Les Says It is Time to Ask The Audience?

ByAndrew Smith

Les Says It is Time to Ask The Audience?

Saying the last couple of weeks has been colourful for Scottish Football would be an understatement.

We are now in a position where we have a Taskforce co-chaired by the heads of two clubs to look at what needs to be done in the Covid 19 landscape right now and into whatever future unfolds.

Representatives of the clubs first convened last Monday and Graham Tatters, Elgin City chairman told BBC Saturday Sportsound that the 2nd division has already agreed unanimously to back 3 leagues of 14 as their preferred option.

On the same show Iain McMenemy, Chairman of Stenhousemuir effectively told us among other things that nothing in Scottish Football is ever easy, and mentioned that he believed the fans should be involved in any process.

Around the same time a very welcome conversation was underway between Les Gray, Taskforce co-chair and Paul Goodwin of the SFSA with Les asking for and welcoming fan input.

Dave Allen Called Our Future Years Ago

His oft quoted “I wouldn’t be starting from here joke” is a remarkable insight into where we find ourselves.
Our game is on the cusp of internecine war following the confusing combination of events we’ve all see playing out.

The hastily convened Taskforce has co-chairs who have also been quoted in the MSM as having different agendas, one for an immediate solution and one for a long-term plan.
Nothing wrong with that, in fact brilliant, we need both because they are interrelated.
Collectively we have to ask not just how do we minimise the economic and social impacts of the pandemic but also how do we start to shape our game for a better future?

Both these needs are right nows and both are the remit of the current Taskforce.

Now is the Time to Circle Our Wagons

This unique, open-ended, revenue-winter hit our clubs unexpectedly and overnight.
It is already brutal and will get worse with no current exit plan and no future certainties.
We know Dave Cormack’s Aberdeen is currently burning £1M per month.
No club has Covid immunity and a world of salary reductions, deferrals furloughed staff, little in the coffers and no exit strategy or road map out is a stark reality.
It’s hard to imagine that footballers have become liabilities rather than assets in a blink of an eye.
But it’s not hard to foresee that the financial stress on our clubs will see casualties.
Never before have we needed inter and intra-club teamwork for the common good.
But not in Scottish Football where an internecine spat is about to flare big time.

Civil War Breaking Out?

The record will show the recent SPFL Good Friday vote got an 80% plus backing vote from the clubs but in reality became a farce as Dundee eventually changed their “casting” vote.
This was paralleled by the “whistleblower” outburst by Rangers interim chairman Douglas Park demanding immediate suspension of Neil Doncaster and Rod McKenzie and an independent inquiry that sort of happened but not to the satisfaction of some.
One week later it rages on in the media with words today like “damning evidence, serious concerns, lack of fair play, coercing and bullying” being the vocabulary fed to the MSM to share with their audiences.

It seems some clubs have become unhappy with how our game is run and want to do something about it, so welcome to our world guys, – us fans have been saying that for a long time.
Our game needs big change but it won’t happen overnight and a pandemic crisis is maybe not the best timing for internecine strife.

Closing Down 2019 – 2020

This season is already ended for all Scottish clubs outside the Premiership.
UEFA didn’t do much to help and could have been more proactive in stopping inter club squabbling but plus ca change.
Most football people I have spoken to (with their self-interest hats off) were not totally happy with the implications of closing the season early and pro rata-ing points to decide champions but pragmatically accept it is the best answer or the least worst solution.
Asked about teams being relegated while having a bona-fide chance of fighting back there is less support and indeed genuine heartfelt pushback.

Some more enlightened leagues like the Lowland League who took the decision to avoid further damage on some of their members at this time through a no relegation policy and a wait and see what’s best are seen as wiser.

What Needs To Be Done Today?

We all know that out of the Budge/Gray Taskforce there will be a few options put on the table.
There is always the status quo of 4 leagues 12, 10, 10, 10.
A 14, 14, 14, setup was discussed and voted on by the current second division clubs last Friday.
Our own similar suggestion published on your SFM was 14, 14 and a bottom league of 16 to keep the integrity of the pyramid.

Two weeks on, a more pragmatic option and one to be considered by all might be to agree no relegation for now and to wait until more is known over the next crucial weeks.
We have time on our hands and no need to rush.
Why not take our lead from the sages at the Lowland League?

As a fan what do you think?

Should we plan for an interim period?
Should it be status quo?
Do we apply parameters (like no relegation) but accept that any other plan has to be kept flexible till more is known and agreed?

Your insights and views are welcome by Ms. Budge, Mr. Gray and their team either on this forum where I’ll read and collate them or if you prefer sent to me at
andrew@scottishfsa.org

What Needs To Be Done for Our Tomorrows?

We live in the real world and that means money is and always will be the prime driver and starting point.
Money is entwined with self-interest, status, power, politics and sometimes greed.

A given is every club will always want more and that is the easiest of several elephants in any room when looking at change to impact positively on the future of our game as a whole.

But maybe, just maybe now is different.
Post Covid many clubs will be on their knees financially and it will be a different world.

Les Gray’s Million Pounds Question For all Fans

No surprise it’s not an easy one
If you were charged with helping to create a sustainable and healthy future for Scottish Football is what would you do?

How would you advise Les, Ann and their Taskforce team about the right moves to make?

Once again insights welcome on SFM or to
andrew@scottishfsa.org

As a starter for 10 some stuff that has come up in previous SFSA fan surveys about our game (in alphabetical order) includes –
Better Communication, Bigger Leagues, Community Involvement, Council Telly live games, Gate Sharing, Grass Roots Investment, Fairness, Family Friendly, Fewer clubs, Integrity, Kids Free, Leadership, Less leagues, No Bigotry, Openness, Outside expertise, Same rules for all, Schools Football, Simplicity, Standing Sections, Summer Football, TV Kick-off times, Regional Lower Leagues, Reserve League, Strict Liability, Transparency, Wholesome Sponsors etc.

The list is not exhaustive. Please feel free to add any others.
Some will be contradictory, some nice to haves but the crucial thing to do is to find the smartest moves and build on them.

We’re responding to Les and Ann in good faith

Never before have we the fans been asked in such an open way.

Collectively we have a short-term end of season issue and a need to set up our game for what comes next which might include an interim period.

The background to any responses you offer is uncertainty exacerbated by growing internecine chaos and increasing vitriol.

I’ll end with some wise and hopeful words by a Taskforce Co- chair

Without openness, transparency and pragmatism we will simply keep making the same mistakes.

Ann Budge

About the author

Andrew Smith subscriber

708 Comments so far

Cluster OnePosted on5:10 pm - May 2, 2020


John Clark 2nd May 2020 at 00:14 30 2 Rate This easyJambo 1st May 2020 at 22:52 '..The BBC is reporting that contrary McLennan’s Q&A claims about loans, the SPFL did make advances or loans.' """""""""""""""""""""""""""""" As soon as I read that, eJ, my mind instantly made a distinction between 'an advance' and 'a loan'. ………………………. So far ahead of the Game JC.

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on5:39 pm - May 2, 2020


JC, You frequently quote in your musings, "(with one or two honourable exceptions) when referring to our noble press. I assume that Jim Spence is one but for the life of me I can't fathom who the other could be. Would you please reveal who this person might be so that we don't make false accusations against him/her.cool

I was going to say above, "so that we don't miscry this person" but it seems that this is not a recognised word. I looked up a few dictionaries, books and online but didn't find the word. I am sure that I have spoken it and heard others use the word but he ho, "false accusations" will do.

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on6:03 pm - May 2, 2020


Listening to sportsound today they were saying some bigger clubs were in more danger of going out of business than the smaller clubs.

Easy option if a 'bigger club goes bust us to buy one of the smaller clubs and rename them.

This is what Airdrie United did to poor Clydebank. They even got to change their name back to Airdrieonians!! All perfectly legal apparently. 

This was as sorry an episode as all the Rangers/Sevco stuff as far as im concerned 

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on6:04 pm - May 2, 2020


ExLudo

I don't think we needed to be told that journalists often accept press releases and statements at face value. The lead up to the Iraq war should have been a large enough red flag for anyone who hadn´t picked up on it before.

Mainstream Scottish fitbaw hacks are generally poor and are getting steadily worse due to various reasons, eg. the clickbait culture promotes very low quality work, the lack of direct access/relationships promotes printing press releases or similar, widespread media training means you tend to know what will be said before it is said and eventually you stop listening. I could go on…

There are exceptions to that but not very many, eg. at the moment Tom English is trying to do a real job of work.

There is also the tribal aspect but that works both ways.

Ironically both Rangers and Celtic fans say the MSM only works in favour of their rival. Neither are accurate. 

Messageboards are tribal and essentially closed shops.

 

View Comment

wottpiPosted on6:07 pm - May 2, 2020


As was discussed on Sportsound the 'loans issue' is a red herring.

The idea of just approving an 'advance payment' to clubs was wholly avoided by Doncaster. IMHO he failed to provide any argument if a) was it even considered, b) if so, why was it ruled out or deemed inappropriate.

He waffled on about the potential for clubs owing the SPFL monies if final league positions changed. However that is only a concern if you advance 100% of the final sums owed. A calculation could easily have been done to ensure all clubs got something and a little bit held back to deal with final placing.

As Michael Stewart stated, even if that were the case any anomalies could have been resolved the following season by paying more or less to the club's involved.

A resolution could have satisfied issuing some  money now along with agreeing a deadline by which the leagues were called if there was no prospect of playing the season out. At that point the final tranche gets paid out.

No one has provided a decent reason why lower league clubs need money now but Premiership clubs can somehow ride the storm a little bot longer.

In all divisions there will be clubs needing cash urgently and those who can wait a bit longer. 

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on6:20 pm - May 2, 2020


Wottpi

As was discussed on Sportsound the 'loans issue' is a red herring…

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Doncaster went on live to try and contain (and kill) the story.

He is the first person in a sports progranme that I've ever heard to have insisted in answering only questions from the one person. Effectively rendering Tom English, Michael Stewart and others mute and unable to help Richard Gordon against a lawyer, when detail and semantics were always going to play an important part.

From Q&A's done in front of mirrors to live interviews but only with their conditions.

You'd think they had something to hide.

 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:43 pm - May 2, 2020


Bill1903 2nd May 2020 at 18:03

8

0

Rate This

Listening to sportsound today they were saying some bigger clubs were in more danger of going out of business than the smaller clubs.

Easy option if a ‘bigger club goes bust us to buy one of the smaller clubs and rename them.
………………..
If they go bust that means they have no money to continue never mind buy another club.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:52 pm - May 2, 2020


https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-statement-46665
…………….
Statement

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on6:54 pm - May 2, 2020


SPFL statement re Ann Budge loan claim.

https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-statement-46665

View Comment

TimtimPosted on6:59 pm - May 2, 2020


If Rangers* were to go bust then buy up another club* can I suggest Queen of the South , that way at least they would have 2 Petrofac Cups to boast about. 

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on7:13 pm - May 2, 2020


Sevco were clearly not paying attention when Rangers were getting battered in the courts, but they know now……….Loans are subject to taxes.!

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on7:19 pm - May 2, 2020


Edit

   I got that the wrong way round. 

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on7:34 pm - May 2, 2020


https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2020/05/02/sevco-win-another-make-believe-victory-over-big-mike/

This may not end well.

And is the new kit supplier Castore? Not even a household name in their own household….

Rangers* seem to have found a company even younger than themselves (est 2016 v 2012).

If Andy Murray is involved he should know better.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on7:38 pm - May 2, 2020


Reasonablechap@18.04

So no credit due to RTC for his/her contribution 10 years ago but you’re happy to applaud Tom English for doing  the job today that he should have been doing then. One of his main priorities then appeared to be emailing copy to Craig Whyte for approval.

Perhaps you’re not as reasonable as your nom de plume suggests. Oh well.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:10 pm - May 2, 2020


What’s it all about, alfie?
Is it just for the moment we live?
What’s it all about when you sort it out, alfie?
Are we meant to take more than we give
Or are we meant to be kind?
And if only fools are kind, alfie,
Then I guess it’s wise to be cruel.
And if life belongs only to the strong, alfie,
What will you lend on an old golden rule?
As sure as I believe there’s a heaven above, alfie,
I know there’s something much more,

Which takes you back to what’s it all about, a question that  should be asked before being dragged down the sematic she said he said word mines.

If viable alternatives to what SPFL did to stay within the bounds of their responsibilities to the SPFL in fact do or did exist, what impact would that have had on the decisions clubs were asked to make?

Are complainers saying that the end result in terms of payment and timing of them would have been different had a different resolution been put forward or alternatives given in the one that was?

If not what is the problem? 

If any alternative removed the need to set league placings in concrete, who would benefit from that and for how long? Would the separation have made any difference to clubs not in top tier if payments under whatever description were made anyway?

Under the Resolution passed the top tier clubs were tied in to  commitment to base payments around league placings, but would that have stopped such a decision having to be made at some point  or was it that payments to them cannot be made until UEFA guidance is clear enough to follow? They seem to be waiting for their share of the £7M Doncaster stated is being held and is it the waiting that annoyed TRFC because of their financial circumstances?

Do they feel hard done by not because any resolution that required league placings gave Celtic the title but because they could not and cannot wait until that placing decision is taken   or is it a combination of both?

Is that why they shouted foul but as time passes are having to recognise title placings will be decided on sporting merit and SPFL have no option for reasons ND explained to make payments dependent on placings?

It does not help that the two top tier clubs most affected by a tie to fixing league placings are Hearts because of relegation and finances since Anne Budge has made it clear, unlike her Ibrox counterparts, Hearts (and her I imagine ) face financial difficulties that a payout would help  Hearts deal with.

TRFC on the other hand, assuming no financial  stress , could then only be annoyed at losing the chance, poor as it was of catching Celtic , or surrendering that the title was won on sporting merit by Celtic when the pandemic offered the opportunity to do what they could not and deny Celtic the title.  

In short would any other route taken by SPFL have stopped Celtic being awarded the title and Hearts from relegation in the ever clearer scenario that Scottish football itself is screwed possibly for this year and CoVid19 has already drawn the line on this season?

Now if TRFC really want Doncaster and McKenzie’s head on a plate The LNS Sham timeline, when both failed to respond fully and convincingly to evidence of dishonesty and unlawful ebts withheld from LNS, brought to their attention by SFM in 2014, should be more than fit for such a purpose. Over to TRFC.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9dnVHSl9OU3RoWm8/view?usp=sharing 

 

 

.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:20 pm - May 2, 2020


2nd May 2020 at 19:13

I think a lot of TRFC supporters balk at the thought that loans have to be repaid . That'll never catch on .

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:22 pm - May 2, 2020


Maybe if Rangers had a decent lawyer they could have drafted a resolution which was actually competent to put to the 42 members of the SPFL and none of this nonsense would be going on now.

Change "instruct" and "loan" and you are pretty much sorted I would have thought.

In fact did the SPFL not offer to help with that. They could hardly have done that then rejected the resolution which was put to them.

Someone else's fault syndrome … again.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on8:31 pm - May 2, 2020


With reference to my earlier comment stating survival of the game in Scotland is the only issue we should all, clubs and supporters be concerned about, check these reports from the USA about the difficulties sport faces restarting because of CoVid19.

The only answer seems to be reduce costs to a minimum (without impoverishing payers in the process ) and seek whatever help  supporters with a pay check or mega rich owners can afford to give.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2020/05/01/sports-return-plans-problems/

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/29120877/blueprint-how-league-finish-2019-20-season 

Hope and pray for the best, plan for the worst.

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on8:33 pm - May 2, 2020


Ex Ludo

So no credit due to RTC for his/her contribution 10 years ago but you’re happy to applaud Tom English for doing  the job today that he should have been doing then. One of his main priorities then appeared to be emailing copy to Craig Whyte for approval.

%%%%%%%%%%%%%

My post wasn't about 10 years ago, I am referring to more current events.

 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:47 pm - May 2, 2020


Auldheid 2nd May 2020 at 20:10

They could have paid out minimum guaranteed earnings eg all in top 6 in Premiership get 6th place prize money , 6-12 get 12th place money . The other divisions could be dealt with the same way – minimum guaranteed based on present poits total . The residue to be paid out once league positions are finalised .

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:00 pm - May 2, 2020


I see Tom English did an interview with SFA President Rod Petrie. As a man who is keen to get to the bottom of things and hold the authorities accountable, you would think he might have wanted to know why the SFA have been sitting on the Rangers European Licence case for over two years. Tom didn't ask. No surprise there. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:01 pm - May 2, 2020


paddy malarkey 2nd May 2020 at 20:47

Bearing in mind that the clubs had already gotten most of their money as interim payments throughout the year. Most would not have got much in the way of an additional payment doing it that way

By finalising the positions in the bottom three divisions they all got everything they were going to be entitled to.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:08 pm - May 2, 2020


Auldheid 2nd May 2020 at 20:10

Do they feel hard done by not because any resolution that required league placings gave Celtic the title but because they could not and cannot wait until that placing decision is taken   or is it a combination of both?

Is that why they shouted foul but as time passes are having to recognise title placings will be decided on sporting merit and SPFL have no option for reasons ND explained to make payments dependent on placings?

It does not help that the two top tier clubs most affected by a tie to fixing league placings are Hearts because of relegation and finances since Anne Budge has made it clear, unlike her Ibrox counterparts, Hearts (and her I imagine ) face financial difficulties that a payout would help  Hearts deal with.

================================

It has been stated on here several times over that the conflation of releasing funds, tied to ending the season, abandoning play offs, determining champions, promotions, relegations and potential reconstruction, into a single package, led to unnecessary argument and division between the member clubs. Had each of those issues been voted on individually, then we may have ended up with the same outcome, or perhaps not. We will never know.  What we do know is that most clubs voted for their own self interest, perhaps on a single element of the package that was most critical to them.

Hearts were not waiting for a further payment. As ND pointed out earlier today, the teams in 6th and 12th place have already been advanced and received amounts equivalent to their full fee payment for the season, with other clubs receiving a bit more in anticipation of their final positions.  I doubt that Ann Budge is facing personal financial difficulties. However, Hearts like every other club will be facing financial difficulties.

Despite ND’s statement, I’m uncertain whether Hibs (currently 6th) has been overpaid as a result, given that they will end up in 7th place if/when PPG is applied to determine the final positions (the difference in final fees payable between 6th and 7th is £125k).

The clubs’ vote was a necessary precursor for the implementation of the SPFL Board’s resolution, as it involved changes to the SPFL’s Articles for the use of PPG to determine final league positions.  The fact that the clubs were able to do that illustrates that the clubs could equally have voted for a range of other changes to the Articles permitting alternative solutions to be implemented, had the Board not insisted on a single solution.  

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on9:09 pm - May 2, 2020


reasonablechap 2nd May 2020 at 18:20

He may be using Rangers TV interviews as his template . Avoids awkward questions .

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:16 pm - May 2, 2020


paddy malarkey
2nd May 2020 at 20:47
 1 0 Rate This

Auldheid 2nd May 2020 at 20:10

They could have paid out minimum guaranteed earnings eg all in top 6 in Premiership get 6th place prize money , 6-12 get 12th place money . The other divisions could be dealt with the same way – minimum guaranteed based on present poits total . The residue to be paid out once league positions are finalise.

……………

The SFA suspended all football on 13th March.

What you are suggesting is, I think, almost exactly what the SPFL did when making the scheduled advance of fee  payments in April.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on9:19 pm - May 2, 2020


I listened to BBCsportsound today and ND explained loans and advanced pre payments about 3 times.  ND in between the lines seemed a bit pissed of with this requisition and the EMG  taking place on 12 May (basically in his opinion wasting valuable time).  He really sounded convincing, and was really bemused of what case he had to answer to. I heard the SFA medical expert/doctor lay out the case that this season is vitually over. Now if on the 12 May the Ibrox club lose the  vote, which is very likely, then if I was ND I would state season over and award Celtic the title as soon as.   Ibrox club should not be delaying the planned future of our game. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:39 pm - May 2, 2020


valentinesclown 2nd May 2020 at 21:19

That makes sense, if this resolution fails I would expect them to finalise the season for the top division shortly thereafter. 

That would not involve them "awarding" Celtic anything. It would simply be a case that Celtic would become champions, being top of the league when it finished. 

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on9:47 pm - May 2, 2020


HirsutePursuit 2nd May 2020 at 21:16

 

paddy malarkey
2nd May 2020 at 20:47
 1 0 Rate This

They could have paid out minimum guaranteed earnings eg all in top 6 in Premiership get 6th place prize money , 6-12 get 12th place money . The other divisions could be dealt with the same way – minimum guaranteed based on present poits total . The residue to be paid out once league positions are finalise.

……………

The SFA suspended all football on 13th March.

What you are suggesting is, I think, almost exactly what the SPFL did when making the scheduled advance of fee payments in April.
…………………………………………………………
The problem is the disparity between 2nd place prize money and 6th place which is skewed in the way that the Big Two fixed it when they ran the show for their benefit only.

It’s not a lot of dough in terms of what Sevco need but I’m convinced it is to pay for their “financial restructuring” otherwise known as Administration.

They are angry because they can’t get their hands on it before going into Admin and the Doomsday clock is one minute from midnight. If they go into Admin, depending on the points deduction, they could end up as low as 5th place and the prize money you get that far down is a lot less.

The SPFL know they are going to implode and don’t want to give them money they are not really entitled to. They tried to buy a League that Celtic own already.

I’ve done no research.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on9:47 pm - May 2, 2020


HirsutePursuit 2nd May 2020 at 21:16

And was summat I proposed way back then , although I think the problem is the enforced provision of loans rather than the quantum .

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:52 pm - May 2, 2020


From the 'Retail Gazette'

https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2020/02/castore-secures-7-5m-to-fund-expansion/

Castore creates products that enhance athlete’s performance and we look forward to more leading athletes benefiting from our truly innovative technologies.”

Surely they're not into pharmaceuticals?angry

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:57 pm - May 2, 2020


Bogs Dollox 2nd May 2020 at 21:47

'…I’ve done no research.'

"""""""""""""""""""

Ha, ha, BD. You're not really one of the following , are you? ….Tom English/Keef/Chick/Kenny Mac/ or any of many other SMSM hacks?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:00 pm - May 2, 2020


the Rangers European Licence.
All the noise from ibrox looks like it boils down to not wanting to show they are desperate for money. If they have put forward their application for a european licence and made out everything is ok cash wise, how then do you explain you need a loan or an advance or a sub or a tap to see you to season ticket time, after just applying for a european licence?
……
Hope you can see where i’m coming from.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:12 pm - May 2, 2020


John Clark 2nd May 2020 at 21:52

From the 'Retail Gazette'

https://www.retailgazette.co.uk/blog/2020/02/castore-secures-7-5m-to-fund-expansion/

—————————————————

As far as I can establish from Companies House records, Castore is a trading name for  J.Carter Sporting Club Limited (09670915).

On the basis of when the timing of Andy Murray's "investment" was made public (March 19), there was an an allotment of shares in April 19 which raised around £1.5m. I don't know if Murray subscribed for all or part of that share issue.  There is no corresponding entry for an individual holding of all those shares, nor is there any indication of Murray holding shares in his own name in a subsequent confirmation statement.

The company certainly looks ambitious in terms of the funds that it has raised over the last year or two, but we will have to wait and see what clout they have in the retail business. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:25 pm - May 2, 2020


Ballyargus 2nd May 2020 at 17:39

'.. I assume that Jim Spence is one but for the life of me I can't fathom who the other could be.'

""""""""""""""""""""""

Ballyargus, I tend to use the phrase 'one or two' when I wouldn't feel absolutely sure that there wasn't more than one but would feel absolutely sure that there weren't many more than one! 

The EBT-documentary maker comes to mind from a number of years ago….

 

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on10:32 pm - May 2, 2020


Reasonablechap@20.33

Mine too. It’s the volte face of our intrepid reporter that I find interesting.

 

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on10:37 pm - May 2, 2020


John Clark 2nd May 2020 at 21:57

Bogs Dollox 2nd May 2020 at 21:47

'…I’ve done no research.'

"""""""""""""""""""

Ha, ha, BD. You're not really one of the following , are you? ….Tom English/Keef/Chick/Kenny Mac/ or any of many other SMSM hacks?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No.

I'm afraid I never have been.

Many years ago I used to be a paperboy (41 DR's, 2 Heralds, 1 Sun, 1 Guardian) and always read the DR from back to front even at 14 it was obvious that it was a shitrag.

But 40 odd years ago they had Sports Reporters of note. Things were a bit more honest.

I recall Scotland playing Chile in 1977 in the stadium where 3,000 socialists and communists had been murdred by Pinochet. As a 15 year old it made a big impression on me. It was called the "match of shame". Despite protests it went ahead. The SFA making wrong decisions since time began.

 

 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:37 pm - May 2, 2020


Ballyargus 2nd May 2020 at 17:39

ps to my immediately previous post

In the matter of the word 'miscry', have a look at 

https://www.scotslanguage.com/articles/node/id/373  

The Yellow on the Broom

I ken ye dinna like it lass tae winter here in toon
For the scaldies aye miscry us and they try tae bring us doon
It's hard tae raise three bairnies in a single flea box room
But I'll tak ye on the road again when yellow's on the broom 

 

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on10:44 pm - May 2, 2020


https://twitter.com/thescotsman/status/1256623767121428480?s=21

Unfair play? Whatever next?

View Comment

bect67Posted on10:45 pm - May 2, 2020


Aye – the auld Scots tongue right enough John!

… and there's plenty mair fae Adam Mc Naughton's songs.

Ahm awa' tae dig some oot! (I need some light relief after another day of Civil Warring so to speak)

Apologies for going off at a slight tangent!!

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:09 pm - May 2, 2020


easyJambo 2nd May 2020 at 21:08 Edit

 

2

 

0

 

Rate This

 

 

Auldheid 2nd May 2020 at 20:10

Do they feel hard done by not because any resolution that required league placings gave Celtic the title but because they could not and cannot wait until that placing decision is taken   or is it a combination of both?

Is that why they shouted foul but as time passes are having to recognise title placings will be decided on sporting merit and SPFL have no option for reasons ND explained to make payments dependent on placings?

It does not help that the two top tier clubs most affected by a tie to fixing league placings are Hearts because of relegation and finances since Anne Budge has made it clear, unlike her Ibrox counterparts, Hearts (and her I imagine ) face financial difficulties that a payout would help  Hearts deal with.

================================

It has been stated on here several times over that the conflation of releasing funds, tied to ending the season, abandoning play offs, determining champions, promotions, relegations and potential reconstruction, into a single package, led to unnecessary argument and division between the member clubs. Had each of those issues been voted on individually, then we may have ended up with the same outcome, or perhaps not. We will never know.  What we do know is that most clubs voted for their own self interest, perhaps on a single element of the package that was most critical to them.

Hearts were not waiting for a further payment. As ND pointed out earlier today, the teams in 6th and 12th place have already been advanced and received amounts equivalent to their full fee payment for the season, with other clubs receiving a bit more in anticipation of their final positions.  I doubt that Ann Budge is facing personal financial difficulties. However, Hearts like every other club will be facing financial difficulties.

Despite ND’s statement, I’m uncertain whether Hibs (currently 6th) has been overpaid as a result, given that they will end up in 7th place if/when PPG is applied to determine the final positions (the difference in final fees payable between 6th and 7th is £125k).

The clubs’ vote was a necessary precursor for the implementation of the SPFL Board’s resolution, as it involved changes to the SPFL’s Articles for the use of PPG to determine final league positions.  The fact that the clubs were able to do that illustrates that the clubs could equally have voted for a range of other changes to the Articles permitting alternative solutions to be implemented, had the Board not insisted on a single solution.  

=============

Id forgotten ND saying bottom 6 in top tier paid out so that takes Hearts need for the money out of the equation, but still leaves was it the placing element Hearts objected to? I can well understand that given the cost of relegation, but TRFC!

What is in it for them? What would they be losing in money terms under what was eventually agreed by required majority? The difference between 1st and 2nd place prize money? Access to the CL?

On what performance related basis could such an argument be made if, as now seems inevitable, games cannot be played? Same goes for Hearts although gap narrower  between bottom and second bottom than 1st and 2nd.

ND was at pains to say no reasonable alternative had been put forward  but even if it had, I'm asking what would it have changed in terms of using current league placings to determine payout?

If alternative was  dependent on playing the outstanding games, which everyone wanted, rather than placing teams on current position, how realistic is that position now and is it not a bridge that will have to be crossed anyway?

I can understand the annoyance of Hearts (and Thistle) and sympathise but what other solution would have kept Hearts (and Thistle ) up that did not affect the league structures? Hearts stay up but Dundee Utd don't get promoted or they do creating a 14 team top tier that a number of clubs might have objected to?

Maybe that is why the SPFL did not want to propose such an alternative, because it either might not have been passed, delaying payouts, because the majority of top tier clubs wouldn't want a 14 team  top tier  with the consequential cut of the cake leaving them less in order to save Hearts from relegation?

I'm trying to cut through the arguments to identify the motivation behind them and whilst I think the way the vote news came out along with a key vote being changed provided reasons for suspicions to be raised, I don't think the SPFL's motivation can be confirmed in the absence of a document of evidence that shows they got the desired result by wrongful means.

Did the SPFL get what they wanted? Pretty sure, that is how they operate, we know that. Was it unjust or unfair in the circumstances and to whom? That remains to be proved.

I had some sympathy for Michael Stewart's arguments at the time  but I think events have overtaken them, which is I think where I came in.  

View Comment

TimtimPosted on11:11 pm - May 2, 2020


@Ex Ludo

"Unfair play? Whatever next?"

would it be presumptuous to suggest "we were duped"

Why not release the evidence now? Why release a statement saying a new kit deal will be announced imminently  instead of waiting until the new kit deal was signed ,sealed and delivered? Is Ashley still to decide if he wants to match the rights ? Is Stewart Robertson aware of the details of the damning evidence against Doncaster and Co , if not why not ? If he is why has he not brought it to the attention of  the Chairman of the SPFL  (a board he sits on) which would be his duty. Robertson's position is untenable and Doncaster should have made that clear . 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on11:23 pm - May 2, 2020


I think the wheels are going to come off this Castore spin soon enough…

TRFC must be off their trolley to come up with this latest retail / kit bollox.

It must be a madhouse inside the TRFC offices just now.

Dreaming up any positive stories at all, whilst the staff are busy bailing out the water from the sinking wreck.

enlightened

View Comment

TimtimPosted on11:24 pm - May 2, 2020


@Auldheid

I believe they are going down , they know they are going down , the SFA and SPFL know they are going down , there is no Craig Whyte,no Charles Green and no cunning plan . It's all about deflection , the finger pointing, tears , tantrums and endless squirrels are all  pointing to the fat Lady clearing her throat. You know things are bad when Niall gets a new ISP and a new identity .

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on12:02 am - May 3, 2020


Why don’t the 41 senior clubs simply vote to tell the Ibrox club to p!ss off?

Remove the Ibrox circus and clowns for good.

Banish them from Scottish football.  Let them join an English league, or any league who will take them: who cares?

Everybody and every club is hurting financially just now, so the removal of ‘the blue pound’ could just get lost in the mix.

Could be a small price to pay for Scottish football to – finally – cut out this malignant influence, and move on to a brighter, progressive future in the Scottish game.

God knows, it’s long overdue…

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:39 am - May 3, 2020


Regards EJ and Auldheids discussion,

May be it’s me getting confused but if teams have already been paid out cash based on league positions what exactly does the circa £7.2m owed to Premiership clubs cover?

Is it directly related to final positions and who is it that gets the cash?

If, as discussed by EJ and AH , is it true the bottom six have been given final paid outs already based on positions ?

If so  why have the top six not been paid in a similar fashion as clearly it cannot be linked to ‘final – final’positions.

Is this maybe what T’Rangers are hacked off as they see no reason for the much needed cash not to be released?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:02 am - May 3, 2020


Cluster One 2nd May 2020 at 22:00

 

17

 

0

 

Rate This

 

 

the Rangers European Licence.
All the noise from ibrox looks like it boils down to not wanting to show they are desperate for money. If they have put forward their application for a european licence and made out everything is ok cash wise, how then do you explain you need a loan or an advance or a sub or a tap to see you to season ticket time, after just applying for a european licence?
……
Hope you can see where i’m coming from.

================

The current timetable for applying for a license differs by days but in 2011 the deadline for submitting an application with accounts audited to specific standards for annual and Interim (which were used then) was 31st March and date for informing UEFA 26th May 2011. The licence itself was granted on 19th April which suggest SFA are in possession of relevant accounts. However there are confidentiality clauses round licensing which SFA could use as an excuse not to grass.

Any journalist worth his assault would have asked SFA if a licence had been granted unconditionally. 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on1:15 am - May 3, 2020


Auldheid 3rd May 2020 at 01:02

Any journalist worth his assault would have asked SFA if a licence had been granted unconditionally.

====

Absolutely, Auldheid!

The SMSM journalists should have been assaulting the SFA long before 2011!

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on1:54 am - May 3, 2020


 

     

wottpi 3rd May 2020 at 00:39      

       Is this maybe what T’Rangers are hacked off as they see no reason for the much needed cash not to be released?

========================================    

      Advances are made periodically during the course of the season, but pre-virus that was a relatively low risk scenario. I think from the SPFL's position post-virus, it became ultra high-risk. Even with maximum payouts from a finalised league there are no survival guarantees. An advance made to a club who still went bust could create a domino effect upon the surviving clubs due to being short-changed because of the lost advancement made. (The Gretna scenario)  

        There would be hell to pay with litigation aplenty from disadvantaged short-changed clubs already struggling. On top, if 1 club went under, technically, surviving clubs should finish 1 pos higher. If 3 clubs, 3 places etc…. The position/reward gap greater, ergo the loss more severe….It would be so messy.    

         With the leagues called they are finalised. Positions are cast in stone. Every club has been paid its dues. It may well still go under, but there are less ripples caused by it. That is why the leagues needed called before a pay-out,  percentage,  or in full, could be made.   7th spot is still 7th even if the 6 above fall, taking any pay-out with them. 7th spot cannot claim the substantially richer 1st prize. That money has been lost. 

       It really does feel unnatural defending the SPFL, and Doncaster in particular, but in this instance they have took the only viable option available to them. 

View Comment

LUGOSIPosted on8:36 am - May 3, 2020


When the Pish starts to Spout,

Interim Accounts aren't out,

That's Castore.

When a reasonable chap,

Rehashes old crap,

That's Castore.

When posts make it clear,

You are quite clearly Steer,

That's Castore.

When The Lawman got pushed,

When Ernest got shushed,

That's Castore.

When the mask finally slips,

That's when he'll get his chips,

That's Castore.

When he runs out of luck,

When he's told GTF,

That's Cast… Of Thousands?

But all immediately identifiable.

Must try harder.

Remember the heady days when each post received three digit Thumbs Down? A shadow of his former self and that wasn't too substantial.

I await the inevitable Phase Two: Less reasonableness; less chappy-like behaviour; more rudeness; more egotism; more deflection; more dogmatic pronouncements; more insults.

History should tell us the kind thing to do is cut out the middle man and go straight to Phase Three: The Order Of The Boot.

There must be a large number of sites suffering from Repetitive Big Toe Strain Syndrome from having to boot him back to whichever swamp he usually infests.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:39 am - May 3, 2020


Auldheid 3rd May 2020 at 01:02
The licence itself was granted on 19th April which suggest SFA are in possession of relevant accounts. However there are confidentiality clauses round licensing which SFA could use as an excuse not to grass.

Any journalist worth his assault would have asked SFA if a licence had been granted unconditionally.
……………..
A good journalist…. Dear SFA The rangers look like a basket case desperate for money. Did you grant them a licence on the 19th April 2020?
Have the ibrox club given you assurances of their cash reserves.
Have you seen their accounts? Are you happy to grant a licence?
With questions remaining of the granting of a licence in 2011, you don’t want to go down that road with an ibrox club again.
To your knowledge is everything in order to grant a licence?

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on10:23 am - May 3, 2020


What is at the bottom of the current controversy in Scottish football ?

It is how the SPFL went about trying to find a solution to various extraordinary issues that the Leagues and it’s members face.

At best, it was rushed, cackhanded and clumsy.

The detail that is already out there suggests that the whole process was a all-in-one force fit that was railroaded through with scant regard for governance.

The one thing that the SPFL board have done with  a degree of energy and visibility wasn’t to immediately address issues and show leadership. It has been the media campaign these past few days to try and effectively neutralise the issue as a threat to the status quo. But even the way that has been done suggests they have things to hide.

The issue at the bottom of this, is the governance of the SPFL. 

To those who today say just move-on, there is a crisis to address. I’d counter, why would you trust the same people to navigate a path through the approaching storm?

Posters who think the bigger issue is about motives of certain clubs seem to overlook the above very easily and forget one of the main guiding principles of this community regards holding governing authorities to account. The motives of clubs can be summed up as self-interest. Beyond that, it’s something that people can obviously speculate upon but in this situation, it isn’t the core issue.

I’m not suggesting ignore eveything else but would suggest it better not to lose sight of why this all kicked off and to date, it’s not been put to bed.

ps. I don’t mind the thumbs down and I wouldn’t expect anything else but if replying, please play the ball and not the man.

 

 

 

 

 

View Comment

watcherPosted on10:45 am - May 3, 2020


Irony; some people should look up the meaning!

"To those who today say just move-on, there is a crisis to address".

I mean seriously!

2012.

 

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:51 am - May 3, 2020


Corrupt official

3rd May 2020 at 01:54

I get where you are coming from but the logic isn't being followed through.

If lower league clubs needed both certainty and cash for future planning and survival then the same must be true for some Premiership clubs.

I can think of one at least from the south of the Clyde and St Johnstone's finances were reported as being on a shoogly peg recently.

The SPFL is on one hand saying they need to help some clubs immediately by releasing cash but at the same time potentially risk a premiership club going bust by not releasing cash now.

Are we saying that if, for example Livingston, found on Monday they had run out of cash the SPFL board would deny a request for an advance payment in the minimum amount that the club would have been expected to recover at the end of this month for the fear they may go out of business in June.

If the directors were going to spend it on  bevy fair enough but surely the SPFL should be taking all steps possible to assist member clubs to survive.

Therefore once again what is the £7.2m remaining in the pot made up from and who is it owed to and by what amounts. 

It appears to me that the money has been earned to date for the games already played so far and other deals 're advertising etc as outlined by Doncaster yesterday.

Regardless of whether or not a club looks like going under they still deserve to receive what is rightfully theirs.

A release of the minimum amount expected and holding back a smaller balance still seems to me to be a solution that covers all bases.

It would also have shut up any clubs who were perhaps desperate for hard cash.

In summary the resolution should have said, agree to advance payments immediately on current positions. Vote by Good Friday recommended but given the 28 day rule agree that if no movement regards the virus situation all divisions would be called on 15th May. Last two weeks in May would see the nominal balances paid out based of PPG formula to determine final placing.

The leverage of paying out cash immediately would have most probably resulted in the same votes but would have shut T'Rangers up from the outset.

The club's being relegated or missing out on playoffs are hard done by either way.

 

View Comment

watcherPosted on10:55 am - May 3, 2020


While i am logged on. To any one wondering what happened

with my "complaint" I assume it must have been good, as I

have not heard a thing back yet!!!! OFCOM, BBC,SMSM.

They have a lot to answer for. Someday Karma will visit.

Could one of the worthy's answer this for me please?

I was told yesterday that it is in the rules that "a team must be

relegated from the top division". Is that true?

Finally, there are so many great posters on here, but there is one 

i always enjoy reading, Thanks to StevieBC.

 

 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:02 am - May 3, 2020


reasonablechap 3rd May 2020 at 10:23

To be clear I absolutely detest Doncaster.  I wouldn't trust him with the cash float for a tuck shop and the man should have been punted in 2012.  But having listened to him yesterday, accepting the point about only one interviewer, my concern was not about governance.  That seems to be the one bit he does know.  He moulds it to fit of course.  But crucially he doesn't appear to go beyond boundaries.  I'll at least credit him with that. 

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on11:07 am - May 3, 2020


Auldheid

the Rangers European Licence.
All the noise from ibrox looks like it boils down to not wanting to show they are desperate for money. If they have put forward their application for a european licence and made out everything is ok cash wise, how then do you explain you need a loan or an advance or a sub or a tap to see you to season ticket time, after just applying for a european licence?

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I think finance is a challenge or soon will be for most clubs. In the second half of the season, cashflow can often be an issue and different clubs find different ways to address it.

I've seen numerous theories on here and elsewhere during the last few years that saw Rangers in administration within X weeks/months. They haven't even been close to it because there have been individuals willing to finance what was termed as a structured loss. Up until now, this has been kept within FFP rules.

Wrt your theory, do you have evidence of Rangers looking for loan/advance/tap just after applying for a European licence ?

Dependent on how the health crisis plays out in relation to both Scottish and European football, there may well be serious problems for the Ibrox club to address but IMO, I think that would be further down the line.

 

 

 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:07 am - May 3, 2020


Sorry to the blog if Im being incredibly slow.  My memory was SPL cash was forwarded to Gretna to complete their fixtures?  Did they not do that, and thus forfeited the 12th place fee that would have been due to them anyway?  Im still not following how moneys were forwarded AND lost.  Confused. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:10 am - May 3, 2020


Auldheid 2nd May 2020 at 23:09

Id forgotten ND saying bottom 6 in top tier paid out so that takes Hearts need for the money out of the equation, but still leaves was it the placing element Hearts objected to? I can well understand that given the cost of relegation, but TRFC!

It may need another listen to the podcast to confirm exactly what ND said. My recollection was that it was the 6th and the 12th teams who had received full payment (effectively the minimum that they would receive after the split), which would at least make some sense. MS also seemed to pick it up as the bottom six, but I think he was wrong.

What is in it for them? What would they be losing in money terms under what was eventually agreed by required majority? The difference between 1st and 2nd place prize money? Access to the CL?

On what performance related basis could such an argument be made if, as now seems inevitable, games cannot be played? Same goes for Hearts although gap narrower  between bottom and second bottom than 1st and 2nd.

ND was at pains to say no reasonable alternative had been put forward  but even if it had, I'm asking what would it have changed in terms of using current league placings to determine payout?

Money could have been paid out in full to all premiership clubs based on current positions, with a correcting settlement next season had the remaining games eventually been played and positions altered.

If alternative was  dependent on playing the outstanding games, which everyone wanted, rather than placing teams on current position, how realistic is that position now and is it not a bridge that will have to be crossed anyway?

I agree it is no longer realistic to expect games to be played so the split of prize money would have been based on current positions (or PPG) as above. The argument against early distribution that clubs might go bust is a red herring. The money would be due to clubs anyway as soon a the season was called. Neither the SPFL or the other clubs would be losing out in cash terms.  The SFA/SPFL rules on insolvency would ensure that football creditors are repaid in full following any CVA or in TRFC's case phoenixing.

I can understand the annoyance of Hearts (and Thistle) and sympathise but what other solution would have kept Hearts (and Thistle ) up that did not affect the league structures? Hearts stay up but Dundee Utd don't get promoted or they do creating a 14 team top tier that a number of clubs might have objected to?

There are solutions that would have saved Hearts and Thistle without reconstruction. "Null and void" and "no promotion or relegation" are two, although I wouldn't advocate either. In my view a "no relegation and a temporary reconstruction" (although I would prefer a permanent change) was an eminently, fair, practical and sensible one in the exceptional circumstances. Even the Lowland League, East of Scotland League and the new West of Scotland League, all within the pyramid, have adopted that approach. 

Maybe that is why the SPFL did not want to propose such an alternative, because it either might not have been passed, delaying payouts, because the majority of top tier clubs wouldn't want a 14 team  top tier  with the consequential cut of the cake leaving them less in order to save Hearts from relegation?

There was no need to delay payments, as noted above. Any temporary reconstruction would have seen the top tier return to the previous set up after a year or two, unless clubs voted to continue it or make it permanent. Do you really think that there will be a full 38 game league season played in 2020/21?  That in itself could be described as a temporary reconstruction. If the season is shortened, say to 22 games (two rounds of fixtures), would you consider it possible that top tier clubs would vote for no relegation in those exceptional circumstances? I do.  Your comment of cutting the cake is a valid one and may well be the self interest reason for clubs to vote against ANY reconstruction proposal.

I'm trying to cut through the arguments to identify the motivation behind them and whilst I think the way the vote news came out along with a key vote being changed provided reasons for suspicions to be raised, I don't think the SPFL's motivation can be confirmed in the absence of a document of evidence that shows they got the desired result by wrongful means.

Agreed, although by conflating all the elements that I described in my earlier post, it served to obtain a lot of individual decisions in a single vote. My question is also one of motivation. Who on the SPFL Board was the driving force behind the composition of the various elements of the resolution, the presentation of it as a single take it or leave it option, and the requested short timescales? I know that three clubs represented on the SPFL board all benefited significantly by the removal of any risk of relegation either automatically or via a play off. 

Did the SPFL get what they wanted? Pretty sure, that is how they operate, we know that. Was it unjust or unfair in the circumstances and to whom? That remains to be proved.

The question for me was how did they determine what the wanted. What was it that the Board wanted to achieve. Whatever solution they came up with should have recognised the exceptional circumstances that we are all experiencing and set out not to exert a significant disadvantage on any single club.  Some clubs were in need of cash. Some clubs were on the verge of titles and others had chances of promotion. UEFA places had to be confirmed. At the other end of the table a number of clubs were all at risk of relegation. To my mind, enforced relegation as a result of the votes of other clubs, some with the self interest of survival, while others were only interested in getting some cash, was both wrong and unfair. I view it as a punishment. By that, I mean the actual imposition of a relegation that was previously just a risk. That actuality is on a different scale to the loss of an opportunity for clubs to achieve promotion through the play-offs.  

I had some sympathy for Michael Stewart's arguments at the time  but I think events have overtaken them, which is I think where I came in.  

I think we are all finding the same arguments as tiresome and repetitive, but the way you describe events as having overtaken them is akin to saying that "decisions have been made so we should move on". With your own experience of "moving on" in the context of the Res 12 issue, I'm sure that you still harbour hopes of righting the wrongs that were done in 2011 and thereafter and  you want structures put in place that can prevent such errors being repeated. That's where I came in. 

View Comment

theredpillPosted on11:24 am - May 3, 2020


https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on11:44 am - May 3, 2020


Smugas

To be clear I absolutely detest Doncaster.  I wouldn't trust him with the cash float for a tuck shop and the man should have been punted in 2012.  But having listened to him yesterday, accepting the point about only one interviewer, my concern was not about governance.  That seems to be the one bit he does know.  He moulds it to fit of course.  But crucially he doesn't appear to go beyond boundaries.  I'll at least credit him with that. 

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Thanks for the reply Smugas !

Whilst Doncaster might have been convincing in his delivery in a one on one with Richard Gordon, he didn't put the particular issue focused upon, to bed. 

The underlying theme of the SPFL carefully managed media campaign has been to avoid real transparency. Whether that be the Q & A's to self or interview only if specific condition requested of the BBC are met.

IMO it only re-enforces the impression they have things to hide.

 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:06 pm - May 3, 2020


reasonablechap 3rd May 2020 at 11:07

Up until now, this has been kept within FFP rules.

Where's the evidence of this ? If it's only your opinion , mine is that they don't comply but have no figures /statements to prove either way . These things should be posted on SPFL website , with no regard given to clubs' squeals of commercial confidentiality . I think I'll suggest just  that to UEFA .

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on12:19 pm - May 3, 2020


Watcher

Irony; some people should look up the meaning!

“To those who today say just move-on, there is a crisis to address”.

I mean seriously!

2012.

%%%%%%%%%%

That was 2012. Today is 2020.

Some might term referring to 8 years ago as whataboutery or even a large squirrel. The point being is that for many on here, 2012 will always be above all what needs to be addressed, even if that means overlooking the present. I think this will probably be generational and if Scottish fitbaw was to have a similar line-up of clubs in 20 years, we might have moved-on, not that I would bet on it or still be here to see it.

2012: Clubs, including Celtic aren’t really interested though, are they? Comes down to the same old thing. For Celtic PLC it’s about commercial self interest.

 

ps. 2012 and 2020…….. Common denominator: Neil Doncaster

 

 

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:23 pm - May 3, 2020


Easyjambo (&Auldheid), 11.10am

If only we could hear or read a question and answers session  or a presentation of alternative views of that calibre on the media !

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on12:31 pm - May 3, 2020


Reasonablechap@12.19

2012 and 2020 common denominator = Doncaster. 

A few more common denominators than ND in this particular equation surely?

 

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:34 pm - May 3, 2020


Paddy 12.06, agreed.  Why should these figures be confidential?  What happened to transparency?   These are public firms who have to be open with their financial accounts twice a year usually.  Although we are still waiting on the overdue ‘interims’ from Ibrox.  However as I understand it, because they are not listed on a stock exchange they are not obliged to publish interims.  How handy!

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:36 pm - May 3, 2020


Noticed this when I sent the email – maybe where some of the money appeared from .

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/news/newsid=2641748.html

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:37 pm - May 3, 2020


paddy malarkey 3rd May 2020 at 12:06

…mine is that they don't comply but have no figures /statements to prove either way

______

Not quite correct, Paddy, for we do have their last set of accounts to go by that included, not only a going concern warning, but a note that there was a £10m hole in their projected profit/loss. A hole that has only been partially filled by a now non-director's loan while liabilities, at the time of the accounts, have increased by quite a few million as a result of signing, still to be paid for, high cost players.

Not only could they rightly be said to be at least 'on the cusp of breaking FFP regulations', there is undeniable evidence that they've played fast and loose with those regulations by spending money they don't have to benefit in the very way that the FFP regulations were brought in to stop. 

Perhaps not evidence that would hold up in court, but in the world of reasonable opinion there's a hell of a lot more to indicate a failure to comply with FFP than there is to suggest otherwise; that is, of course, in a world where jiggery-pokery of figures, and getting away with it because the governing body is 'on your side', is non-existent.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:44 pm - May 3, 2020


wottpi 3rd May 2020 at 10:51

Corrupt official

     Sorry wottpi, but I can’t provide a breakdown of the remaining pay-out dues, other than the sum left, is what is intended to be the final settlements upon the league completion, and is configured in line with those final placings. I have attached the “starting block” pay-outs below, but I don’t think thats what you’re asking. 

    The vote was called originally to assist the lower divisions getting payment. The Prem was omitted due to UEFA’s entry requirements stance at the time. It was not subject to the vote, (i.e. call the league as final), but it is subject to the same precedent. 

   In the case you mention, Livingstone, I assume as a random choice, I’m sure it would be assessed on an individual basis. Two lower div clubs did ask for a “breathing space” loan, but withdrew the request upon the league’s vote to finalise the division and make the full payments.

       I don’t know if Sevco do, or don’t want a loan, or even if it would be granted, nor do I know if they wanted position payments forwarded without calling the league. I’m not sure they even know what they want, as they have changed stance on numerous occasions, but I don’t think any other Prem clubs have requested breathing space loans to date. They may still, but as it stands the Prem has not yet been finalised. (UEFA, and indeed the indications are the clubs wish to give completion every chance). 

    However, making payments en masse to all 12 clubs is not feasible as credit checks for all would take time for clubs to compile, and the SPFL to audit before a yea or nay could be provided. The argument being that next season’s preparation is a better use of time. 

    From what I can ascertain, maximum payments have already been paid that position fluctuations allow, should the division be played out….The final placings though, can not only fluctuate due to games won or lost, but also by the very real fact clubs may disappear, and any monies paid, going to the receiver. 

   As another ahem, random example. If Sevco were to receive part payment, but go bust, that black hole is tens of millions of pounds deep. It is gone. Lost to the game forever….But…….If the division is called and paid in full, its still gone, but they were entitled to the payment. No other club is affected.

    Clubs have zero entitlement to any prize money whatsoever, if they do not complete the season. In fact if they do not finish the season, they disappear forever. (I know, I know). To pay more than what they have already been advanced during less troubled times, would be foolish, as (a) they did not complete the season, and (b) it is money in the hands of receivers, which to all intents and purposes, should have been awarded to surviving clubs whose final placings would/should be advanced. This shortfall of payments would leave the SPFL in danger of litigation, which in turn leads to more infighting, as the SPFL is in actual fact the clubs themselves.

    Calling the divisions, making the payments, Everything is clean. It is decided. It’s over. Onwards and upwards

    No club has a claim on any other club or the SPFL itself. Every club has received its just reward. It’s fair….Not perfect, but as fair as its going to get.

https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-prize-pot-reaches-25m

 

 

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:11 pm - May 3, 2020


Smugas
3rd May 2020 at 11:07
 3 0 Rate This

Sorry to the blog if Im being incredibly slow.  My memory was SPL cash was forwarded to Gretna to complete their fixtures?  Did they not do that, and thus forfeited the 12th place fee that would have been due to them anyway?  Im still not following how moneys were forwarded AND lost.  Confused. 

………..

Think the fee advance included some/all of the parachute payment Gretna (had it survived) would have been entitled to receive to prepare for life in the lower division.

Since it did not take its place in the Championship, I believe the league considered that it was entitled to ask for a refund of that element.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:28 pm - May 3, 2020


Thanks HP

I never thought of a parachute payment – I was obsessing on the 'positional' fee payment!

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:31 pm - May 3, 2020


reasonablechap 3rd May 2020 at 11:44

IMO it only re-enforces the impression they have things to hide.

No arguement from me there.  But they dont get to pick and choose which elements they wish to be transparent on, nor do they get to selectively pick which they will be questioned on, nor, for that matter, do the journalists get to either!

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:38 pm - May 3, 2020


EJ

I agree it is no longer realistic to expect games to be played so the split of prize money would have been based on current positions (or PPG) as above. The argument against early distribution that clubs might go bust is a red herring. The money would be due to clubs anyway as soon a the season was called. Neither the SPFL or the other clubs would be losing out in cash terms.  The SFA/SPFL rules on insolvency would ensure that football creditors are repaid in full following any CVA or in TRFC's case phoenixing.

What happens if 20 of the 42 clubs go bust and no replacement clubs are formed?

The football creditor rules would only come into force if a newly formed club was seeking to transfer the membership of an existing club. Whilst I'm sure that some may attempt to do so, I suspect (given the timescales) not too many would succeed – especially if they wanted to be up and running for next season.

How many genuine potential buyers were there for the assets of the last football club in Scotland that ceased trading?

How many buyers do you imagine there will be, in the current circumstances, for the assets of up to 20 failed clubs?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:59 pm - May 3, 2020


HirsutePursuit 3rd May 2020 at 13:38

EJ … I agree it is no longer realistic to expect games to be played so the split of prize money would have been based on current positions (or PPG) as above. The argument against early distribution that clubs might go bust is a red herring. The money would be due to clubs anyway as soon a the season was called. Neither the SPFL or the other clubs would be losing out in cash terms. The SFA/SPFL rules on insolvency would ensure that football creditors are repaid in full following any CVA or in TRFC's case phoenixing.

___________

What happens if 20 of the 42 clubs go bust and no replacement clubs are formed? The football creditor rules would only come into force if a newly formed club was seeking to transfer the membership of an existing club. Whilst I'm sure that some may attempt to do so, I suspect (given the timescales) not too many would succeed – especially if they wanted to be up and running for next season. How many genuine potential buyers were there for the assets of the last football club in Scotland that ceased trading? How many buyers do you imagine there will be, in the current circumstances, for the assets of up to 20 failed clubs?

_______________

I'm not sure of the actual legal position regarding the prize money, but if it is actually owed to the clubs then it will be due to them whether they go into administration/liquidation or not. If they fall into administration, but survive, that money is not lost for it undoubtedly helped the club stay afloat, though if the club is liquidated, a la Rangers, then the money is lost to the game along with the club.

Again, though, I don't know if the distribution of prize money is contracted in such a way that it is due to the clubs only if they complete the season or if, as members, it is already due to them, but as the first stage of any insolvency is almost always administration (which would probably take us past the last day of the season) then, regardless of when the money is paid out, the money will be paid to the administrators and lost if they don't achieve a CVA. As things stand, I doubt even TRFC are going to fall into liquidation before the last day of the season so whatever happens they/their administrators are going to get their share of the prize money.

While in administration, Hearts (and other clubs in similar positions) were paid out prize money which undoubtedly helped save them from the same fate as Rangers.

So, basically, if the legal position is that the prize money is owed to the clubs, but only due at a set date, then that money will be lost through liquidation regardless of when that money is paid out, but I don't know if the contract states that it only becomes due if the club completes the season intact (ie not in liquidation) which might change that, but I doubt it.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:22 pm - May 3, 2020


Allyjambo 3rd May 2020 at 12:37

Perhaps I should have said "credible".

View Comment

wottpiPosted on2:24 pm - May 3, 2020


Corrupt official

3rd May 2020 at 12:44

The fact the we and others are still debating this is proof positive that Doncaster did not address the matter of ;-

a) Was the option if advance payments ever considered?

and

b) If not why not?

Any responses he gave yesterday lacked clarity and went no where near the detail you have provided. And your well developed thoughts, arguments and considerations are from someone on the 'outside'. 

You would have thought Doncaster being on the 'inside' would have and decent and better answers to hand to deal with what was going to be an obvious question, but he didn't.

Richard Gordon pressed him a few times but we got no-where near an open and transparent answer.

If Doncaster had been in court and gave such a performance I doubt a judge would have been overly impressed.

Once again we fans are left trying to make sense of decisions of the footballing authorities as opposed to them being made in a manner that the paying customer can see as being logical, sensible and well considered.

I don't expect them to always get things 100% correct or manage to please everyone but they do seem to be consistent in mismanaging key situations and pissing people off, one way or another.

View Comment

Comments are closed.