Season 19/20 - Page 210 - Football related - Discussion of non TA football - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, beardy said:

Surely lobbying clubs to approve your resolution is what you'd expect. 

Who's said the resolution was wrong? 80% of clubs voted for it. It was what the board deemed best for the SPFL, a board which included Robertson so what the fvck was he doing during the whole designing the resolution process? If he was just sitting back waiting to fvck over the board he was sitting on then he should be hounded.

Why are Rangers even driving this. Their season was over. This is so obviously about getting one over Celtic not any altruistic desire for better governance.

That clubs avoid Rangers council and opinion on this is obvious and expected. The good of the game is not their desire. Fvck em.

Robertson was sat there saying nothing because big bad Doncaster was threatening to steal his playpiece if he so much as looked the wrong way at him, and his dad's harder than Robertson's. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

There's a big difference between being suspended and being sacked. 

I know that but they're not wanting him suspended so he can go and have a nice holiday. It's a pretty fundamental step in getting him sacked.

I wanted the useless twat sacked years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

In the 6 options discussed in the original document, it states that (i) loans are not an option, and (ii) would require an amendment to implement. Except the Guardian article sets out that this exact thing had been done with three clubs (although oddly in the Grenta case, for some reason this hadnt been included the SPFL accounts). Hence what the SPFL put to the clubs is wrong. They must have known this, otherwise its pretty incompetent.

Boring legal stuff, but whilst directors are entitled to lobby for a provision, they are not allowed to do so by misrepresenting the position. 

Surwly Gretna was before the formation of the SPFL.

 

Were the so called loans to Motherwell and ?Patrick not shown to be advances on monies due, facilitated by Celtic delaying receiving a payment.

Advances are not loans, Don Neilcaster actually articulate this quite well. 

I can.also see why loans would not be an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

I know that but they're not wanting him suspended so he can go and have a nice holiday. It's a pretty fundamental step in getting him sacked.

I wanted the useless twat sacked years ago. 

It's very normal for somebody to be suspended pending further investigation. I haven't followed this very closely but it looks like that is what Rangers are asking for. There are a number of reasons why companies suspend folk in this situation. One of them is so that they can't unduly interfere with the investigation. The investigation doesn't have to lead to sacking. There can be many outcomes from the investigation ranging no further action, final written warning or possibly dismissal. Rangers haven't even got as far as getting an investigation yet, and it sounds like the won't get it, IMO. But if they do, it would normal to suspend him until the investigation is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, beardy said:

Surwly Gretna was before the formation of the SPFL.

 

Were the so called loans to Motherwell and ?Patrick not shown to be advances on monies due, facilitated by Celtic delaying receiving a payment.

Advances are not loans, Don Neilcaster actually articulate this quite well. 

I can.also see why loans would not be an option.

Money was 'advanced' from what the clubs were due to receive at the end of the season. Which was exactly the same as what Rangers set out in their proposal, to be calculated if positons changed and the recalculation paid back over two seasons. Ann Budge did say that Rangers propoal was rejected due to one word, perhaps it was the word 'loan' rather than 'advance'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Suspension would be normal for a director facing something like this- so they were not still invovled in the investigation process.

Point I'm making is it's a pretty obvious first step in getting his arse out the door and calling out the process so vociferously makes his position almost untenable already. He's a useless twat who should have gone years ago so it shouldn't need a month of name calling in the papers to push him out and at this stage he's ability to mount a fair defence seems would seem questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ThistleWhistle said:

Point I'm making is it's a pretty obvious first step in getting his arse out the door and calling out the process so vociferously makes his position almost untenable already. He's a useless twat who should have gone years ago so it shouldn't need a month of name calling in the papers to push him out and at this stage he's ability to mount a fair defence seems would seem questionable.

Understand, but proper approach is for him to be suspended whilst he is being investigated. They have rules for this- specifially so that people cant then influence any ongoing investigations. This is why the Deloitte investigation was ridiculed - they set their own question, appointed the people running it, and those people running it just happened to be employed by the people they were investigating....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

It's very normal for somebody to be suspended pending further investigation. I haven't followed this very closely but it looks like that is what Rangers are asking for. There are a number of reasons why companies suspend folk in this situation. One of them is so that they can't unduly interfere with the investigation. The investigation doesn't have to lead to sacking. There can be many outcomes from the investigation ranging no further action, final written warning or possibly dismissal. Rangers haven't even got as far as getting an investigation yet, and it sounds like the won't get it, IMO. But if they do, it would normal to suspend him until the investigation is done.

I'm not arguing with any of that and totally understand why he would be suspended for an investigation. Just think it's pretty obvious that the next steps they want on that journey are to find something then kick his arse out. Given how it's already a media feeding frenzy the guy has absolutely zero chance of keeping his job if even there's the slightest mistake.

He should have been gone years ago but it shouldn't need this circus to achieve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Money was 'advanced' from what the clubs were due to receive at the end of the season. Which was exactly the same as what Rangers set out in their proposal, to be calculated if positons changed and the recalculation paid back over two seasons. Ann Budge did say that Rangers propoal was rejected due to one word, perhaps it was the word 'loan' rather than 'advance'?

Bit the distinction is important. If you loan a company money and it goes into administration you lose the loan. Unless you are a preferred or secured creditor.  However the administrator sure as hell would still come after 'prize money due. 

So should the SPFL.have loaned x millions to SPFL clubs with the prospect of repayments never being met. Numerous clubs are going to go into administration due to Covid19.

There is no fvxking chance Rangers proposal wasn't looking out for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52255611

I thought one of the main things they've been after for about a month is for his suspension.

Suspension is different from sacking or resignation.

It's pretty much standard practice in any walk of life, if someone in a position of power is under investigation that they are suspended while that investigation is carried out, not least so that they cannot be accused of interfering in the investigation.

TBC, I've no doubt that Rangers would like to see the back of Neil Doncaster and probably others at the SPFL but - AFAIK - they haven't publicly stated that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Understand, but proper approach is for him to be suspended whilst he is being investigated. They have rules for this- specifially so that people cant then influence any ongoing investigations. This is why the Deloitte investigation was ridiculed - they set their own question, appointed the people running it, and those people running it just happened to be employed by the people they were investigating....

Whole thing is a shambles mate. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Understand, but proper approach is for him to be suspended whilst he is being investigated. They have rules for this- specifially so that people cant then influence any ongoing investigations. This is why the Deloitte investigation was ridiculed - they set their own question, appointed the people running it, and those people running it just happened to be employed by the people they were investigating....

No doubt the second question that Deloitte asked - after how big will our fee be - was "and what would you like this report to say?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aaid said:

Suspension is different from sacking or resignation.

It's pretty much standard practice in any walk of life, if someone in a position of power is under investigation that they are suspended while that investigation is carried out, not least so that they cannot be accused of interfering in the investigation.

TBC, I've no doubt that Rangers would like to see the back of Neil Doncaster and probably others at the SPFL but - AFAIK - they haven't publicly stated that.

Lockdown is getting to me so bad I'm defending Neil Doncaster :)

Appreciate they've not said they want him sacked but it is the logical conclusion from what they have set in motion elsewise why do it?  They presumably want: him suspended; make case spfl fucked up; Doncaster carries the can and if voiding the season gets chucked in as a brucey bonus so much the better.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Money was 'advanced' from what the clubs were due to receive at the end of the season. Which was exactly the same as what Rangers set out in their proposal, to be calculated if positons changed and the recalculation paid back over two seasons. Ann Budge did say that Rangers propoal was rejected due to one word, perhaps it was the word 'loan' rather than 'advance'?

Money was advanced early to clubs.in March, it was widely reported. The vote was to allocate the final amount due at the end of the season and to call the lower 3 leagues.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/52047550

So you think Rangers have done all this to get a few hundred grand before the end of the season?

It's scorched earth for The Rangers, one big giant dog whistle for their fans in an attempt to stop Celtic winning nine. Pathetic cvnts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely advancing the minimum prize money due would be the best option, so pay everybody out on the lowest position they could finish, any additional prize money paid at a later date.

As far as I understand Rangers were wanting paid out on current position and payback if ends up less.

Obviously a loan to a single club is far less of a risk than loans to 42 clubs.

id imagine a single loan could be done without much fuss or risk. Lending money to every club would need much more consideration.

i obviously don’t know the ins and outs, but in laymen’s terms that all seems like common sense. 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Lockdown is getting to me so bad I'm defending Neil Doncaster :)

Appreciate they've not said they want him sacked but it is the logical conclusion from what they have set in motion elsewise why do it?  They presumably want: him suspended; make case spfl fucked up; Doncaster carries the can and if voiding the season gets chucked in as a brucey bonus so much the better.

 

I'm prepared to corrected but I thought that Rangers were looking for the league to be completed, not voided.  Purely on a financial basis that would be more beneficial to them.

This is not an attempt at whataboutery but I'm reminded of when Fergus McCann was pretty much at war with Jim Farry for a number of years and finally got him on an administrative technicality.   I think a lot of that animosity stemmed from when Celtic Park was being redeveloped and Celtic played at Hampden.   The exact details of why that was the case are beyond me but it was pretty clear that McCann felt that Farry had done him over and he held a grudge about it.

I can see a lot of parallels with Rangers' attitude towards the SPFL and Doncaster in particular and undoubtedly that stems back to Rangers going bust and the fall out from that.   Like the situation with Farry and McCann presumably only those directly involved know exactly what's at the bottom of this and whether there's any justification in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, aaid said:

Nothing like shooting the messenger and failing to address the substantive point - pretty much par for the course on this thread.

What's the "true me" then, care to expand on that?

No problem

From what I see (read) you're articulate, well educated and knowledgeable with regards to politics - And like a barking dug in relation to the fitba

Don't take it too personally though...…….I'm a grumpy opinionated fucker across all threads  👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, aaid said:

I'm prepared to corrected but I thought that Rangers were looking for the league to be completed, not voided.  Purely on a financial basis that would be more beneficial to them.

This is not an attempt at whataboutery but I'm reminded of when Fergus McCann was pretty much at war with Jim Farry for a number of years and finally got him on an administrative technicality.   I think a lot of that animosity stemmed from when Celtic Park was being redeveloped and Celtic played at Hampden.   The exact details of why that was the case are beyond me but it was pretty clear that McCann felt that Farry had done him over and he held a grudge about it.

I can see a lot of parallels with Rangers' attitude towards the SPFL and Doncaster in particular and undoubtedly that stems back to Rangers going bust and the fall out from that.   Like the situation with Farry and McCann presumably only those directly involved know exactly what's at the bottom of this and whether there's any justification in it.

Good post aaid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, aaid said:

I'm prepared to corrected but I thought that Rangers were looking for the league to be completed, not voided.  Purely on a financial basis that would be more beneficial to them.

This is not an attempt at whataboutery but I'm reminded of when Fergus McCann was pretty much at war with Jim Farry for a number of years and finally got him on an administrative technicality.   I think a lot of that animosity stemmed from when Celtic Park was being redeveloped and Celtic played at Hampden.   The exact details of why that was the case are beyond me but it was pretty clear that McCann felt that Farry had done him over and he held a grudge about it.

I can see a lot of parallels with Rangers' attitude towards the SPFL and Doncaster in particular and undoubtedly that stems back to Rangers going bust and the fall out from that.   Like the situation with Farry and McCann presumably only those directly involved know exactly what's at the bottom of this and whether there's any justification in it.

Yeah he's been a useless bastard for years so getting him on an admin error is a bit like getting Al Capone on his tax.

It's an interesting dichotomy they have in either voiding the season to postpone ten in a row or finish it for the finance. Crowds must be a big part of that income too so the prize money is potentially a sticking plaster. Have they sold many season tickets for next year?

My frustration is really how badly this is handled top to bottom. Imagine if Rangers came out and conceded the title then offered it as olive branch to Celtic as the catalyst to improve Scottish football?  Competition has been reduced to a pretence but they need that pretence for their own existence.  Something really meaningful could come out of this but at the moment it seems like a race to the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Yeah he's been a useless bastard for years so getting him on an admin error is a bit like getting Al Capone on his tax.

It's an interesting dichotomy they have in either voiding the season to postpone ten in a row or finish it for the finance. Crowds must be a big part of that income too so the prize money is potentially a sticking plaster. Have they sold many season tickets for next year?

My frustration is really how badly this is handled top to bottom. Imagine if Rangers came out and conceded the title then offered it as olive branch to Celtic as the catalyst to improve Scottish football?  Competition has been reduced to a pretence but they need that pretence for their own existence.  Something really meaningful could come out of this but at the moment it seems like a race to the bottom.

My personal view is that voiding the season is the only outcome that is fair because it treats every club in exactly the same way.  Even restarting the league after such a long suspension under artificial circumstances, e.g. behind closed doors, neutral grounds, different players is unfair as it means that different parts of the seasons have been played under different conditions.

If leagues want to allocate places so as to award prize money or announce champions, I couldn't care less.

No club should be promoted or relegated when the league wasn't completed though - nothing has been earned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Lockdown is getting to me so bad I'm defending Neil Doncaster :)

Appreciate they've not said they want him sacked but it is the logical conclusion from what they have set in motion elsewise why do it?  They presumably want: him suspended; make case spfl fucked up; Doncaster carries the can and if voiding the season gets chucked in as a brucey bonus so much the better.

 

Of course it is. Either that or for the good of the game. Huns are like leopards. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, aaid said:

My personal view is that voiding the season is the only outcome that is fair because it treats every club in exactly the same way.  Even restarting the league after such a long suspension under artificial circumstances, e.g. behind closed doors, neutral grounds, different players is unfair as it means that different parts of the seasons have been played under different conditions.

If leagues want to allocate places so as to award prize money or announce champions, I couldn't care less.

No club should be promoted or relegated when the league wasn't completed though - nothing has been earned.

 

So it's the same as every season since football began then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...