Dick Dastardly

I personally agree, but others might say harsh on the well run clubs if they don't

Wigan Athletic become the first club in England to enter administration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53247333

The wait for a result is like a week in the jail

Lets get the win first before worrying about what happens next. As I understand it, today is not about the win, but about whether we are allowed to play for the win. Lets call it a pitch inspection

No idea what our lineup is going to be for this one. I think that Budge and Low are going to be key players. That big diddy Doncaster is going to be at the heart of the defence for The Rest. If Budge and Low can rough him up a bit, he is going to crack and we could come away with the win. Obviously a lot is going to be determined by how the referee plays it. C'mon the Jags and Jambos ...... Lets get in tae them.

Nah. A hairnet wouldn’t shut him up

The one I had before steamed up my glasses almost as soon as I put it on. However the all black Thistle one doesn’t cause any problems. I’d recommend to any glasses wearers

You set yourself low acheivement levels. All you have to do is ask if we play in red and yellow, or yellow and red .... support divided 50/50

We also need to know whether an unreturned vote is a YES NO not a YES not a NO or not counted. also, how long do we have to vote (maximum and preferred return date) and what votes can and can't be changed upto the deadline. Basically it is a can of worms to know whether WJ has support or not, so we may need to let the courts decide.

Oops. Corrected No disrespect intended, so please don't sue !

By what measure do you claim "majority" ? Have you polled the membership ? (if so, I think that my voting slip has gone missing). Although I don't have any facts to disprove your claim, judging by the total number of members, and the numbers who have replied on this topic, I would suggest that the "majority" are blissfully unaware of anything Woodstock Jag has said. Without any facts to back up your claim, this is exactly the type of propaganda put out by the SPLF. For the record, I do appreciate what WJ contributes, although I'm not convinced by some of his conclusions and I think that there are still enough things which we don't know to make it hard to be quite so black and white. For me there are enough grey areas to give me hope of a result of some sort in our favour.

How was "majority" decided ? By SPFL rules ?

Just a hypothetical question on the voting structure. I believe that it needs an ordinary motion to call the season early in the SPL and that requires 11 of the 12 clubs to back the motion for it to take effect. So, hypothetically, Celtic have a dreadful start, lose their first league game and are bottom of the league. Could the other 11 clubs at that point vote to call the season early and therefore Celtic would be relegated ? Would they at that point have no legal course of action and just have to take their medicine ?

Good to see that our public servants are making good use of their time and our taxes by posting so regularly on a football forum

In my experience they would also recommend best do nothing if that is what they thought.

Have to agree. Where I work pretty much everything that goes public has to be passed by the legal advisors, and the blandness of the joint statement would suggest that being the case here.

I would be extremely surprised if the clubs did not seek legal advice before doing anything. Especially as it is a joint statement and therefore unlikely to be a knee jerk reaction. The last thing they would want to do is jeopardise their case.

WJ. So, If the SPFL have acted in a totally appropriate manner at all times, why DO YOU think that Hearts, Thistle and, we would presume, their legal teams feel the need to issue the joint statement. If this is all above board as you suggest surely the legal advice from would have been to have done nothing.

Consider it as SFA saving money. Just think what someone decent would earn.

No disrespect intended, but (assuming they did take their advice) I’m much happier that they followed the legal advice than those of someone on a football forum who’s qualifications are unknown to me.

I think it much more likely that they consulted the legal teams who suggested the response to be the best action. The blandness screams legal advice.

But since we don’t know what the initial letter said, no one can make any claim about whether the response was a good or bad reaction. We need more facts before taking a black or white reaction.

That depends on who was the target of the joint statement. Was it the general public ? Was it the joint support ? Or was the target the other 40 clubs ? Without knowing the contents of the letter it is impossible to say anything about the response.

Got to be good news

drat and double drat