing that the process wasn’t right ,English used to be pretty down the middle at times but hasn’t been for about 10years ,think the last time he said anything straight was when he said ,the scum don’t want the right decisions ,they want all the decisions ,which he called 100pc 

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Tiger Shaw said:

English is giving me the fear, starting to think we have nothing that will stick on the spfl and he’s trying to set us up for a fall, call our bluff and make us out to be the cunts again. 

 

A leapord never changes its spots. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

"It was claimed last week that representatives of one club were so disturbed by what had taken place that they were considering involving the police."

Who claimed this, and which club?

The scum, they heard some people other than Rangers would vote no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the evidence would compromise the whistle-blower who may still be in on the current SPFL activities. We did ask to see the SPFL whistle-blower policy. 

The initial info that he/she provided may be the main piece of evidence for us.

Can I ask a question on this point was the whistle-blower mentioned in our statements before the Friday 5pm deadline?

If so it would appear that other or supporting 'evidence' ie Falkirk Aberdeen, Hearts statements/interviews etc  has been building up since then.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, toad said:

Perhaps the evidence would compromise the whistle-blower who may still be in on the current SPFL activities. We did ask to see the SPFL whistle-blower policy. 

The initial info that he/she provided may be the main piece of evidence for us.

Can I ask a question on this point was the whistle-blower mentioned in our statements before the Friday 5pm deadline?

If so it would appear that other or supporting 'evidence' ie Falkirk Aberdeen, Hearts statements/interviews etc  has been building up since then.  

No, it was in a statement released on Saturday 11th april

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 03 October 2024 19:00 Until 21:00
      0  
      Rangers v Lyon
      Ibrox Stadium
      UEFA Europa League

×
×
  • Create New...