I wonder if we will see two rival Scottish Premier Leagues next season? We could see a SPL consistent with the threats made to SFL clubs last week, let’s call it SPL Loyal, with Hibs, KIlmarnock and a few others. They would sit atop a feeder league containing whoever they could attract from the SFL and Sevco, who due to fan power would be excluded from the top division, no matter how few teams that division had.
Meanwhile a rival SPL could setup, let’s call it SPL Solvent, with Celtic, those from the Gang of 10 who realise they are better-off participating in a league which is likely to survive until next May, along with the teams who last season finished near the top Scottish Football league.
SPL Solvent would make no threats to exclude SFL clubs who were due promotion on merit, and would therefore attract the balance of SFL clubs; which is likely to be the overwhelming majority. This league would contain the only club with the ability to underwrite the commitments needed to bring broadcasters and commercial partners on-board. It would also be free of, moral and ethical questions, where clubs are united with their fans on what it means to organise sporting events.
It’s not the worst idea floated in recent weeks.
1,081 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- »
hamiltontim on 2 July, 2012 at 02:06 said:
I listed only 6 issues. Agreed. Abortion maybe 12th and should be higher. I dont agree with it either., However, there are some basics that you need to understand. In America they have health insurance. The fundamental diffrence that awe you Scottish/Irish/etc CQN’rs need to fundamentally understand is that Americans, fascists and the religious right philosophically bundle health care with car insurance and house and life insurance and not like education.
Why?
Well because they are spiteful people who dont think that taxes should be spent on health care,education , children and OAPs. To them its all a lottery and taxes are to be used to pay for wars and kill non white people basically. That’s why they are so niggardly in their opinions on social programs. they already pay 6.5% on Medicare although 15 % is spent on health care. They have never made the connection in their existence that 5% of the 15% of their GNP is sheer medical insurance profiteereing. i.e 1 dollar in every 20 in America is based on making money out of the agony and suffering of the diseased.
aye seen local hero, and no it doesnt even register on the good movie scale, sorry.
Canamalar
I’m an educator of primary children, that means I have the attributes of nose wiping and shoe tieing!!
Maggie
I think I hit a nerve there.
It was worth it, that was magnificent!!!
I’m using my phone so as a diddy I can’t post links to his abortion policies, but as you rightly said, that aside he’s a good guy, I think :-))
ht,
that is IMO an honest and quality way to live.
I am nkt trying to be an erse, I am honestly after your interpretation on what I asked.
You and me have already had issues with ionterpretation, hence my request for clarity, contrary to what you might think I am not always looking to start a rammy, but I do like to understand my peers
again, no a dig or any other snide games, granted the submission is contentious, I am honestly interested in how good peoples interpretation define their beliefs.
hamiltontim on 2 July, 2012 at 02:46 said:
Canamalar is a good guy. Trust me. What worries me is whats gonna happen when FFM shows up….waiting…
Mags,
ht knows I’m a good ghuy, we have a particular mutual friend who would have neither of us if he thought we were tits :o)
Sorry for my absence Maggie.
My 5 year old grand daughter took me for a walk to catch firelies and enjoy the evening cool and almost full moon.
I’ll avoid the abortion issue since you appear to agree with the stance of the One True Church.
To the supreme court Bush v Gore.
The actual ruling was not in favour of appointing Bush, although that was the effect, but was to prevent the Supreme Court of Florida extending the count beyond the state designated deadline which the Fl court initially stopped on Bush’s request and then reversed at Gore’s request. Bush and Gore were working on the principle of fishing for a friendly ruling based on the leanings of particular judges.
To avoid you countering that it was therefore overrulling the voters will, has there been any reversal of the accounts following the media investigations?
Oh and when FFM shows up, its very likely there will be an exchange that will clear the air, without keyboard punching :o)
then again I’m partial to a bit of throwing the laptop around the room, getting a bit costly now though :oD))))
‘GG on 2 July, 2012 at 03:00 said:
You are deluding yourself. The supreme court decision that was made on behalf of the democrats because the state of Florida refused to recount was to concur with the republican appeal that a RECOUNT IN A GENERAL ELECTION WAS UNCONSTUTUTIONAL. Let me repeat that in case English is not your mother tongue….. a RECOUNT IN A GENERAL ELECTION WAS UNCONSTUTUTIONAL!!!
Democracy eh?
Thats how GW Bush became President otherwise it would have been Gore.
bjmac on 2 July, 2012 at 01:55 said:
I remember 1964 playing against OLHS and Pat(?) McAulay whose father had played for Celtic. Centre half I think.
Anyway I believe his son had an under 15 representative cap. So John Oates told us in the dressing room.
I of course played him off the park.
mags,
no sure what you meant there, was the joke about having the choice between bush and gore or to do with the recount :o)
Maggie we are arguing subtleties but I found this perspective which reflets my own memory. Oh BTW I believe subsequent events underlined the wisdom of ensuring Gore was cast into the wilderness.
The Supreme Court actually interposed itself into the election contest three times. Only the last two are known as Bush v. Gore. In the first of these cases, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, the Court hoped to end the election crisis by putting a stop to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to extend the time for certifying the vote past the period set by state law. But by the time the Court began hearing arguments in the appeal on December 1, the certification had already occurred. The embarrassed justices sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, instructing the lower court to rewrite its opinion so that it would not create a conflict between state and federal law.
A week later, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of ballots. Unlike its earlier decision, however, this one was not unanimous. With the Florida justices split 4-3, the U.S. Supreme Court once again exercised its discretionary appellate review jurisdiction and granted certiorari, or review, to Bush v. Gore. The day after the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a recount, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a temporary stay, or delay, in enforcing the Florida Supreme Court’s order. The U.S. Supreme Court justices, too, were narrowly divided, 5-4. The five justices voting in favor of the stay were the same five conservatives who had been moving the Rehnquist Court to the right for more than a decade. The first hearing of Bush v. Gore telegraphed to the nation what would happen if the Court took further action in the case.
The Court’s third and final intervention in the 2000 presidential election came just days later. In its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted 5-4 to put a stop to the Florida recount. Allowing the recount to go forward, the Court said, would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, which had no alternative but to dismiss it. The presidential election of 2000 had been decided, in essence, by the vote of one Supreme Court justice.
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire on 2 July, 2012 at 03:08 said:
LOL
Neil!
I’ll answer you later.
Lets see what the replies are.
Canamalar
Ok you want the truth?
I think you’re confrontational but there’s nout wrong with that so long as, when you’re wrong, there’s an admission of error.
Despite your claims last night, I have never seen that from you.
Paul67 must love you as you spark controversy and debate.:-)
I disagree with your perception of our board but that’s fine, it’s all about opinion.
I strongly disagreed with your continual posts about the lack of tax affecting the brit war effort but I actually agreed with the sentiment.
We live one life my friend, I will argue the toss with anyone, as CQNers will tell you, but when I post, I post as I would talk to someone over a pint.
If I say something out of order on here I’d expect to be dug up that way in the boozer. If I said what you’ve said, at times, I’d expect to get knocked out.
‘GG on 2 July, 2012 at 03:11 said:
GG. It’s simple. Did The supreme court of the USA in 2000 dictate that a recount in a general election in the state of Florida was unconstitutional? yes or no?
Oh and ps
I’m on no list, that I know of, and I’m in no clique.
However, I will stand by those who I think are decent and those who I think are right.
Hail Hail
Margaret McGill on 2 July, 2012 at 03:14 said:
No it said that an extension of the recount was in contravention of state and federal law.
The result of the vote count has not been contested.
‘GG on 2 July, 2012 at 03:18 said:
exactly. Oligarchy. Not democracy.
‘GG on 2 July, 2012 at 03:18 said:
federal law and hence state law being what was decided that day by the supreme court? i.e. coup d’etat. Same as an assassination.
ht,
I know all that, whether you believe it or not, I actually speak to people in the boozers the way I speak to people in here, granted face to face people are less intimidated and are encouraged by me to as open as possible, likely I am too familiar with people on here, which some see as a lack of respect who thn turn it into attrition, but thats alwats the way of family, or at least thats how I like to think. As for why Paul67 lets me post, well thats simple, he believes in free speech regardless of what he’s told to believe.
Ask bt, whether we are on a blog or face to face I am me, obvioulsly it comes across differently face to face but the words are no different, bawbag is funny face to face, even if its no I am consistent, but
I asked about the post natal comment and your interpretation and I’m getting the impression your trying to avoid that question by trying to steer the conversation to something more sinister.
Heh guys I’m w/canamalar all the way absolutely. Free speech.
Canamalar ..are you a very very very clever hun yes or no? answer me that will you? you devious person.
ok its gettin close to FFM time
I hope I’m ready
Aye
Ah ken whit am talkin aboot
ahm a wee catholic calvin
It does a bairn good tae be denied.
Dinnae let that laddie hae yer threepenny bit
Nae need fur art. God made aathing ye need.
Keep yer heid doon less ye meet the devil’s stare.
Nae whip cuts sae deep as the lash o guilt
Say no and the bairn will learn
Thats whut ye git for no askin
Thats whaut ye get fur askin
A scalded kitten fears bilin watter
mags,
I am all things to all men :o)
a hun, a coward a dic* pr*ck bully and sick
hero to nero and glad of the opporchancity to be
ht has no been here long enough to have seen me aplolgise he said, if he sticks around I can guarentee he will, regardless of what his pals tell him.
ok I’m ready FFM where are you?
Margaret McGill on 2 July, 2012 at 03:24 said:
‘GG on 2 July, 2012 at 03:18 said:
federal law and hence state law being what was decided that day by the supreme court? i.e. coup d’etat. Same as an assassination.
Shirley the judgement was that state law as it stood would prevail.
They are ensuring that the law is enforced without prejudice.
I bet you thought you had got rid of me. iPad died.
ht,
I remeber we fell out about a year ago, do you remember that, I;m no talking about a month ago
hamiltontim on 2 July, 2012 at 03:16 said:
Oh and ps
I’m on no list, that I know of, and I’m in no clique.
…………………………………………………………..
Why not? We have fun uniforms and exciting rituals?
‘GG on 2 July, 2012 at 03:42 said:
Judiciary or democracy make yer mind up?
Canamalar
As you’ve just described yourself, that is me.
I steer nothing, there is no deception, I thought your comment was wrong and I said so.
Our disagreements have usually been about attendance at Celtic games. I’m not a shareholder, I was too busy going to the games to afford them.
I won’t tell a shareholder how to vote or how they should determine .Itheir opinion on Celtic. Likewise I won’t accept anyone, on here or in the pub, telling me how and where I should support my team.
I don’t do avoidance but I do take Bhoys on here at face value and reply accordingly.
ht,
point of my last question being, I actually apologised to YOU then, for being a tad rough on you.
Something I would never have had to do if we’d had the discussion in the boozer.
Now you’ve got new pals, people you’ve recently respected all your life as far as I can make out, because they have a similar outlook.
Come on laddie face the facts.
They ensured the law was upheld to protect voters rights from being thwarted.
Personally I think with the country divided as it is, would benefit from a benevolent oligarchy, like say the Kennedys, Clinton, Bushs.
Tempered by the voices of reason such as the one true Church.
BTW have you observed the Fortnight for Freedom
What did we fall out over a year ago canamalar?
GG on 2 July, 2012 at 03:54 said:
Judiciary or democracy make yer mind up?
Time for retirement.
Just a wee question before I lug my devices upstairs.
Is there one of us in this discussion who is qualified to vote on the 2012 election?
I confess I’m not.
Doesn’t mean I don’t care. My children and grandchildren will though.