Emsca

Of course they have, not officially of course ,but you can be sure Donkeyheid has been behind this.

I disagree and I have watched him every home game for the past 2 seasons. Have you?

Certainly not yours - a person who is perpetually negative about every player but forms these opinions without attending games.

Shut up.

Cant really blame him for that. If some mugs were willing to pay me £300k a year to ponce about in a Blazer, getting the best seats at games; free travel and accomodation ; a nice pension scheme; company car; health insurance and as many Boardroom lunches as I could manage in a week. All with very little accountability, I would jump at it.

I would get drafting on the UK becoming a republic.

Fair Play. Now back to work- have you not got a country to run?

Yea his too.

I totall agree with this. It is a football forum and people are entitled to express different viewpoints . Whilst I do not agree with all that WJ says or his analysis of certain scenarios, I think his contributions have been helpful and thought proviking. It is useful to have a counter balance. I do think his posts often come over as being unequicocal matters of fact rather than his opinion/ view, but that might just be the nature of the Forum. On a different theme, the fact that WJ seems to see things as black and white and always looks for whether a rule or law has been broken or not, rather than the nature / inference of the message may well be explained by his experiences in working life. It is clear to me that the SPFL Board have acted poorly throughout the whole Covid situation . Their leadership and conduct has not been of the standard I would have hoped for from an organisation charged with managing a national football league. That being said, I suspect as WJ will tell us - they have possibly not done anything illegal or broken and rules. This is where my view differs from that of WJ.

Why do you need to be so cryptic?

Ok - assuming this is the case ( and I appreciate you have not ckecked) that means it requires 32 clubs out of 42 to remove the Board? Given some of the Board (5?) are from the Clubs, it is not really surprising that the SPFL can and do behave with complete arrogance - safe in the knowledge that it is very unlikely they can be removed from office. I know it is within the gift of the Clubs to change the rules regarding resolutions , but there are so many vested and conflicting interests that this is unlikely to happen.

How many is "enough" ?? Is it a numerical majority?

So the SPFL is not the member clubs? If 10 member clubs decide to sue the SPFL does Neil Doncaster and the other members of the SPFL board represent "the SPFL" against the 10? What happens if it is 20 clubs? What is the cut off point? Once again you are making things up. The SPFL Board is supposed to be impartial. spFLr When

fckn right.

Because that is his role. He is a paid official of the SPFL. The role of that organisation is to represent the member clubs. Not some of the member clubs- all of them.

Really?? Pray tell.

Aye - whatever.

No you did'nt. I asked you what you hoped the outcome would be- not what you thought it would be. As always you answered the question you wanted to answer not the one you were asked.

I knew it was expecting too much to think I might get a straight answer. Are you involved in Politics by any chance?

WJ - can I ask you what do you hope the outcome of the Court case will be? Not what do you think or expect it to be, but what do you hope it will be?

Maybe!

Nah I'm done with arguing with WJ, its not worth it. The man ( or woman?) is never wrong . Agree the Georgic was a great boozer . Never been in the Laurieston- must remedy that when allowed.

Ok , so from a position of " he went out of his way to state that ..................." We are now asking what is more plausible. Lets just leave this, it is getting boring. You said something which you cannot substantiate, but rather than say - well perhaps I overstated that a bit ( which would have been fine) you have sought to justify what you said, thus making an arse of yourself.

I know.

No sorry WJ , that is not the point. You specifically said that Anderson had gone out of his way to request that the money be distributed to all SPFL clubs. GONE OUT OF HIS WAY. You stated this as a matter of fact. Now you are turning it to " well he must of said that otherwise he would not go along with it." These are 2 vastly different scenarios. As a Legal person, albeit not a practising solicitor, surely you must appreciate the difference ?