Good Evening.
When considering any type of protracted negotiation or discussion that seems to be going on too long, there is a story that is always worth remembering– whether it is actually a true story or not as the case may be.
It is said, that heads of state all met at a congress in what is now modern Germany sometime after the Franco Prussian war of 1870-1871.The entire congress was being run almost singlehandedly by the then Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismark and he was keen to get all the necessary signatures on paper to seal some deal or other.
However, others at the congress were not too keen to sign up to certain elements of the proposed deal and so they hithered and dithered and in the eyes of Bismark they simply waisted time by concentrating on the minutiae- the little matters, with a view to ensuring their own interests were best served in these small areas– and did not focus on the big issue.
Having tried to talk these others round and educate them in his own beliefs and point of view on the bigger picture without any success, Bismark grew weary of the continuing delay and the posturing of his colleagues. All attempts at reason and diplomacy had failed in his eyes and so he decided to take a different tack.
Accordingly, it is said that whilst others were still inside debating endlessly on this matter or that, Bismark left the building and began simply shooting the windows in with the aid of a riffle which he just happened to have handy.
Those inside were naturally alarmed at this turn of events. They soon forgot about the minutiae under debate, they abandoned the previously expressed self interest and simply signed up so that they could get away from the mad chancellor and his house.
Job done so to speak.
Whilst I do not in anyway condone the behaviour of Otto von Bismark in this instance, and have no doubt that he was an autocrat, what I will say is that he believed that there was too much time being spent on the unimportant stuff and not enough time recognising what really needed doing– from his point of view of course.
Today– and it seems every day for months— we have endless debate about the future of Scottish Football. League reconstruction and the redistribution of footballing wealth has become a marathon– even before it has started.
Yet I believe that at the moment all parties concerned are not focusing on the radical reform that is fundamentally needed which is the creation of one, strong, properly structured and constituted body which is capable of the proper and ethical governance of Scottish Football and the business that surrounds football.
No matter what system you try, or distribution you agree, without proper sensible strong governance you are wasting your time.
Further, whatever body is set up, and whoever is chosen to be its CEO (or whatever the head honcho is going to be called), they must tackle the issue of corporate and fiscal compliance and the proper administration of any body corporate which actively takes part in Scottish Football– and that includes any such body or person who is involved in the running of a member club.
In addition, in so dealing with any corporate malfeasance or chicanery or whatever, the rules have to be applied with a rod of iron by an iron body.
As we can now clearly see, Football clubs and football in general is not, and never will be, immune from the effects of bad corporate governance and on occasion downright manipulation of facts, figures and contracts.
Whilst great play has been made of the fact that Gavin Masterton has handed over his shares in Dunfermline FC ( or its holding company ) the fact of the matter is that this in no way solves the problem faced by the football club. Whoever gains control of that club will still have to rent the ground from Mr Masterton’s company– and it is a rent that the club may just not be able to afford.
Ever!
It is only my opinion of course, but I am of the view that Mr Masterton has sealed a loan deal with his bankers which is of a type and duration which could not normally be achieved by other borrowers. The Loan has a lengthy period during which no repayments are necessary and interest can continue to accrue.
All very good you may say, but the level of debt concerned is not one that appears to be sustainable by Dunfermline FC and so whoever buys the club as a going concern ( if anyone buys it at all ) will have to pay an agreed rental to Gavin Masterton– and if the rental is not sufficient to repay Mr Masterton’s lenders, then I suspect that the end game here will be a search to find a buyer for the ground at some point over the next twenty years or so, with the hope that as part of the deal a space will be found somewhere for a new ground like New St Mirren park– the difference being that in that instance St Mirren were in charge of their future whereas Dunfermline are not.
The Governance of that club and the financial arrangements behind the club should have been looked at and examined by the SFA long before now– and the Dunfermline fans warned about the dangers of any such arrangements. Effectively those finance arrangements, should they continue, will probably mean that the club will have no option but to move from its established home!
All to suit one man!
Thankfully Dundee were spared a full takeover by Giovanni Di Stefano, however is it not a bit worrying that this man who has been jailed for over 14 years for various fraudulent acts, was allowed to roam around Scottish Football for a prolonged period?
Not so long ago Di Stefano did play a part at Dens, was in line to buy almost 30% of the shareholding, and was oft quoted in the papers and so on. The thing is that there were those who were prepared to give him a place at the Dundee table and in so doing invited him into Scottish Football.
Surely the SFA, had they been inclined to, could quite easily have pointed out that many of the claims of Mr Di Stefano were at least dubious if not completely incorrect? Yet nothing was being said at the time and silence prevailed.
Whilst not in the same calibre as Di Dtefano, Vladimir Romanov has now been at Hearts for a prolonged period. While I have no quibbles about the legality of Romanov’s takeover of Hearts, any money of a sizeable size which is transferred into Scotland from a foreign country will be subject to scrutiny by the Crown office to ensure that it is clean. Lithuania in particular is said to have a banking system which is governed loosely and sometimes does not meet the compliance standards expected in this country.
With his bank having gone bust, Romanov still retains the majority shareholding at Tynecastle, but there are questions still to be answered about what has happened at Hearts but life will be very different for the Edinburgh club going forward.
Again– could the SFA have done more to monitor the situation and could they have demanded clarity and detail from the Hearts owner as to his business dealings and the detailed arrangements with his bank?
At Ibrox, well things just go from the weird and inexplicable to downright astonishing– and all through a tremendous amount of smoke and mirrors.
It is clear that the SFA have no idea what to believe from Charles Green or for that matter Craig Whyte. On the face of it, there are clear links between Whyte and Green with the former paying over a six figure sum in return for absolutely nothing it would appear– with similar transactions going between Whyte’s colleague, Aiden Early, and Charles Green.
What is clear is that Green gave a clear undertaking to the SFA that he had nothing whatsoever to do with Whyte and would have nothing to do with Whyte going forward. Now, at the very least he is admitting that he met Whyte on several occasions, and whilst he may have made representations to Craig Whyte— these were all lies designed only to get Whyte to where Green wanted him.
This is hardly the act of someone who has been bona fides in his business dealings either with Whyte or with the SFA as the licensing body.
It is against this background that the Scottish Football Agencies need to wake up before they find the fans of the game ( at least those who want to stay interested in the game ) doing a Bismarck and panning in the windows of this whole house of cards.
Football Clubs, football fans, and indeed football itself needs protected from the financial and corporate shenanigans, and the governing body must be much more active and permanently vigilant in watching out for and if necessary anticipating the people and the transactions which have and will jeopardise clubs and the game in general going forward.
It is clearly no longer acceptable to rely on self regulation or mere declarations and undertakings from the clubs themselves. The Administrators must be much more active and employ far greater professional expertise in carrying out an almost constant analytical and reporting function in relation to club finance and corporate regulation.
All and any changes in funding, boardroom changes, investor changes and anything else major should be the subject of immediate and proper scrutiny by the SFA and there should be fair, immediate and stiff sanctions for non compliance, and any type of dilatory behaviour on the part of club officials who would seek to conceal the truth or who fail to properly disclose vital matters which should be out in the open.
Further, the funding detail– such as the never ending loan re Dunfermline should be a matter of public record in all its detail so that fans and investors can make information based value judgements when dealing with any club.
Such stiffer regulation should not develop into anything like a corporate witch hunt or any kind of draconian big brother syndrome, however the need for change given all of the current troubles is obvious to one and all.
Further, the attempted fudge surrounding Rangers league status last summer and the ongoing disquiet surrounding the position of Campbell Ogilvie does nothing to boost faith in and the reputation of Football Administration in Scotland.
Things are far from clear and there appears to be continual dithering and fudging. No one has any idea where the Nimmo Smith Report has gone nor what import it is to have— if any. Why is that?
Dithering and bumbling over detail is no longer an option. Strong clear governance is required to protect the game from being hijacked by those who have their own corporate and financial agendas.
Such people cannot be allowed to determine the way Scottish Football runs or to conduct themselves in a fashion that leaves football and everyone involved in limbo.
It is time for Scottish Football to find its own Iron Chancellor! There is a need for someone who will, if necessary, come along and shoot the lights out of any club or Company Director who wishes to play fast and loose with the game of football.
Auldheid
I think you call it wrongly.
Celtic PLC will see their main reliable source of income as being SPL gate money throughout the season, more especially ST´s.
They need to protect this by getting bums on seats.
More importantly they need the ST culture to be maintained because your average attendence this season counting all ST holders was considerably higher than actual attendence.
That´s to say if people start going selecting their games instead of buying an ST, Celtic will lose a lot of income.
One undenialable aspect at many Parkhead SPL games this season was a certain apathy that seemed to be contagious between the support and the players, neither being as up for the games as usual.
Why ? Because it´s a one-horse race and the title was won before a ball was kicked.
You may aswell unfurl the 13/14 flag this weekend because you´ve won it already.
In the Mowbrary season average crowds went from 57K to 45K.
You arrested the slump and last season they were up to 50K, this season they´re back at 45K.
If you have a good number deciding to select their games opposed to buying ST´s then you could be looking at 35 to 40K .
So the Celtic board will want a relatively weak Rangers in the top tier to provide a degree of competition that they feel manageable and a couple of OF games.
You simply can´t depend on CL money.
Over the years Rangers & Celtic have shown themselves to be inconsistent when it comes to getting through CL qualifiers and although the “Champions route” is on paper easier, there are no guarantees.
Auldheid.
You enjoy the current situation and you see the sense in it but the board at Celtic PLC won´t share your views.
That is, if they are doing their job properly and not using other emotions to govern their decisions.
Senior says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 22:53
I don’t buy the idea that St Mirren were/are in cahoots with anyone. The visit from Mr Green in the run up to the vote, was perhaps a little unwise, but its the sort of stuff that adds to the gaiety of nations.
The restructuring package was far from ideal, there is way of knowing if the new league setup would have helped or not. The package did offer some important benefits, notably, a single league organisation and at least some redistribution of income.
If St Mirren and Ross County thought defeating the package would bring about proposals for a better one, judging by the way people are scuttling off to their bunkers, they miscalculated.
“Change comes in excruciating increments for those who want it”
scapaflow14 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 23:47
Should read there is no way of knowing if the new league set would have helped or not.
From my point of view, it was nice to spend a day on here and Rangers not be the #1 topic of conversation.
🙂
I’d be interested to hear Angus’ comments on how things went today, to see what Aberdeen fans are making of this.
slimshady61 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 23:43
0 0 Rate This
mirrenman says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 23:16
==========================
Senior, the reason for the plethora of comment against St Mirren is because that club was clearly in favour of reconstruction at the end of January and, for no good reason, changed its mind recently, coincidentally following several discussions between that club’s chairman and Charles Green, sometime CEO of a club which has no connection wtih the SPL and only associate membership of the SFL.
Gilmour now needs to come clean on precisely when he met or spoke to Green, what the content of those discussion was and why his club has changed its mind for, at present, seemingly no good reason.
Genuine football fans are.rightly suspicious, after the events of last summer, of attempts to promote Sevco into a higher league without regard to sporting merit.
…………………………………..
.I agree genuine football fans are rightly suspicious, so I was pleased that when challenged on Sportsound about his meeting with Green at SMP, (prompted bt emaills to the prog by celtic fans) SG admitted that he’d talked to Green about Agents and players demands, during the hospitality given by St Mirren. And he stated that at no time did they discuss restructuring.
Coincidentally, PL enjoyed the same hospitality and sat only a few feet away from Green, throughout the 90 minutes!
Genuine football fans are rightly suspicious about why PL should be so fulsome in praise of the man who ensured restructuring would fail to be processed. Did PL placate Charles’s fears on the day. Did they pass each other secret notes? PL should come clean….
Obviously it’s contagious- this demanding to know who people are and where they met.
Finally for your erudition, only in recent weeks (NOT January) has the detail of proposals been pinned down and sent (to ALL clubs) for perusal. And if Saints (with reference to the needs of their fans and that of Scottish fitba) believed the abolition of the 11-1 vote was worth fighting for, then “democracy” was well served today.
Your constant cavilling is very Sallyish… Two cheeks.
With all of the vitriol directed at SG today, has anyone thought to ask the questions we were all asking a couple of weeks ago? Like:
Why the rush?
If the principle of reconstruction is sound this year, why not next year too?
Here’s a conspiracy theory which is just as plausible as SG meets CG in private on television in St Mirren Park.
Could the take it or leave it ultimatum have been deliberately designed to make the whole plan fail?
Is the name calling from some of the good folks at the SPL designed to create disunity amongst the coalition of fans who have sought justice these last couple of years? It appears to have worked.
Of course if SG is at the heart of a secret campaign to have Rangers invited into the SPL2, at least we have the comfort of knowing that the good and pure ten will block that move.
Won’t they?
My comment was not an excuse for SG, who has yet to give his reasons now that 11-1 is not. I was suggesting another club who appear to be dumping cheap shares and have already exploited the non existence of said pyramid.
Rangers ‘strangest ever’ administration by D&P – Botched
‘Unrealistic’ CVA proposal – Botched
Sale of assets to Sevco something or other – Botched
Fit and Proper Person test – Botched
Transfer of membership/conditional membership etc – Botched
Attempt to force new club into SFL1 – Botched
LNS ‘dual contracts’ enquiry – Botched
Reconstruction proposals/vote – Botched
Failing to plan ? or planning to fail ?
fishnish says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 23:41
0
0
Rate This
madbhoy24941 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 19:01
……
I think what is being arrived at here is what touchy feely HR types refer to as ‘a violent agreement’.
This describes a situation similar to a ‘violent disgreement’, whereby the protagonists are agitated, aggressively point scoring and in conflict, but which is different from a ‘disagreement’ in the respect that the protagonists have – at this point- actually reached consensus on the main facts and points…. but are now squabbling over trifles and interpretations in order to propogate the conflict out of a lingering sense of injustice.
The question is no longer “why” the vote went this way, nor is it “what if” it hadn’t, and nor is it “who’s fault was it? it did.”
There are legitimate and illegitimate motivations for producing todays outcome. St. Mirren fans can feel vindicated that their club acted in a legitimate manner, if they wish. There are many good reasons and some bad ones for voting the way they did. They acted within the rules and within their rights and do not have to justify their actions to anyone.
And other clubs and individuals can legitimately feel aggrieved that alot of work and consensus failed to produce material progress, despite alot of ground being given up in alot of quarters,. and rue the opportunity cost of the outcome. And they can legitimately blame whoever they like for this lost opportunity cost and the frustrating state of affairs: including St Mirren, fans, board, whoever.
Fact is: All of it to no avail. None of this is important now.
See… the final whistle has blown. The game is over. The result has been decided. The points have been awarded. Shake hands. Leave the pitch. Have a beer in the bar and wonder if only… but the match will not be played again and the result will not change.
So the important question that should be exercising this forum is… what now? That match may be over, but the league is still there to play for!
Eyes back on the ball!
It appears that Times Sport ( no not the Evening Times but the heavyweight one) has printed that CW and ME story that they were directors in Sevco along with CG at the time of the takeover. It appears to be the STV story, but interesting that they are running with it. Could that be part of the reason for the share price drop.
Sorry could not post the link.
theglen2012 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 23:55
0 2 Rate This
From my point of view, it was nice to spend a day on here and Rangers not be the #1 topic of conversation.
————————————-
Sorry to disappoint you glen.
http://t.co/OaDmFhGm86
the Times latest, the only show in town.
Rabo Karabekian says:
Exact;y Rabo, that’s where the false logic of the conspiracy theorists falls apart. How in the name of the wee man are tiny SMFC going to somehow engineer the bumping up the leagues of Sevco on their own or in cahoots with RCFC? 😕
Answers on postcard to Mr S Milne.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 00:13
The story has only just gone up, the wider publication in the “paper of record” may have an impact later this morning.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/article3740255.ece
Indecision….. its the biggest problem that any business has…. and this is business.
The business model that suddenly became a crisis, caused a huge problem… for the business. This has now been reviewed, prevaricated over for what seems like an eternity, and…. is…. undecided.
They should really listen to the fans, basically.
Spanishcelt,,, brilliant post… football is all about entertainment and genuine competition…. these guys in charge of our game forgot this a long time ago… they’d better waken up… or the decline will continue.
Its understandable that we see conspiracy and double dealing within the game after all we have been through these past few years whether it exists or not .
We have been misled and lied to by so many that its difficult to know just who to trust these days . We have enough evidence to castigate the majority of the media , every individual that wears a blazer and the power men at Ibrox past and present.
We currently have no evidence that St Mirren or Ross County are agents of the darkside
and until there is evidence that is the case they deserve their integrity to be honoured.
Lets focus on what we know , lets keep to the campaign for a level playing field , the implementing of the rule book , the exposure of media lies and the criminality of the cabal
that Sir David Murray is behind.
I believe that united we are a powerful force that does bring great pressure to bear on the corrupt element within our game
It is our unity that is our strength and its what they fear the most .
Interesting quote from Times story
“Gordon Smith, a former non-executive, led the criticism of Mr Green after the weekend’s events, and warned that his position would be untenable if he were found to have worked alongside Mr Whyte. “It appears to me that the board are not quite happy to accept the fact that Charles Green says there was no involvement,” he said. “This whole issue has undermined his leadership and what he has done for the club.””
Palacio67 says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 00:14
——————-
Ah………….
Well, at least yesterday was a welcome break.
If I’m being honest, being a Rangers fan really is no fun.
Crap team on the park, lunatic CEO, fellow “fans” who are clearly living in another world/century and every day another twist in the story of the money-grabbers who are tearing your club to pieces and with, what can only be the case, worse news to come.
Would you swap your team for this?
But you support the team you support. Whatever the outcome. That’s football.
NOAGrumpy
The article starts of by saying the document emerged last night but the first couple of pargraphs point towards the same STV story only for the ensuing info to disappear behind a paywall.
Anyone have full access ?
here ye go
“A new document emerged last night suggesting that Craig Whyte, the controversial former owner of Rangers, was a director of the company used to facilitate the £5.5 million takeover of the club last year.
Mr Whyte’s previous appointments filed at Companies House, and seen by The Times, state that he was appointed as a director of Sevco 5088 on May 9, just days after Rangers’ current chief executive, Charles Green, became the sole director. The paperwork also suggests that, because Mr Green, 59, would have been the only person authorised to make appointments or terminations, nobody else was in the position to ratify the appointment of Mr Whyte, the former owner.
At the weekend, documents were published that appeared to show Mr Green’s signature verifying the roles of Mr Whyte and his associate Aidan Earley as directors of Sevco 5088. Mr Green branded the notion that he had appointed Mr Whyte as a “blatant” smear.
Those papers, relating to the appointment of directors, were belatedly submitted to Companies House just over a week ago, almost a year after they alleged to have been signed. They will be published on the agency’s website later this week.
Although director appointments filed to the Registrar of Companies must be signed off by “a director, secretary” or a “person authorised under either section 270 or 274 of the Companies Act 2006”, documents are not routinely scrutinised.
A spokesman for Companies House said: “As all documents are presented to [us] are accepted in good faith, we do check to ensure the box is completed, however we do not check who has signed the form and if that person has the necessary authority.”
A Rangers source said that the documents recently submitted “raise concerns about their legitimacy [and] smack of desperation from Whyte”.
One insider claimed: “The document was not filed by Charles Green, there’s no question of that. Anyone following the logical sequence of events would arrive at the conclusion that Craig Whyte could not have been a director of a company acquiring Rangers.”
At the weekend Mr Green was subjected to an inquisition at a three-hour board meeting at Ibrox after the Scottish Football Association wrote to him asking for clarification over his business dealings with Mr Whyte. Following the meeting the club launched its own inquiry “in view of allegations” relating to Mr Green and Imran Ahmad, the club’s commercial director.
A Rangers spokesman said that the report would be commissioned and finished “as speedily as possible” in order “to clarify the situation to the satisfaction of shareholders, supporters and Board members”. Mr Green was told that he had brought the game into disrepute after referring to Mr Ahmad as “my Paki friend” in an interview.
At the time the non-executive director, Walter Smith, said: “Charles is new here. Sometimes, if you are not Scottish, it can take you a while to understand the media attention that is given to the two major clubs here.” The former Rangers manager added: “There have been some statements that may have been brushed over if we were in a bigger country. But here they are taken and publicised everywhere.
“Charles might take a look at the year he has had and say, ‘I have to watch what I’m saying in future’ .”
Gordon Smith, a former non-executive, led the criticism of Mr Green after the weekend’s events, and warned that his position would be untenable if he were found to have worked alongside Mr Whyte. “It appears to me that the board are not quite happy to accept the fact that Charles Green says there was no involvement,” he said. “This whole issue has undermined his leadership and what he has done for the club.”
But Mr Whyte claims to have evidence that proves he still owns Rangers and paid £137,500 to Mr Ahmad through an intermediary, to hide his role in the takeover of the club.
A spokesman for Mr Whyte said in a text message that the notion that he was appointed as a director of Sevco 5088 last year by Mr Green was “100% true”.”
“But you support the team you support. Whatever the outcome. That’s football.”
Sadly, that’s exactly the sentiment the b_____s have been exploiting so successfully
theglen2012 says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 00:25
1 0 Rate This
Palacio67 says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 00:14
——————-
Ah………….
Well, at least yesterday was a welcome break.
If I’m being honest, being a Rangers fan really is no fun.
Crap team on the park, lunatic CEO, fellow “fans” who are clearly living in another world/century and every day another twist in the story of the money-grabbers who are tearing your club to pieces and with, what can only be the case, worse news to come.
Would you swap your team for this?
But you support the team you support. Whatever the outcome. That’s football.
—————————————–
Fair Play glen. Its a pity your club has not got more fans and leaders like yourself.
Galling fiver says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 00:10
2 0 Rate This
My comment was not an excuse for SG, who has yet to give his reasons now that 11-1 is not. I was suggesting another club who appear to be dumping cheap shares and have already exploited the non existence of said pyramid.
……………………………………
I got that and was agreeing with you.
(SG offered his board’s reasons on April 8 a week before the meeting, which can be read on stmirren.net. If only other club managements would be so – apparently – transparent.)
theglen2012 says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 00:25
8
1
Rate This
Sounds an awful lot like NUFC m8, (my team before I was exiled to the highlands)
Never won nowt since the 1955 (second division does NOT count!). Best fans but worst leadership in the known universe… sound familiar?
Its not a crown you want to inherit… but you have my sympathy.
There’s 2 things our teams have in common, though: Souness & Boumsong. And you got the best deal on both of those I am afraid . If you see Graeme tell ‘im he owes us £50,000,000 will ya?
scapaflow14 says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 00:27
============================
…
Gordon Smith… led the criticism of Mr Green…
“It appears to me…”
============================
Gordon Smith shocks everybody by momentarily dropping his ‘Manuel’ impersonation !
( I.e. Fawlty Towers: “I know nothing, I am from Barcelona!” )
The old ones are the best…? 🙄
slimshady61 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 23:43
mirrenman says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 23:16
==========================
Senior, the reason for the plethora of comment against St Mirren is because that club was clearly in favour of reconstruction at the end of January and, for no good reason, changed its mind recently, coincidentally following several discussions between that club’s chairman and Charles Green, sometime CEO of a club which has no connection wtih the SPL and only associate membership of the SFL.
———————————————————————————————————–
Mmm, obfuscation and misdirection seem to be the order of the day from Mr Shady. One eyed man in the valley of the blind springs to mind.
Funnily enough, despite asking two days ago, I’m still waiting for yourself or others to produce an iota of evidence towards clarification of these ‘top secret meetings’ and ‘several discussions’ you keep banging on about.
I may have to get hold of that clock that is kicking around here until some is produced.
And you continue your somewhat lose relationship with the truth by stating that we were clearly in favour of reconstruction in January. Absolute and utter tripe, we voiced our concerns from the beginning and said nothing had been decided.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/st-mirren-board-split-over-1562267
Senior is entirely right to state that posters should be 100% certain before carelessly smearing other clubs, you would do will to heed his advice if you wished to retain any respect from St Mirren fans.
greenockjack says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 23:47
Auldheid
I think you call it wrongly.
Celtic PLC will see their main reliable source of income as being SPL gate money throughout the season, more especially ST´s.
They need to protect this by getting bums on seats.
More importantly they need the ST culture to be maintained because your average attendence this season counting all ST holders was considerably higher than actual attendence.
That´s to say if people start going selecting their games instead of buying an ST, Celtic will lose a lot of income.
One undenialable aspect at many Parkhead SPL games this season was a certain apathy that seemed to be contagious between the support and the players, neither being as up for the games as usual.
Why ? Because it´s a one-horse race and the title was won before a ball was kicked.
You may aswell unfurl the 13/14 flag this weekend because you´ve won it already.
In the Mowbrary season average crowds went from 57K to 45K.
You arrested the slump and last season they were up to 50K, this season they´re back at 45K.
If you have a good number deciding to select their games opposed to buying ST´s then you could be looking at 35 to 40K .
So the Celtic board will want a relatively weak Rangers in the top tier to provide a degree of competition that they feel manageable and a couple of OF games.
You simply can´t depend on CL money.
Over the years Rangers & Celtic have shown themselves to be inconsistent when it comes to getting through CL qualifiers and although the “Champions route” is on paper easier, there are no guarantees.
Auldheid.
You enjoy the current situation and you see the sense in it but the board at Celtic PLC won´t share your views.
That is, if they are doing their job properly and not using other emotions to govern their decisions.
=============================
I think you underestimate the potential cost in terms of ticket sales to Celtic if The Rangers were to be given accelerated promotion not merited through competetion with their peers.
If Celtic want more bums on seats there is more risk against that happening by being perceived to have aided in acceleration (which is what I called absurd) than they might gain from higher attendances.
Celtic’s main concern is not about making the league more competitive, they can manage perfectly well financially as this season has shown and even if attendances fell by 10,000 at £550 an SB, the £5.5M lost per season would be recovered from only one CL participation in the next 3 years, and if they do not then the scouting and developing system is producing valuable assets to cover any shortfall.
Celtic’s concern is not so much about making the league more competitive it is more that they have a league to actually play in, hence the surrender of some cash (and I’ve long advocated CL money should be shared more) to provide solidarity and stability.
Peter Lawwel said the other day
“In football stability is everything”
and i think that gives you a strong clue about the motivations and balancing act Celtic need to perform over the next few years and the arrival of The Rangers on anything other than sporting merit would introduce risks to stability at Celtic the Celtic Board do not need to contemplate..
I was not that enamoured with the 12-12-18 reconstruction with splits but I could see that it would bring an edge to games that might improve attendances at other clubs and along with a greater trickle down might introduce the desired stability..
It need not have been set in stone and over three years it might have helped stability whilst The Rangers themselves stabalised. The plan was rejected and Celtic’s worry will not be a loss of revenue because the competitve edge has gone (although clubs have shown that on their day they can more than compete) but the loss of clubs that make up the top two tiers would be of greater concern than lost SB sales whose costs can be covered from UEFA money or player sales.
I also think that clubs depend too much on SB sales for income and other ways of spreading the load of supporting a club need to be found but that is for another day.
CE
The unstinting defence of your club and chairman is admirable and understandable but surely given the way he conducted himself throughout you can understand the strength of feeling on this. You can dress it up any way you like but Stewart Gilmour chose quite deliberately to vote AGAINST bringing the governing bodies under one umbrella, AGAINST redistributing income in a fairer way to more clubs, AGAINST changing from 11-1 to 9-3 for league reconstruction decisions and FOR keeping sycophantic idiots like Longmuir in place. He did this out of pure self interest, as it absolutely his right, and against the overwhelming consensus of other club chairman who had there own doubts to resolve and compromises to make. He also did so knowing there would be no second chance. He (you, me and anyone else) may have wished the vote was on a different package but it wasn’t. He had ample opportunity throughout the process to argue for and shape a different set of proposals but failed to persuade his colleagues. Given the level of surprise expressed by a number of Chairman and various other commentators about his “sudden” change of direction and/or reasoning behind it I’d also suggest that he must be a p**s poor communicator. So whilst I don’t buy into (some of!!) the conspiracy theories or the vitriol his own conduct and performance has left him wide open to attack and his club somewhat isolated and bereft of friends. Luckily given your undoubted financial strength you shouldn’t need them.
The finger-pointing and conspiracy theories ain’t leading anywhere guys. I’m disappointed as anyone there will be no change to a very stale setup.
You can even argue that two clubs did not act for the greater good, but the real failure must lie with years of 11-1, the lack of an alternative plan, and the fact that no one is listening to fans who want a 16-team top tier with more prom./relg.
An organised fan strike/boycott might be the only thing that changes thinking at the top of the game. If Doncaster says a 16-team top tier is out of the question it must be because more than just two teams are opposed to it.
Instead of persecuting RC and StM it might be more pertinent to identify which SPL clubs will not entertain fans’ greatest wish, which is for a return to H/A fixtures in an extended league with more refreshment via prom./relg. and play-offs.
So league reconstruction is off ,lets get on with it and move on .
As for conspiracies we will know soon enough if we were right as any change now undertaking to
the existing set up that leads to a sevco leg up will leave us all in no doubt as to what yesterday was all about .
A major part of the reconstruction plans was the merging of 2 football bodies.was it possible sevco felt that with what is unravelling regarding them any change in the guard of ogilvie and co may make totally disregarding rules a little more difficult than usual.better the devil you know indeed.how could sevco influence gilmour I don’t know but I just hope for footballs sake they didn’t,t .
Well Some toys got thrown out the cot yesterday by club chairmen.
That was understandable n the heat of the moment and in Aberdeen’s case with the knowledge of how they sabotaged the vote change some months ago.
Celtics praise of Doncaster was bizarre and probably just shows that he is the puppet of the leading club chairmen like PL, and Petrie (as well as being a lousy communicator).
Doncaster really is off the pace and although in the background he and his team may work hard he is not a front man and should speak to some fans for a change.
The real problems yesterday were the package and how it was sold.
Shoehorning in the good stuff like fairer revenue distribution, and a pyramid with a dodgy league format on an “All or nothing” deal was daft.
And no change to the bizarre voting rights is inexcusable – Forget 9-3 it should be 7-5 i.e. a majority.
We’ll find out in time if there was any ulterior motives in the defiant two but for now lets just accept one (RM) definitely listened to its fans and fair play to him for it, and one (SG) might have.
My instinct is they did the right thing but I don’t know any more than the next fan.
In business grown ups would take a day or two and reassess the package keeping the best bits and move forward because it is the best thing to do.
No need to cut off noses to spite faces girls.
Please let’s not get sidetracked here.Whatever stance you and/or your club took on the reconstruction issue,we need to refocus. There will be plenty of people in the media and down Govan way who will be delighted at the in fighting this has created.
From a Rangers point of view this was just the “good news” story they needed. No to reconstruction, Rangers getting their promotion. This is one they have “won”. That to them has to be more important than the benefit any actual reconstruction would have brought.
This can now be part of the season ticket drive. We fought for what the fans wanted and won, a brilliant PR coup, in spite of the fact they did not actually have a vote in the SPL process, and would not have had one when the SFL made their decision. Very similar to Mr Green’s nonsense about the fans voting to go into SFL3 and him making it happen. A total lie, but most of them believe it now.
This can definitely be used in the season ticket sales process. We have done our bit and got you what you want, get behind the team you love, buy season tickets in big numbers, accept the 20% price increase we are all moving forward together and the adventure continues.
I don’t think this could have worked out better from a Rangers perspective. Charles Green going to the St Mirren v Celtic game and wearing a black and white tie was a nice touch. Charles Green influencing the St Mirren vote, if people want to believe that they can, Mr Green couldn’t possibly comment. It won’t stop him taking the credit from the fans though.
Anyway, I have always said that reconstruction without a season’s break is wrong. I still feel the same way. If Rangers can use it to sell more tickets then that’s just clever use of PR.
Are these the new ones mentioned by the Times?
stevendoyle @stevendoyle75 8m
http://www.scribd.com/doc/136117423/Sevco-Earley …
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
stevendoyle @stevendoyle75 8m
http://www.scribd.com/doc/136117415/Sevco-Whyte …
Expand
iceman63 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 21:05
I personally don’ t give a monkeys about the mechanics of the reconstruction but it was the only show in town to offer any change to fairerdistribution of income and the reunification of governing bodies in the game, and it appears thatthis proposal was acceptable tto SG and St Mirren previously. The actions of Ross County weremisguided but based on fans demands St Mirren’s actions were clearly not based on the club’s own interests but upon some external factor , hence the anger.
It is now clear given the statements by Celtic Aberdeen and United that change of any description is off the table and a poisonous atmosphere now prevails. If I were a Morton fan my contempt for St Mirren would now be complete. The SFL 1 clubs have been shafted here. They will have to struggle with the status quo. In 2 or 3 or 4 years when Ross County have been relegated and Saints subsumed by some further incarnation of Rangers aided and abetted by the divided and useless governing bodies to some ersatz Old Firm duopoly I suspect their fans as much as all other fans will come to regret the asinine decision taken today.
Complete and utter garbage. Have you read the St Mirren statement from April 8th on their website? They did listen to their fans but quite rightly decided as a board that these proposals were unsupportable.You don’t give a monkeys about the mechanics? Well plenty do!
Had the split happened this season, St Mirren, many points clear of Dundee, would have had their points re-set to zero and instead of trips to Tannadice and Pittodrie would be looking forward to Firhill and Almondvale. Iceman, I suspect if Celtic had a lead wiped out by re-setting points you would have plenty to say!
I’m a big champion of the smaller clubs and mean no disrespect to anybody but do you honestly see fans of a club with a lead wiped out being happy with this? Hamilton Accies greatest season in living memory was 2009/10 when we finished seventh in the SPL. But after 22 games Accies were tenth and then slipped to eleventh. We won 8 of our final 11 games but that would have been denied us under this farcical system. You are denying teams the chance to improve amongst the best sides in the country. Furthermore, you are denying the young talent at clubs like Hearts and St Mirren the chance of playing the top sides, being replaced with games against lesser opposition.
Do you think fans of clubs given a raw deal by the split would turn out in numbers for the final 14 games? I think many would just as likely turn their backs on the game. Derbies with Morton might have been one positive in St Mirren’s case, taking this season but that may not have been the case next season. Would Aberdeen fans relish taking on Livingston, would fans bother travelling? I could see fans really cut back on their away travel in both the first 22, after all why bother if you are struggling in the SPL or riding high in the First, wait until the season really begins(or just not bother at all). There are just so many flaws that the cretins in charge of most of the clubs cannot see, so a huge thanks to Ross County and St Mirren for this fan.
Auldheid
I admit I didn´t consider as hugely significant the number who might be unhappy with Rangers being fast-tracked.
I still think you over-estimate that potential reaction being a lasting one amongst a signficant number.
The main danger for many clubs is that punters stop buying ST´s and that this culture proves to have been temporary.
Financial planning would be more difficult aswell as the obvious drop in revenue.
There are many different factors making this ever more likely, an uncompetitive League which is won before a ball is one that effects Celtic.
I´d expect clubs to offer more attractive ST packages than ever for next season as a counter-measure
The 1 years CL cash you talk of as a balance to 3 years domestic loses is going into the unpredictable/unsustainable business model.
The profits on player trading can hardly be counted upon (would like to see the figures over the last 3-5 seasons).
The bread and butter of currently 18 home league games and other SPL based income is THE most important thing to take care of and for this Lawwell talks about the need for stability.
He would like to say competition aswell if he were being honest but it wouldn´t go down well.
So I agree that it´s a balancing act but if your CEO could help get Rangers into the SPL a year ahead of schedule, I think he would be prepared to weather a storm to do so.
There is another fluid factor though and that is what actually happens at Ibrox in the coming months.
I wouldn´t be surprised if this approaching storm has cooled the will for any immediate fast-track.
The option of changing to a 14 team top tier for 2014/15 with an invite sent to Ibrox ?
There is one question that was never answered, which alone, would be a good reason for RC and StM to reject the proposals
Why are we being told that this was the only chance for reconstruction???
The one big winner from the continuation of the status quo is Celtic.
For those who always seek to know “who benefits” as they construct a conspiracy theory, why not start with that?
myohmy1 says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 07:46
13 1 i
Rate This
Please let’s not get sidetracked here.Whatever stance you and/or your club took on the reconstruction issue,we need to refocus. There will be plenty of people in the media and down Govan way who will be delighted at the in fighting this has created.
============================================================
Oh my indeed. The focus is Scottish Football Monitor. The failed restructuring proposal is the story that affects 41 member clubs of SPL/SFL and more in the junior, highland and east senior leagues. The actions and words of Stewart Gilmour, Roy McGregor, Stewart Milne and Neil Doncaster are certainly worth discussing.
myohmy1 says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 07:46
8 1 Rate This
Please let’s not get sidetracked here
Who is getting sidetracked? We have just seen an opportunity for restructuring scottish football lost. I am right in thinking this is the Scottish Football Monitor? I understand the focus on Rangers but there is no way that discussing this is a sidetrack!
I would have written something like this but someone already has:
“iceman63 says:
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 22:22
44 18 Rate This
Have you still not got it yet! League reconstruction is now off the table. Regardless of our views of the size of the league or playoffs or voting structures or the timing of these changes they were concrete proposals . No grandiose notions nor idealised plan will come to anything. We had a proposal for change. It was better than the status quo. Individuals with agendas have simply scuppered change with no prospect of any alternative.”
Who here listened to all 50 odd minutes of Turnbull Hutton’s meeting with Raith Rovers supporters? Nobody thought this was perfect. But a full pyramid, one league body, improved voting system (still issues re 11-1 but improved) better financial distribution and more scope for movement up and down to the top tier was a hell of a step forward.
Not happy with all of it? Well accept the only game in town is an improvement and then lobby for further improvement in the next set of changes. Whatever St Mirren wanted, what are the chances they will get it now?
As for the comments about Doncaster. Well listening to him on Sportsound last night I couldn’t find fault with what he said. Sorry about that. Basically he has to try and represent the collective interests of 12 clubs who usually don’t agree about anything. A thankless task that must make his job virtually impossible. He was being attacked on Sportsound last night for not leading like a CEO should. But he doesn’t have the power to do so. His role works through promoting the best interests of the SPL with what consensus there is.
What does that say about his weasel words a year ago about Rangers being the same club and continuing in the SPL? Well given that he needs a consensus of SPL clubs which he can then articulate and sell and take the flack where necessary, it’s not really difficult to work out is it?
nowoldandgrumpy
The authorising signature on the documents (Sevco 5088/directors) you provide links to doesn´t seem to be that of Charles Green as per the story in The Times.
Could it be of Imran Ahmad ?
That is the crucial point, finloch. A cynical mind could reach the conclusion that the proposal was designed to fail, ending all possible reconstruction prospects for the foreseeable future while appearing to have tried to change things.
The only important issue in the SPL is the 11-1 vote.
Trying to change anything before that is madness, or something more sinister.
Mr Milne should go and have a long hard think about his decision making over the past year. Then, consider how he could atone for any mistakes that might possibly have been as a result of his decisions.
Thank gawd the 11-1 vote is still in place.
At the end of last season Rangers, Celtic and Aberdeen were pushing for a deal with Sky but were overruled by the rest of the league. The SPL opted for a £125million four-year package with the Irish broadcaster.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/104071-spl-terminates-contract-with-setanta/
Exactly – this was designed to fail from day 1. Remember the derision on here when it was first announced?
Who benefits from the status quo?
Why did it have to be this year, and not next year?
Why can’t it be properly discussed and implemented with a system that everyone agrees on?
Lock every club chairman in a room when the league finishes and don’t let them out again until they all agree a way forward. (and preferably one that includes rules on financial fair play, no Neil Doncaster and a straight majority voting system)
bobferris70 says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 08:42
Fair enough that St Mirren said in January that it was over simplifying to say that there was a consensus. They needed to see the details and to consult with their Board, Supporters Groups, etc. But some of what Stewart Gilmour was complaining about when St Mirren made clear their opposition just over a week ago was clear from way back in January. For example SG said, ref Record Article 9th April,
“What we need is a fairer structure to the game off the park and a major league that contains more than 12 clubs. I believe that’s what the fans want and I include those who support Celtic and Rangers.
“I know a 16-team league would turn out to be a disaster but what’s wrong with a halfway house that gives us 14 teams in the major league?
“The concept of playing 22 games prior to breaking into three leagues of eight is not a system we see as taking the game forward in the long term.
“There are too many decisions on the future of our game being taken purely for financial reasons.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/st-mirren-chairman-stewart-gilmour-1819614
Now that will obviously win widespread fan support, given that those fans who thought 12/12/18 was great were clearly in a minority. But if this was seen as a “show stopper” why not signal this far far earlier? Why wait until people have spent months working this proposal up to say actually we really can’t stomach 12/12/18 anyway a few days before the key vote? I don’t know if there are darker motives here for St Mirren, but from an all important expectation management perspective they, at the least, have not managed this well.
If either St Mirren or Ross County have to deal with the “armageddon” of relegation in the next few years maybe they will look back at this vote with the same sense of opportunity lost as Stewart Milne must have felt yesterday if indeed he blocked a change to 11/1 months ago.
Re Stevensaph’s query about why was this the only chance, I assume this is a reflection on how difficult it is to come up with a proposal that gets the support of a near unanimous consensus, required when you have 11/1 majorities required. That’s why change has been impossible for years with such different perspectives, between Rangers / Celtic and other clubs but even now, with Rangers out of the SPL.
I think the single most important requirement for Scottish Football was a degree of income redistribution to strengthen the most important element required from a spectator perspective, a genuine degree of competition. With the current fall out, that seems further away than ever.
I never thought discussing share prices would be a welcome relief but, 50,000 sold off last thing yesterday for 58p, then – first thing this morning – someone buys 160 at 62.45p. Bonkers? Or is it the average purchse price (rather than volume) that decides the price?
http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RFC
callumsson says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 04:25
26 6 Rate This
CE
The unstinting defence of your club and chairman is admirable and understandable but surely given the way he conducted himself throughout you can understand the strength of feeling on this. You can dress it up any way you like but Stewart Gilmour chose quite deliberately to vote AGAINST bringing the governing bodies under one umbrella, AGAINST redistributing income in a fairer way to more clubs, AGAINST changing from 11-1 to 9-3 for league reconstruction decisions and FOR keeping sycophantic idiots like Longmuir in place. He did this out of pure self interest, as it absolutely his right, and against the overwhelming consensus of other club chairman who had there own doubts to resolve and compromises to make. He also did so knowing there would be no second chance. He (you, me and anyone else) may have wished the vote was on a different package but it wasn’t. He had ample opportunity throughout the process to argue for and shape a different set of proposals but failed to persuade his colleagues. Given the level of surprise expressed by a number of Chairman and various other commentators about his “sudden” change of direction and/or reasoning behind it I’d also suggest that he must be a p**s poor communicator. So whilst I don’t buy into (some of!!) the conspiracy theories or the vitriol his own conduct and performance has left him wide open to attack and his club somewhat isolated and bereft of friends. Luckily given your undoubted financial strength you shouldn’t need them.
…………………………………………………………………………..
It takes two to Highland reel……
Both parties (group of ten AND group of two) failed to compromise and thus left the debating table. And both parties should have been more aware of the depth of feeling of the other.
I can understandably a mere fan having not a clue about the articulated intentions of a wee diddy club, but I fail to see why there should be such “a level of surprise expressed by a number of chairmen and various other commentators.
The Saints chair left the meeting which eventually came up with the restructuring proposals saying there was progress but we still have an awful lot to talk about.
When those proposals had been set in immutable stone for rubber-stamping yesterday, the Saints board read them and decided that the 11-1 voting system would remain the impediment to all the other good things they agreed needed to be done. (I’ll return to this below. zzzzzz) They announced their decision on April 8. Their intention (and that of RC) was leaked by CY 2 days earlier.
It was no surprise to the football world that there was still negotiation required. In all normal aspects of life, there must be negotiation. The proposals were still only proposals emerging from the January discussion. Otherwise the decision could have been taken in January.
Donkey, like the rest of fitba, was made aware of the disquiet, yet he hadn’t approached St Mirren on the subject two days later. Probably hadn’t before the meetin…. I don’t know, but as an administrator it smacks of incompetence.
It was a meeting that needed negotiation and compromise. It didn’t happen. Why was it set up to be all or nothing and all scope for change allowed to be slain by the very sword that should have been smashed at that meeting?
That is the weirdest part of it.
The retention of the 11-1 vote: Saints and RC don’t want that, but they’re stuck with it. Those original clubs who came up with it when forming the Self Preservation League must benefit somehow from it, if that was regarded as a step too far. Milne spoke of all they had gone through that we wouldn’t know about to get where they’d got to. My heart bled for him.
Yet he clung to his 11-1. As did celtic, hearts Hibs Motherwell etc. As much as Saints and RC did, THEY Failed Scottish fitba.
The elephant in the room is similar to the sentiment alluded to by auldheid in his fine post, above:
“Celtic’s concern is not so much about making the league more competitive it is more that they have a league to actually play in, hence the surrender of some cash (and I’ve long advocated CL money should be shared more) to provide solidarity and stability.”
The elephant is that they are scared to allow future democracy to perhaps influence the sharing of home gates with the diddy teams. Hence the intransigence over that undemocratic (unless wielded by SMFC and RCFC 🙂 ) 11-1 vote.
ALL the people round that negotiating table SHARE responsibility for what transpired.
stevensanph says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 09:17
Exactly – this was designed to fail from day 1. Remember the derision on here when it was first announced?
—————————————————————————————————-
Can you provide evidence of this please,if not can you stop misinforming people.
http://saintinasia.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/misinformation-misinformation-and-more-misinformation/
thanks Robert for posting the link for me 🙂
I could post every forum for every Scottish team up here and we could read their views on reconstruction, but we already know that 90% of fans were against this. That is fact, not misinformation.
Why were the clubs so determined that it had to be this year, and why were the fans ignored?
The biggest barrier to any change has been, and continues to be, the 11-1 voting system.
Good or bad, the latest reconstruction proposals were torpedoed by the 11-1 requirement, as has any attempt to change structures and financial distribution over the lifetime of the spl.
If the ten clubs in favour of the reconstruction proposals had really wanted them to go through, they would have readily altered the voting system for every aspect, not simply offered a limited 9-3 for future reconstruction only.
greenockjack says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 09:09
0 1 Rate This
nowoldandgrumpy
The authorising signature on the documents (Sevco 5088/directors) you provide links to doesn´t seem to be that of Charles Green as per the story in The Times.
Could it be of Imran Ahmad ?
———————————————-
Do you really think that Craig Whyte would be stupid enough to try and pass off such an important form on a fake signature? Green has never said that the form is a forgery, merely that it wasn’t relevant.
Whyte knows that these forms can be sent in at any time. The only thing that happens is you might get a small fine for not sending them in on time but that doesn’t prevent them from being lodged. These forms were part of his insurance in case Green tried to stiff him. Like all spivs they don’t trust anyone, let alone their supposed partners in crime.
Robert Coyle says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 09:37
Can you provide evidence of this please,if not can you stop misinforming people.
http://saintinasia.wordpress.com/2013/04/16/misinformation-misinformation-and-more-misinformation/
…………………………………….
Another excellent blog by stevensanph, Ta for posting the link.
Already it has been attacked by a sevco fan. Stensanph must be doing something right.
Not bad for a Fake Saint. 🙂
All the signatures look like my 2-year old’s scribble. I suppose an illegible signature is all part of a Spiv’s armoury.
If it is Ahmad’s then the ‘not correct or valid’ statement on Saturday could be superficially correct as I believe Charles Green was the sole director of Sevco5088 at the time. He would presumably have to sign it or authorise someone else to do it. (Note the statement didn’t specifically claim that the documents were forged or fake.)
stevensanph says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 09:17
“Lock every club chairman in a room when the league finishes and don’t let them out again until they all agree a way forward”
_________________________________
This would make the process entirely a business/money decision.
The process needs to be wider, IMO. Major stakeholders are as a minimum:
1. Clubs (as limited companies), including SPL and SFL members who aspire to SPL (in the current league construction)
2. Clubs (teams, players)
3. Fans (the paying customers)
There needs to be a process agreed up front by representatives of all stakeholders as to how the process of reconstruction will be managed. Does anyone have any idea what the process has been other than Topping/Doncaster and a flip chart, and a take it or leave it vote?
Take three months to agree a transparent process with support of all stakeholders, three months to discuss what the major stakeholders want, three months to reconcile different requirements and come up with some model league structures. An agreed final selection process.
The failed proposal now gives the Leagues at least a year to work this properly.
greenockjack says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 08:56
I wouldn´t be surprised if this approaching storm has cooled the will for any immediate fast-track.
The option of changing to a 14 team top tier for 2014/15 with an invite sent to Ibrox ?
============================
Am I not right in saying that Rangers, if they win SFL Division 2 in the 2013 /14 season would be due to be in SFL Division 1 for the 2014/15 season. That being as the promoted club.
That being the case, if the structure changes to one League with 3 Divisions then they would be perfectly entitled to a place in Division 2. However there would be no reason for them to be placed any higher, and lots of club losing out if it was attempted.
In particular those who missed out on a place in the top division, and those who lost out financially by Rangers not being in the second Division. I just don’t see how that could be pushed through, too many people with a vested interest in it not happening.
I think the Rangers support have to do the same as everyone else and accpt what has happened. They are not getting fast tracked anywhere, if they get to the SPL, or New League Division 1 then it will be on the original time scale, assuming they win each Division at the first attempt.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ross-county-chairman-roy-macgregor-1834844
Some notable quotes:
“Unfortunately, there were road blocks placed up against any other kind of league structure. That was the surprising thing for me as a businessman.
“In all walks of life, if you know you are going to lose something, you try to find a compromise. But in football circles that doesn’t seem to work for whatever reason. The situation we were in was all or nothing and I don’t know why.
“I can’t tell you whether there are agendas going on that I don’t understand. I certainly don’t see them. But maybe there are things going on that I don’t understand.
“In my time in the SPL there has been a real positive attempt to make changes. But maybe we all need to go back to our fans and start listening to them a bit more.
“The split into an 8-8-8 was probably our only difficulty. It’s too complicated and difficult to understand and we believe it will have a detrimental impact on season-ticket sales. We cannot take the loyalty of fans for granted.”
TomTom
I hear what you say but have a look at the authorising signature.
Does it look like C. Green to you ?
or possibly I. Ahmad ?
Does anyone have a copy of another form (with an indisputed Green signature) that we can use to compare ?
The signature is Greens. No shred of doubt about hat. I have seen every document he has signed in relation to Rangers and Sevco at Companies House
Chip
Whilst I can understand your angle and logic there are other considerations which won´t go down well on the board.
Namely the financial imperative and that in the event of 12 becoming 14, the SPL can invite whatever teams they feel best fill whatever criteria they lay down.
Would meritocracy win the day ?
I think a lot would depend on the next few months cashflow/ ST sales.
Night Terror says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 09:09
That is the crucial point, finloch. A cynical mind could reach the conclusion that the proposal was designed to fail, ending all possible reconstruction prospects for the foreseeable future while appearing to have tried to change things.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
I almost agree with you but Stewart Milne’s and Stephen Thompson’s reactions yesterday seemed genuine.
And Roy MacGregor is his own man.
We should ask ourselves why we don’t have a fair voting system?
That would be advice to the chairmen.
It would be the only item on the agenda.
“There are 12 people round this table and we need to make decisions now and going forward fore individual and mutual interests.
What is a fair majority”.
Thank´s BB
Could you or someone else please post a link from an indisputed Green signature.
greenockjack says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 09:09
0 1 Rate This
nowoldandgrumpy
The authorising signature on the documents (Sevco 5088/directors) you provide links to doesn´t seem to be that of Charles Green as per the story in The Times.
Could it be of Imran Ahmad ?
———————————————-
It doesn’t look like anyone’s name. That’s why they do it that way. Irrespective of that the important point is that the document has not been challenged as a fake. Green would have been shouting from the rooftops if that was the case. His muted response tells you everything you need to know. The document is real and he signed it. Of that I have no doubt.
Whether the actions that Green took later on to create Sevco Scotland were part of the grand plan or just a piece of opportunism on his part to shaft Whyte and Earley are what matters. Green is certainly devious but I don’t think he is necessarily clever. Whyte on the other hand is not only both but has a reckless streak. If he thinks he is going to lose out he’ll make sure he takes a few bodies with him. All’s fair in love and war.
I will post an image of an undisputed Green signature on twitter later today
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 08:33
Having looked at the CAG signatures on both forms, I think they are suspiciously too similar in placement in the signature box and in formation.
Re Sig. Richard Wilson in the Herald, who is very sympathetic to Rangers has unequivocally stated the documents are not forgeries
stevensanph says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 09:03
7 0 Rate This
There is one question that was never answered, which alone, would be a good reason for RC and StM to reject the proposals
Why are we being told that this was the only chance for reconstruction???
=============================
I agree entirely. The Scottish game can, and will, reconstruct at some time in the future. This “Big Lie” that now was the only chance is utter nonsense, yet is constantly repeated and never challenged. There is a well known quote that if the lie is big enough, and repeated often enough, then it kind of becomes the truth. Joseph Goebbels, I think. That is what is happening in this case. Nobody has presented a single valid reason why a reconstruction plan cannot be agreed in the coming close season, or in a year’s time, or whenever.
The current reconstruction frenzy came totally out of the blue in December after years of total inertia. My immediate suspicion was that this was simply a pretext for the accelerated advancement of one team. Maybe I was wrong. Let’s see how this plays out over the next few weeks. However looking at the plan as it stands (or stood), I am glad it has been rejected. The whole 12/12 becoming 8/8/8 is serious bollox, in my submission. What is it with the SPL and mid season splits? is it some kind of syndrome? If so it needs radical treatment.
And then the voting system. What kind of crackpot setup runs on an 11-1 majority vote? I know it’s all about the late unlamented “old firm” and their home gates, but I will risk the inevitable avalanche of TD’s by saying that I see nothing wrong in principle with some basis of sharing home gates between the teams. I watched Celtic throughout the 60’s, gates were shared, it was a vibrant, competitive league with great players. I do not want to watch my team steamroller the opposition every week (when they can be bothered). I want a competitive Scottish league. Unless we can build a competitive league, then the game is indeed a bogey.
Let’s now consider the idea of reforming the leagues months before the start of the season. Cue more TD’s, but maybe for the first time in his life, Charles Green has a valid point. Every team is entitled to know at the start of the season what the rewards for success or failure are going to be. To me, that is fundamental, and it is right. To get back to the original point, what’s the rush? Why next season? After all now it’s not happening, is the world going to end? More armageddon anyone? Or just another gem from the Joseph Goebbels guide to managing opinion.
Finally, Celtic’s testimonial to the greatness that is Neil Doncaster. Now I can go on a bit, but truly words fail me. Except to say that now I know with absolute certainty that everything that Doncaster has done over the last 12 months has been done with the full approval of Celtic. I need to sit in a darkened room for a few days to absorb that one fully.
Thanks. So unless he claims the documents are fake or forged, what possible defence does he have?
bobferris70 says:
iceman63
=============================
Why are you so angry at the no-voters for change being off the table? Why should it be off the table? Why can’t discussion continue? As far as I can see it is the clubs that are making such statements that we shouldn’t trust. This is just like Doncasters “Armageddon” and “all or nothing” statements last year. But when the fans stood up to them they backed down.
I agree very much with stensanph’s post –
“Why are we being told that this was the only chance for reconstruction???”
Why doesn’t one reporter ask the question?
I’m sure their reaction was genuine.
I’m just not sure they knew what they were doing or were fully aware of what other SPL chairmen might have sought as a result of these negotiations.
To be clear, I am not saying that every chairman or CE in the SPL “behind” this propsed change desired this proposal to fail. Just that enough of them, with enough weight (individually or collectively) to insert or prevent particular changes, were able to ensure its failure.
y4rmy says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 10:23
0 0 Rate This
barcabhoy says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 10:07
5 0 Rate This
The signature is Greens. No shred of doubt about hat. I have seen every document he has signed in relation to Rangers and Sevco at Companies House
Thanks. So unless he claims the documents are fake or forged, what possible defence does he have?
————————————
Green is claiming that the docs have no relevance as the assets were sold to Sevco Scotland and not Sevco. Whyte and Earley were never involved in Sevco Scotland so, by virtue, were never involved in the takeover.
D&P will need to explain why they sold the assets to a different company to that on the agreement.
BB
Thank´s !
I don´t believe them to be forgeries.
As TomTom says, Green would have made it the headline of his counter-statement to the STV story.
However, you need to have the evidence at hand to convince or introduce doubt to some POV´s.
The to-ing and fro-ing about reconstruction was to be anticipated. It is a very complex issue, and most clubs would have to make a fine judgement about whether they are liable to be in a more secure position under the existing system, or potentially under the new one. All that is pretty much a given, something that would be true at any point when reconstruction was put on the table for discussion, we could discuss those issues now, ten years ago, or ten years from now.
The only aspect of the whole thing that would not apply at any given time was the sudden rush to drive through an all-or-nothing, now-or-never deal. Give a season’s notice, get proper consultation and discussion, make any change for the good of the whole game. Any push to gerrymander the league setup between now and the start of the next season must be resisted.
stevensanph says:
Tuesday, April 16, 2013 at 09:48
2 0 Rate This
thanks Robert for posting the link for me
No probs,enjoyed your reply to the the rangers fan 🙂
————————————————————–
stevensanph says:
Exactly – this was designed to fail from day 1.
You are making a claim here,do you have evidence to support it or are you just shooting from the hip.
————————————————————–
stevensanph says:
Why were the clubs so determined that it had to be this year, and why were the fans ignored?
I posted the other day that i think that some clubs and fans may see this as some sort of justice dished out to the rangers(formally known as sevco) by making them climb the leagues in a fair manner as is possible.Reconstruction next year could see a call for the new club to be shunted into the S.P.L if they were to win division 2,which they most definitly will be in,unless of course the S.F.L decide to reorganise and place them in a position of their choosing.1 season away from the S.P.L ?
—————————————————————–
stevensanph,do you believe that if aberdeen had voted yes to the change in the voting structure to say a 7-5,that we would even be discussing reconstruction?
Another small point possibly overlooked. Last week there were rumblings that the SFL were dragging their heels on the “financial details” that they were required to supply to the SPL as part of the reconstruction proposals. Perhaps someone should ask Longmuir what or who had caused the delay. Just for clarity, like. Perhaps the fact that these details will no longer be required to be disclosed will be welcomed from some teams in the lower echelons.