Independent review of the SPFL

[bluenoz 30,971]

16 minutes ago, DMax399 said:

The fact that Dundee are involved is the most staggering of all.  What a brass neck their owner has, taking part in a review of the very same organisation he propped up not so long ago with the email that was sent but never received etc.

They never got the friendly they were promised. Instead, got a paedophile.

[KingKirk 25,699]

Results in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blame Big bad Rangers

[left winger 14,303]

So those five clubs have commissioned a review to looking at getting more money in to the SPFL? Basically, they realise Doncaster ain’t doing his job right and trying to do something about it. I fail to see the problem with them doing that. The problem is with the SPFL not doing it’s job right.

[CXB 4,423]

2 minutes ago, left winger said:

So those five clubs have commissioned a review to looking at getting more money in to the SPFL? Basically, they realise Doncaster ain’t doing his job right and trying to do something about it. I fail to see the problem with them doing that. The problem is with the SPFL not doing it’s job right.

Doncaster will just hire in yet another consultancy firm to do the work as usual.

[left winger 14,303]

2 minutes ago, CXB said:

Doncaster will just hire in yet another consultancy firm to do the work as usual.

Dunno what he will do. But I really don’t see why folk don’t seem keen on this review. The SPFL needs more money, and if this helps, then good. 

[Prso's headband 35,598]

7 minutes ago, left winger said:

Dunno what he will do. But I really don’t see why folk don’t seem keen on this review. The SPFL needs more money, and if this helps, then good. 

It’s endorsed by the SPFL which means two things; 

Nothing about the running of the SPFL will be questioned as to why the game needs more money. 
 

The invisible 400k a year man has 5 other clubs doing his job, which is to find money and sponsorship deals that are worth it. 
 

Delusional to think this’ll be any sort of success 

[left winger 14,303]

1 minute ago, Prso's headband said:

It’s endorsed by the SPFL which means two things; 

Nothing about the running of the SPFL will be questioned as to why the game needs more money. 
 

The invisible 400k a year man has 5 other clubs doing his job, which is to find money and sponsorship deals that are worth it. 
 

Delusional to think this’ll be any sort of success 

Five clubs have decided, amongst themselves, basically, that the SPFL board/Doncaster is not fit for purpose when it comes to generating income for the SPFL. So they are spending their own money on this report in an effort to improve that situation. The SPFL have, in effect, no option, but to endorse it. Why would you oppose a report set out solely to benefit your own organisation? These five clubs have commissioned a report that will potentially undermine the SPFL, yet got it’s backing for that report. 

[j1mgg 3,766]

We have to be realistic, the spfl is shite and if it wasn't for us and them, no one would ever heard of it.

Other team do f all in Europe, and have no desire to challenge the "top 2", as can be seen in the last few years.

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,660]

Independent? 😂😂😂😂😂 Anybody believes that then they believe this liar . . .

[graeme_4 34,676]

10 minutes ago, left winger said:

Five clubs have decided, amongst themselves, basically, that the SPFL board/Doncaster is not fit for purpose when it comes to generating income for the SPFL. So they are spending their own money on this report in an effort to improve that situation. The SPFL have, in effect, no option, but to endorse it. Why would you oppose a report set out solely to benefit your own organisation? These five clubs have commissioned a report that will potentially undermine the SPFL, yet got it’s backing for that report. 

The fact that it’s ‘SPFL’ endorsed means that’s probably not the focus. Let’s not kid ourselves. 

I’d imagine given neither us or the filth are part of it that it’ll focus on broader distribution of commercial income (e.g. bulk not going to us). 

[left winger 14,303]

7 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

The fact that it’s ‘SPFL’ endorsed means that’s probably not the focus. Let’s not kid ourselves. 

I’d imagine given neither us or the filth are part of it that it’ll focus on broader distribution of commercial income (e.g. bulk not going to us). 

‘the primary focus on identifying ways of unlocking significant additional revenues for the benefit of all in professional Scottish club football’.

I have no issues with that. Don’t see why anyone would, tbh. 

[Negri's lovechild 14,188]

5 minutes ago, left winger said:

‘the primary focus on identifying ways of unlocking significant additional revenues for the benefit of all in professional Scottish club football’.

I have no issues with that. Don’t see why anyone would, tbh. 

I don't have any issues with that side of the investigation either. Maximising revenue should be the core goal for every club and also the spfl, so the fact the review is going ahead is a positive. 

The issue of course is that the review won't be looking into corporate governance or the current failings of the spfl board. 

You would hope that the review would maybe highlight that current deals are low compared to nations of similar UEFA standings, but the fact the review is endorsed by the spfl I assume shows that the review will be fairly narrow in focus. 

[left winger 14,303]

10 minutes ago, Negri's lovechild said:

I don't have any issues with that side of the investigation either. Maximising revenue should be the core goal for every club and also the spfl, so the fact the review is going ahead is a positive. 

The issue of course is that the review won't be looking into corporate governance or the current failings of the spfl board. 

You would hope that the review would maybe highlight that current deals are low compared to nations of similar UEFA standings, but the fact the review is endorsed by the spfl I assume shows that the review will be fairly narrow in focus. 

Yeah, a review into the SPFL’s governance won’t get sufficient support from other clubs. They’ll all be happy with potentially more money, though. Hopefully, this is the first tangible step towards an effective SPFL board (effective in relation to the game, as a whole).

[Colin Traive 22,896]

26 minutes ago, left winger said:

‘the primary focus on identifying ways of unlocking significant additional revenues for the benefit of all in professional Scottish club football’.

I have no issues with that. Don’t see why anyone would, tbh. 

Is “identifying ways of unlocking significant additional revenues” not what they pay Doncaster for? If not, what the fuck is he there for?

If this was meaningful, he should be shitting himself. Effectively, the review should be finding out why he brings in so few sponsorship deals and why they’re so lousy when he does.

Of course he may be all smiles and positive on the outside but raging on the inside but this has the feel of a complete non-event.

[GersInCanada 7,775]

The cynic in me feels this review has only one outcome. 'The cinch deal is the best and all clubs must be made to accept it.'

[Moody Blue 9,411]

Review results in:

gie them more of the money

deduct Rangers league points if their fans sing bad songs

if our fans run on the pitch and attack a Rangers player during the game, deduct Rangers points for antagonising our fans 

gie them more money

[left winger 14,303]

2 hours ago, Colin Traive said:

Is “identifying ways of unlocking significant additional revenues” not what they pay Doncaster for? If not, what the fuck is he there for?

If this was meaningful, he should be shitting himself. Effectively, the review should be finding out why he brings in so few sponsorship deals and why they’re so lousy when he does.

Of course he may be all smiles and positive on the outside but raging on the inside but this has the feel of a complete non-event.

Yes, of course it is. This is where this report, and it’s very existence, is potentially very important. If this determines that there are potentially more revenue streams the SPFL is not looking at, and actually identifies them, then that is good for the clubs in Scotland and bad for the current SPFL board.

As for Doncaster, specifically, I can’t see how this will be beneficial to him, in any way.

[scottyscott1963 18,431]

1 hour ago, left winger said:

Yes, of course it is. This is where this report, and it’s very existence, is potentially very important. If this determines that there are potentially more revenue streams the SPFL is not looking at, and actually identifies them, then that is good for the clubs in Scotland and bad for the current SPFL board.

As for Doncaster, specifically, I can’t see how this will be beneficial to him, in any way.

Will be interesting to find out why the cinch spfl consultants are getting a drop of £!00K a year for the next 5 years.
Would piss myself if the speccy chief exec was implicated.

[left winger 14,303]

9 minutes ago, scottyscott1963 said:

Will be interesting to find out why the cinch spfl consultants are getting a drop of £!00K a year for the next 5 years.
Would piss myself if the speccy chief exec was implicated.

Would anyone be surprised?