Resolutions to be voted on at the 30 April meeting are proposals from the Scottish Premier League executive (Neil Doncaster). They have nothing to do with the Gang of 10 nor are they a Duff and Phelps/Rangers conspiracy. The resolutions are not set in tablets of stone and have no authority in their own right. The League has form in voting down executive resolutions, in particular overthrowing plans for a 10 team league last year, so, in theory, the votes could go for or against.
Neil Doncaster, being as thorough as he is, has almost certainly shared his plan with the man along the corridor at Hamden, SFA chief exec, Stewart Regan. He is also likely to have taken guidance from the Uefa executive, specifically CEO David Taylor, formerly of this parish. It would be unnecessarily lax to leave legislative loose ends before embarking on such a radical plan, so forget about any intervention by the SFA (cough) or Uefa.
Putting preconceived notions aside (if I can), the resolutions are flawed.
Asking for 8 clubs to vote for a Newco to be allowed into the league, but requiring 11 to vote for a financial penalty to be imposed for an Insolvency Transfer, is beyond ridiculous. The former provision – the gift of continuity to a defaulter – is easy to achieve. The latter – the punishment for defaulting – is unnecessarily difficult. Duff and Phelps will need the support of only one club – let’s say Dunfermline, who are brogue-to-brogue with them anyway and due to relegation will not be affected by the financial penalty, will vote with them. Why would Doncaster put such a high bar on setting financial penalties?
Arbitrary voting thresholds smack of gerrymandering. Can anyone explain this in any other way?
There will now be a period of debate between clubs; Celtic will oppose any provision for a Newco to enter the league. Duff and Phelps will be in the opposite corner. You can expect to hear wailing and gnashing from Rangers (IA) along the same ridiculous lines they have used ahead of the SFA hearings into the behaviour of the club in advance of, and after, Craig Whyte’s purchase of the club. On that occasion, Duff and Phelps argued that the actions of Rangers’ new owner, or the failure of the old board to conduct their business correctly, should not lead to a penalty on the club.
It doesn’t matter how lax or severe the proposed penalties, Duff and Phelps will oppose them. Anything lessening of the penalty is worth money to the proposed new buyers of Rangers, so let’s view everything Duff and Phelps say in pound notes.
Rangers have unpaid bills potentially running up to £134mm that’s medicine, operations, road repairs and Help for Heroes. Allowing them to ditch their history and start afresh, where owners profit by securing a floating charge over the stadium, where fans can continue to be provided with a team in the league, creates an unprecedented moral hazard. It rewards irresponsibility and would create a queue of clubs ready to do the same.
And on the point of ditching their history… I openly mock anyone who uses phrases like Hybrid Liquidation. You don’t get Hybrid Liquidation, Partial Liquidation or Liquidation Lite. You cannot buy or sell history, as Duff and Phelps tried (and failed, I think) to convince Rangers fans. Liquidation would mean Rangers Football Club, established in 1873 (or 1872 as they now claim), incorporated in 1899, is finished.
Just pay your bills and do us all a favour.
661 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 18
- »
OH Maloney maloney maloney
This could be our Muhammad Ali moment or, our Uncle Tom moment.
Principle before cash for me.
miki67 on 11 April, 2012 at 21:00 said:
can we draw a line under this and move on to what’s actually going on?
Like your style Mon vie :-)
Paul67
what is Doncaster up to ?
why involve himself in a matter that is the self made problem of one team ?
as for the shift in the voting requirements …has any justification been given for this ?
HT
I agree.
Refuse allocation and release a statement along the lines of:
‘Our supporters have indicated that there is no demand for tickets for our game against +++++. Consequently we have declined to take any tickets for the fixture. Should any supporters wish to purchase tickets then they should contact +++++.’
Paul 67
If EBT case upheld SPL new proposals = 1 point deducted for every year of cheating.
Off topic…..
That was a faultless refereeing preformance in Germany.
To think of the pub league refs we have here, and they probably get more money for it.
Really sickened with Scottish football just now.
Eirecamper
“Administration – an effective management support system.
Financial – sound financial practices.
Codes of Practice – for players and supporters. ”
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Ogilvie’s response is even better:
“We are delighted to be the first Scottish club to receive a licence. We can see the benefits of the system and strongly believe in the principles behind the licence, which is being brought in on a Europe-wide basis.”
Brass neck or what???
HAIL! HAIL!
Token
Kinogh on 11 April, 2012 at 21:00 said:
BT/TTT
As if by magic!
Who is this Kingoh chap anyway?!
————————————————————————————–
Didn’t you know, MWD has been depositing money into various accounts to pay for varieties of the KINGOH name :-))
Where is that guy from Channel 4. Was it Thompson?
Has he twatted anything or is he in cahoots as well?
Paul67,
Is Neil Doncaster guided or directed by the SPL board in drafting executive resolutions to be put to a vote of member clubs or does he do this off his own back?
I guess what I`m trying to establish is how much would our representative on the SPL board, Eric Riley, have known about these resolutions before they were circulated today.
What on earth is Doncaster thinking?
Setting aside my own personal views of RFCIA, it would seem a simple scenario for Mr Doncaster to establish a remedy based on two balancing (you’d have thought) views.
View 1: RFC are too vital to the financial wellbeing of the SPL for them not to be in the league. Therefore we’ll let newco back in BUT impose severe financial & sporting restrictions to reflect the terribly serious nature of RFCs offences.
View 2: The wellbeing of the SPL and the integrity of the sport is too vital to allow newco back in. There are no SPL penalties involved since newco can EARN the right to re-enter the league through football achievement.
Unbelievably he has created a View 3 for SPL owners to vote on:
View3: RFC are too vital to the financial wellbeing of the SPL for them not to be in the league. Therefore we’ll let newco back in AND NOT impose severe financial & sporting restrictions despite the terribly serious nature of RFCs offences. The need to EARN respect and sporting position is not required.
Throughthelookingglass CSC
HT
I hold the floating charge on all variations!
neveralone on 11 April, 2012 at 20:44 said:
Thanks Man!
Supplementary
Does Neil Doncaster have a twitter thing?
Should we tell him nicely and professionally how and where his plan is flawed?
Kingoh
Can Celtic be punished for openly declaring that they are refusing tickets?
DJBEE on 11 April, 2012 at 21:05 said:
He is speaking with UEFA tomorrow.
He is our only friend in the media field.
Cheated for years by the rules.
Pushed to the extreme by the execution of their rules,
Answer – Change the rules.
Time to say no thanks.
Eirecamper, no idea when we will hear a formal comment but I think the sooner the better. I got a robust update this evening. Celtic are and the fans are on the same side on this issue.
Carrigan, if the clubs lose faith in him then yes, they can sack him, but don’t think this will happen.
miki67, hamiltontim, we have clear rules about behaviour here and I will absolutely enforce them regarding behaviour towards Edward, just as I will to either of you. Please, enjoy being champions, be good winners. Huddle and get on with it.
jorges barnet, true today as always. Celtic together, is our biggest and most effective claim.
Lennondinho, indeed.
!!Bada Bing!!, in my never humble opinion, yes, I suspect the First Minister has lobbied on this subject.
navanbhoy, this is not a done deal, it has only been proposed today, but I’ve been telling you this is coming since October and expect it to be voted through.
PFayr, I’ve emailed you a couple of times recently, have you received?
Mic1888, hardly seems appropriate.
glorious balance sheet, this is not the SPL board’s work, it is the executive’s suggestion.
The Token Tim on 11 April, 2012 at 21:04 said:
Brass neck doesn’t come close to describing it
I hate them more than ever tonight
HH
Has anyone seen the actual text of the proposed rule changes as yet?
I have a feeling that resolution 5 is the most important one. The summary says that it “proposes updates and extensions to the definition of Insolvency Event in the SPL Articles and clarifies the process in the event that a Member which is the subject of an Insolvency Event is required to transfer its share in the Company.”
I have a feeling that this is where the “Insolvency Transfer Event” will be defined and the process for achieving it set out. It could state that there is no SPL approval required, as there currently would be for a “normal” share transfer, or that permission will be granted if certain conditions are met.
Doncaster, Salmond and Regan, three captains on the new ship of fools and like the Titanic they will suffer the same fate…
Paul
Thanks for that, I thought I had missed something major. TFOD do loose their history.
Celtic will oppose these changes, if no-one else will, and our league that is already bent, always has been, always will be, are now trying to save their blue eyed boy using changes to the rules rather than relying solely on the MIB and committees?
Feck them.
Paul67 on 11 April, 2012 at 21:09 said:
Thanks Paul.
Glad to know we are singing from the same hymn sheet. I think…
Paul 67
Previously proposals coming from ‘the executive’ (the 10 team league proposal) were formulated from working committees. Doncaster merely wrote them up.
Are you saying he worked on these on his lonesome? If so, that is remarkably odd. For such ‘controversial’ proposals any half-wit executive would have canvassed support before presenting anything he wanted to get through.
Unless these are things he definitely doesn’t want to get through????????
Could he really be trying to snooker RFC(IA)?
That seems toooooooooooo far fetched?
reallyconfusednowcsc
HH
HT
I would doubt it. Hibs etc decided to sell tickets themselves rather than pay an admin fee.
I would be surprised if teams are required to sell away tickets and even more so if they could be punished for refusing.
Having said that after today’s announcement nothing should surprise!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/17681268
BBC rangers article, the second line is hilarious.
I fundamentally don’t get this proposal. If it’s a NEWco, how can you punish it for an unrelated company’s actions ?
So here we are. The overcoats have been discarded, the masks of neutrality have been set to one side.
Integrity counts for nothing, and Sport in the SPL dishonours the Coubertin spirt.
Failures like Yorkston and Johnston are ready and fully prepared to set the charges on “Setanta 2 ” They have learned nothing from previous lunacies and are opening a Pandora’s Box.
Do they really think that hvndreds of thousands of Celtic supporters will spend £millions propping up their clubs.
Do they really think that there is no alternative to an away day at the glamour spots of Fife and Ayrshire ? Not only have they idiotically poked a stick at a sleeping Tiger, they have set in motion an important and so far unexploited revenue stream for Celtic.
Rather than visit their grounds and subsidise their immoral and integrity free clubs, Celtic supporter will support the boycott which the club will propose. The alternative will be to spend less supporting our U19 and development teams. These teams are about to become the 3rd best supported teams in Scotland, with ALL revenues flowing to Celtic.
The level of idiocy and immorality shown today is truly mindblowing, however as was shown by the Setanta decision, it is hardly a one off
Don’t be surprised if we see Alex Thomson gradually reined-in by his bosses at Channel 4…
Too much politics involved in this story..
Is Wee ‘Eck out of the country…?
How could we tell..?
come on people, sober up, the board will never sanction bhoycott, the last time it was properly threatened they quickly got involved and distracted the vast majority.
one real reason they will be against any bhoycott is, they will have corporate contracts to adhere to. End of.
So people advocating a board led bhoycott are being either disingenious or ignorant, either way I will not be following thier advice.
P67
i assume you were using the one beginning with G(house one)….i haven`t checked it for a few days ..i`ll have a look
i`ll email you my work one ..easier for you to get me on that one
We have to widen the scope of this to the political dimension. After all Fish Man & other hun MPs have contaminated the situation with their grubby political fingerprints. A career politician will shake their moneymaker for any two bit cause for the right price. They think the hun is a populist ticket. It ain’t and if it is then its an exploding one. A boycott is senseless. It hurts us more than anyone. Why starve our players, Lenny & the club of our support?
The political sphere is where this needs to go. We have the power to unite all the other clubs. Yeah, sure we are not their favourites, but they will mobilize with us if the cause is right. We have to go straight for the main vein. March upon the Backscratching Parliament in Edinburgh. The political is the only way to unite all the dispirate groups and to gain national attention without damaging ourselves. We have to hit back at the hun politicos & their shameless lobbying by confonting them in their own cage. It would put one almighty firecracker up the Fish Mans jacksy!
Paul67,
Has Neil Doncaster a mandate to make up what the voting system is, 8-4 and 11-1?
PFayr on 11 April, 2012 at 21:14 said:
Next time you call me names can you make sure I don;t have to google the insult to understand, :-))
Paul67
My apologies.
Kingoh
My next statement will surprise many on here but I would now support a boycott of away games.
However, as you state it would need to be orchestrated and backed by the club.
I’m really looking forward to hearing our view on this. Time the gloves came off. The rule book is being cooked and the contents don’t appear too palatable.
Let’s starve all the ’empty coats’ of income.
Pay your taxes!
Are people suggesting a boycott in perpetuity?
Is that how intellectually incoherent this site has become?
hamiltontim supports a boycott , feck me :-))
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire on 11 April, 2012 at 21:13 said:
What is wrong with you? Any idea has to be kiboshed by you, your like one of those people who say thats never going work. Then when it works your the first to say I was the one who thought of that.