Mr Scruff

I've been trying to avoid any debate on this topic since Thatcher was such a divisive figure that any statement in support of anything that government did is automatically (especially in this country) taken as support for an ideology that is often created in retrospect. And there's a highly distasteful tendency among some (edit: not MJ quoted above) to casually dehumanise in a way which is almost pathological. It says more about those posters than any response could. But there is a debate to be had about politics/ economics as it developed through the 70s and 80s both in the UK and Europe/ worldwide, and clearly this is more than just "Thatcher's Legacy". And the above post is the heart of the matter for me. I recoil against several things: Monopolies (state, private or union), Command Economy, State control of the individual. These are all ultimately what I see as the change that emerged between the direction of the government from 1974-75/76 and from 1979 thereafter. There is scope for a healthy and reasonable debate around this, and it's interesting to note that this is now formally a 'History' debate rather than topical one, but I'd much rather it wasn't wrapped up in rejoicing or mourning a person who probably had much less influence than we, (or she) realised.

I know what you mean, but in my view there's another way to look at it. Financially, falling down the current divisions is disastrous which makes forward planning difficult and leads to a conservative approach. Especially since it's much harder to climb back up again. This system would lead to more opportunities for promotion if relegated, and since it's 'flattened' somehwat, it reduces that cliff edge effect of relegation. Potentially a better environment to develop than currently.

At the start of the season: - In the top 12 they're playing a. for points to win the league and European spots (the points don't get zeroed after 22 games) and b. to avoid being in the bottom 4. Every game would count. - In the bottom 12 they're playing a. to be in the top 4 and b. to avoid having a poor start sufficient to make relegation at the end of 36 games a possitibility (the bottom 8's league results aren't zeroed either). So a lot to play for. If we're safely in the top 4 at this stage then having the potential to build for a real push in the second half of the season (with 4 spots available for the top spot) is yet another advantage. But it would keep competition for those spots high rather than just a couple for the end of the season.

I must admit to being strongly in favour of this proposal. We do need radical, structural change in this country and to add interest troughout the season. I thnk this largely does that. It also reflects the stratified nature of our club sizes in a sensible way, and enables much more fluidity between the various leagues. There's a couple of weakes I would make (particularly relating to the bottom eight), but otherwise I think the organisations should be commended for even considering such an imaginative plan.

But it's entertainment, an event and often a 'day out'. In those circumstances surely making ti an enjoyable experience is something we should strive for (and maybe even make money from?). If other forms of public, live entertainment can do it, why can't football other than a deep rooted conservatism?

Can't agree - I thought the rules the WAF came up with made it a more compelling sport. The 'sets' system enabled an archer to have one bad shot, but still perform will enough to win. And being an outside sport with variable conditions, scoring could change for different pairs (eg a poor score at 1300 could be a good score at 1345 because of wind/ rain). Contrary to you I thought the WAF were to be congratulated, and football could do worse than consider how to retain the essence of the sport, but increase spectacle and fair competition (not something that's ever likely to happen).

I've been a couple of times to see 1FC Union in Berlin (Bundesliga II). A great match experience and quite different to Scottish football. A wee ground but with three sides of terracing - crowds at both games ~12000. Packed. Takes much longer to get in due to security, but very well set up and no sense of frustration. 12 euros I think to get in. Wonderful atmosphere. Other contrasts: - The crowd sang for virtually the whole 90 minutes. A variety of songs, often orchestrated by a couple of people (we would probably call them 'bampots') who looked more at the crowd than the game. - The stewards were very strict on the stairs and the areas surrounding the terraces. But inside they simply left one aisle open and there was a real feeling of this being the crowd's space rather than a controlled or penned area. - Beer was on sale throughout the match. People smoked. Beer was sold (and bought) after the final whistle. But there were still lots of families. And some drank a LOT. No sense of trouble or embarrasing anti-social behaviour. - The crowd's attitude. Both games saw Union go behind - one very early on. I expected the usual 'lull' and lots of people getting on the player's backs. Never happened. Not even when their striker missed a couple of sitters. One game was lost and the other a draw (which was a disappointment). No sense of "I've paid my money I have the right to boo my team", more, "I'm here to support my team". Refreshing and hugely easy for neutrals to get caught up in it. - The quality on the park. Players technically gifted, playing direct and exciting football. Not 'tippy tappy', but definitely not 'blood and snotters'. This was in the lower end of the German lower league in a rather old East German stadium. But I understand it isn't atypical there. Why can't we have the same? I suspect the issues preventing us are now deep rooted and cultural. We don't accept change easily, and have a thorough cynicism. Love to get a pre-season game over there, though...

You're quite right. Far too grumpy after all that booing last week. And Scotland won, and Thistle are on a proper winning streak...

The group of friends I go to Scotland games with include 2 Thistle fans, 2 Rangers fans, a Celtic fan and an Airdrie fan (since we're all from Glasgow that's hardly surprising). Club allegiances are left for club football, as I believe they should be. So no I wouldn't be saying that it's good that Rangers fans decide not to follow Scotland.

Yup. Some people who go to football, as evidenced by the booing thread as well, really are bitter and twisted. After all the sporting positivism of the last few weeks, it really does bring it home what football can actually be like...

I was planning to cycle to all our away grounds this season at least once. Looks like it'll just be league games...

It could be applied if Newco accepted it. Part of a deal to expedite their licence application....

I think it's entirely reasonable (and A Good Thing) for the SFL to try and exploit this situation by getting higher exposure for the leagues. There is a risk that Rangers fail, but I can't see how earning additional monies would be a problem. Particularly if it's based along the lines of a base fee for each league, with a fee for the teams involved in being screened (as has been suggested in posts above) If you decide this commercial deal is not worth pursuing because the risk of a team going bust, then you're effectively writing off every commercial deal on the same basis.

I thought a reasonable compromise would be the imposition of the year long ban for the 2013 calendar year. It would affect them, but would enable them to get a squad to fulfill this and next season's fixtures. The circumstances have changed considerably since the original ruling, particularly since that Rangers don't exist any more, and they're no longer in the SPL. But this would enable the fines and ban to be served as an expedited process, without risking a legal challenge based on preventing them from carrying out their business.

If you substitute 'Thistle' for 'Rangers'then I wouldn't be happy to accept that. And we as a support have generally looked for a financial boost from any match that involves us being screened live.

There are (at least) 2 competing theories on this one. The first is that the Old Firm rivalry acted as a safety valve for releasing tensions that would otherwise have had even more unhealthy outcomes. The other is that it acted as a magnet, promoting such tensions in the first place. This is a bit like the skies over the US in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 - we'll be able to understand what the situation actually is. I firmly believe that it'll be shown to be the latter.

Money? And presumably they're as likely to play us or Celtic. I don't have a problem with an updated Glasgow Cup, even if it is being redefined primarily as a vehicle for the OF to play each other. It would add a bit of much needed variety.

You do wonder if there has been an unwritten agreement. Given how poisonous this has been, and not of the SFL's making, it might have been more unifying with the result as it was to keep the voting secret. Maybe that's the reason?

I don't get this bit. Voting 'yes' to "Rangers" in Div1 wouldn't have been supporting "Rangers". It would have been supporting the SPL and its 11 clubs - just refer to ICT's statement yesterday. Voting for Div 3 was more supporting "Rangers" (although not how I would put it). I would like to have heard how we voted - out of curiously. But I really just want to get the football started with a degree of certainty as to what we're playing for. I think we have that. As a parallel issue, I'd like to see the start of reconstruction in place for next season.

Yup. Ayr game on Monday. Celtic XI on Saturday. Looking forward to this season. "Rangers" are where they should be and all is right with the world...

They confirmed this morning they would vote yes. Annan?

I don't think Livingston could put up £720K, which is why they were relegated to Div 3.

An interesting quote from Inverness (from BBC website). "A sad day for all clubs in Scotland" INVERNESS CT CHAIRMAN KENNY CAMERON "There will now inevitably be serious consequences for the game in Scotland. "We have all, as clubs, accepted the views of our stakeholders in making the initial judgement to uphold sporting integrity. "All clubs will now have to live with the repercussions of this decision. Scottish football was at a crossroads today in terms of what was on the table for all clubs regarding reorganisation, financial distribution and a road map that would have taken the game forward. "But this has now been thrown in to disarray by this decision. This is a sad day for all clubs in Scotland.""None of us will escape the financial fallout from this. There was an opportunity on the table, in terms of the joint agreement tabled at today's meeting, for us all to come together and a genuine willingness to improve the game substantially over the coming years. But it now looks as though this will once again be kicked back in to the long grass. A once in a lifetime opportunity to bring forward change may well have been lost. "The directors of ICTFC are fully aware of the financial implications of this latest decision on Newco. The loss of either our fans or our sponsors was never going to leave any of the clubs in Scotland in a healthy financial position and for some this could spell the end of football as we know it. "Certain clubs in the SFL have perceived the financial information they were receiving as a 'big stick' to beat them into accepting Newco in the First Division. This was definitely not the case, as far as I am concerned. What they were being told was the reality of the situation. "We will be convening an emergency board meeting over the weekend to discuss the very serious financial implications for us as a club going forward."

Let's be honest, there's not going to be a bidding war for the 'SPL brand' in its current guise. Not at the current levels. At least that's what I hope... For the forseeable future there'll be zero competition for the title - must be unique in world football. There's little spectacle. This should be the driver for the structural change that I think we're all desparate for...

I don't know how we voted. I'm simply pointing out that the absence of our voting record on the statement doesn't automatically mean that we voted 'yes'. I speculated there may be a reason, and offered a potential one (I realise a weak example).