SPFL Shambles

[MacBoyd 5,472]

 

[GersInCanada 7,775]

Were PSG and say the mafia going to win their respective leagues ? Probably.

Is it right that other clubs suffer because of the desire to make champions ? No it is not.

Football is decided over the course of a season and seasons have twists and turns. But this has all been said before.

A pandemic could not have been foreseen but common sense ought to have prevailed. It did not. 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

3 hours ago, MacBoyd said:

 

Sadly no way would this ever happen here .No matter what 

[BlueKnight87 17,301]

3 hours ago, GersInCanada said:

Were PSG and say the mafia going to win their respective leagues ? Probably.

Is it right that other clubs suffer because of the desire to make champions ? No it is not.

Football is decided over the course of a season and seasons have twists and turns. But this has all been said before.

A pandemic could not have been foreseen but common sense ought to have prevailed. It did not. 

Common sense it will never be a thing in Scottish football mate. 

[scottyscott1963 18,392]

27 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

Sadly no way would this ever happen here .No matter what 

Ours was decided on 13th March by a gang of f*****n thieves,skulking about in offices.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

1 hour ago, scottyscott1963 said:

Ours was decided on 13th March by a gang of f*****n thieves,skulking about in offices.

And up until now 

Our club hasn’t even uttered one bit of condemnation .Over the tainted title .Fishy as fuck if you ask me 

 

[bluenoz 30,909]

Would that mean only Belgium and Scotland would be the only two countries declaring tainted titles? Oh yeah, I think Malta too.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

17 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

Would that mean only Belgium and Scotland would be the only two countries declaring tainted titles? Oh yeah, I think Malta too.

I think Belgium could be won in court t? So their decision was wrong to end it 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,754]

25 minutes ago, bluenoz said:

Would that mean only Belgium and Scotland would be the only two countries declaring tainted titles? Oh yeah, I think Malta too.

Probably end up just us and Malta the only two not finishing the season on the pitch.  Comparable Mickey Mouse leagues funnily enough.

[Malkster 4,897]

41 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Probably end up just us and Malta the only two not finishing the season on the pitch.  Comparable Mickey Mouse leagues funnily enough.

Mickey Mouse wears a SPFL watch  (doesn't show the time, just a big asterisk)

[Sweetheart 8,458]

On 07/06/2020 at 10:34, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

And tbh that's the thing that irks me.

You're now quoting EPL figures which appear to demonstrate distinct contractual differences between N&V and  finishing the league.  That helps me understand the true picture in why the English have pushed for completing the games. 170m back now, 330m if the league wasnt completed, 760m if N&V. A clear picture. 

Yet when folk ask about this same detail in the scottish game is all smoke and mirrors, including from you. The general narrative is - It's a huge issue, Rangers never wanted it, Chairmen say its high, it couldnt happen due to sporting merit, a figure that could ruin the game, etc etc is all that there is to go on.

We now KNOW the truer costs of the selected option of PPG, but still have no knowledge of what it would been with N&V. Sensitive info leaks which shows huge costs the path we've taken, but zero detail on the path many believe would have contractually been no worse. And no journslist is asking what that figure was, or finding out and disclosing it.

I genuinely doubt there was any difference between costs of PPG and n&v, all I want is that proved right or wrong. It's strange that no one has provided contractual costs to conclude it by n&v, only words which seem to be a collective narrative against rather than the figures like we now appear to have for the EPL.

The longer it goes on without the comparable N&V figure being disclosed, the more it appears those concealing it have done so because it was no worse than PPG, and their tactic has succeeded. And that's sickening tbh.

It is sickening.

I'd like the VB to investigate the costings for the 6 SPFL  proposals to find out if the best option was put forward by the SPFL.  I can't see Rangers or the media reporting on this subject any time soon. I think it's important that fans have this knowledge though, because it's our money that will be buying Season Tickets, Sky packages and Virtual season tickets, which is the reason why the SPFL can get broadcasting deals from big companies like Sky and BT.  I think most fans would want to know if maladministration happened in the proposals as it could have a negative effect on our club financially and/or in game integrity.

We deserve the truth.

[The Dude 20,026]

6 hours ago, Sweetheart said:

It is sickening.

I'd like the VB to investigate the costings for the 6 SPFL  proposals to find out if the best option was put forward by the SPFL.  I can't see Rangers or the media reporting on this subject any time soon. I think it's important that fans have this knowledge though, because it's our money that will be buying Season Tickets, Sky packages and Virtual season tickets, which is the reason why the SPFL can get broadcasting deals from big companies like Sky and BT.  I think most fans would want to know if maladministration happened in the proposals as it could have a negative effect on our club financially and/or in game integrity.

We deserve the truth.

Its our money that pays Steven Gerrard's wage. Ask Rangers for a copy of his contract.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,754]

41 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Its our money that pays Steven Gerrard's wage. Ask Rangers for a copy of his contract.

That's sensitive whereas the figures comparing the cost to collective members from each option should have been made clear to each member. So yes still sensitive within spfl but broadly discussed there and susceptible to leaks.

How else could the spfl differentiate between costs to 42 clubs if they didnt have those figures calculated. They proposed one option, surely to fuck they said what financial cost each option would entail. If so, why the secret, the English have discussed some of theirs.

And I know it's not all about finances, but given the passed resolution included an attachment to monies because apparently clubs were desperate for cash, how could the cost / risk of implementing it not be considered. That should have been a large part of the spfl function. "Here is what each option costs you as a club, you decide which option is best for your club". That they by and large appear to have promoted their preferred option is a questionable tactic for a governing body. 

And given Rangers dossier highlighting 10m undisclosed risks I'm not sure they did reveal risks per option. Maybe they did have them calculated but didnt disclose because the n&v impact (on the spfl revenue) wasnt as extreme as was being made out in the campaign against it.

I don't know the answers. I dont have access to clubs the same as most on here who feel it's a stitch up.

[The Dude 20,026]

10 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

That's sensitive whereas the figures comparing the cost to collective members from each option should have been made clear to each member. So yes still sensitive within spfl but broadly discussed there and susceptible to leaks.

How else could the spfl differentiate between costs to 42 clubs if they didnt have those figures calculated. They proposed one option, surely to fuck they said what financial cost each option would entail. If so, why the secret, the English have discussed some of theirs.

And I know it's not all about finances, but given the passed resolution included an attachment to monies because apparently clubs were desperate for cash, how could the cost / risk of implementing it not be considered. That should have been a large part of the spfl function. "Here is what each option costs you as a club, you decide which option is best for your club". That they by and large appear to have promoted their preferred option is a questionable tactic for a governing body. 

And given Rangers dossier highlighting 10m undisclosed risks I'm not sure they did reveal risks per option. Maybe they did have them calculated but didnt disclose because the n&v impact (on the spfl revenue) wasnt as extreme as was being made out in the campaign against it.

I don't know the answers. I dont have access to clubs the same as most on here who feel it's a stitch up.

Any contractual terms are commercially sensitive.

Clubs had already costed what N&V would cost them based on their own contracts with their own partners and NOBODY wanted the league to pursue it as an option. Why bother costing something that nobody has any intention or interest in pursuing?

If it  wasn't financially more damaging than other options, why havent a single club come out and even suggested otherwise? (Robertson as a board member will have been well aware of the terms of Sky deal, otherwise how did he know of the undisclosed £10m, but there's not been a peep.

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,754]

41 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Any contractual terms are commercially sensitive.

Clubs had already costed what N&V would cost them based on their own contracts with their own partners and NOBODY wanted the league to pursue it as an option. Why bother costing something that nobody has any intention or interest in pursuing?

If it  wasn't financially more damaging than other options, why havent a single club come out and even suggested otherwise? (Robertson as a board member will have been well aware of the terms of Sky deal, otherwise how did he know of the undisclosed £10m, but there's not been a peep.

 

The reason to bother is because how can a Board give credible options, with a preferred one, without costing them out?  Talking about tens of millions and the figures shouldn't have been calculated? Come on. 

You don't think the spfl should have provided for each option the financial, contractual and sporting costs and risks? I'd say that's disingenuous of a Board with 42 equal members not to do exactly that. Wonder why the English calculated it.

I'm not saying it's not financially a worse off option, either for clubs with their own revenues or for the spfl with theirs. But it's been described as some huge chasm of difference when it may be no such thing. Its bemusing why for all the talk it's not clearer what the gulf, if any, actually is.

It does seem Robertson was aware, maybe the other Board members were too. Are Rangers right or wrong that this wasnt highlighted as a risk to all member clubs? If wrong, we're daft claiming it in the dossier. If we're right, then the spfl have masked figures to help their preferred option succeed. 

I'm not actually suggesting n&v stacked up as the best option for any club or the spfl. But it mightnt have been as bad an option as presented by the spfl, and perhaps shouldn't have been  dismissed as readily given arguably it is stronger in a sporting merit context than PPG with relegations, where clubs are worse off as a direct result.

[GersInCanada 7,775]

Michael Grant in today's Times (good, balanced article) basically saying that neither Hearts reconstruction proposal or ours has been passed by the clubs having failed to get the required support.

Over to Budge now to take whatever action she feels is warranted.

[KingKirk 25,655]

17 minutes ago, GersInCanada said:

Michael Grant in today's Times (good, balanced article) basically saying that neither Hearts reconstruction proposal or ours has been passed by the clubs having failed to get the required support.

Over to Budge now to take whatever action she feels is warranted.

Which will be fuck all cause they'll give her compo

[GersInCanada 7,775]

5 minutes ago, KingKirk said:

Which will be fuck all cause they'll give her compo

I don't think so. Any money paid to Hearts would have to come out of next years dwindling pot and would surely have to be voted on by the clubs - their money after all.

[BlueKnight87 17,301]

48 minutes ago, GersInCanada said:

Michael Grant in today's Times (good, balanced article) basically saying that neither Hearts reconstruction proposal or ours has been passed by the clubs having failed to get the required support.

Over to Budge now to take whatever action she feels is warranted.

Reconstruction was never on the cards. It's the same everytime the subject is brought up. 

Budge can either take this to the courts or accept hearts in the championship.  

[GersInCanada 7,775]

2 minutes ago, BlueKnight87 said:

Reconstruction was never on the cards. It the same everytime the subject is brought up. 

Budge can either take this to the courts or accept hearts in the championship.  

Pretty much how I see it as well.

[KingKirk 25,655]

17 minutes ago, GersInCanada said:

I don't think so. Any money paid to Hearts would have to come out of next years dwindling pot and would surely have to be voted on by the clubs - their money after all.

SPFL can't let this go to court mate everyone knows how that ends so a solution will be found

[esquire8 42,878]

21 minutes ago, GersInCanada said:

I don't think so. Any money paid to Hearts would have to come out of next years dwindling pot and would surely have to be voted on by the clubs - their money after all.

The board will agree to a compensation to Hearts as it's a far cheaper option than either reconstruction or going to court. Doncaster doesn't need the backing of all 42 clubs, just the board members.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

Jambos fans still confident that SPFL will force through reconstruction .🤔
Corruption may still play a part in this one 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

1 minute ago, esquire8 said:

The board will agree to a compensation to Hearts as it's a far cheaper option than either reconstruction or going to court. Doncaster doesn't need the backing of all 42 clubs, just the board members.

Jambos fans will be apoplectic if comp package is agreed 

They want recon or court . I think the vote could still go through .They are good at rigging votes 

 

[esquire8 42,878]

2 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

Jambos fans will be apoplectic if comp package is agreed 

They want recon or court . I think the vote could still go through .They are good at rigging votes 

 

They will be but they are already apoplectic with getting relegated. Comp is only to stop them going to court. Budge has flip flopped through this whole scenario and the only thing she has wanted is money.