Dick Dastardly Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 I'm not understanding why this is so important to the spfl ? Is it all about setting a precedent to give Celtic 9 in a row ? If so, why is that so important to the spfl, or indeed Celtic who would surely be odds on to do it next year anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 8 hours ago, AirdrieJag said: It sounds if UEFA may be about to instruct member associations to abandon/end their seasons forthwith. Not clear what the terms will be but it seems it may cut across the SPFL's/Lawell's manoeuverings. It may also explain why he wanted decisions made by 5.00 p.m. on Friday. Where are you getting that from. The last news I saw (yesterday) had their plan to complete the CL and EL tournaments in August after domestic leagues had completed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve61 Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 MacLennon's statement stinks of a cover-up. He even says Rangers was the only club to send in a resolution which was rejected by SPFL board, THIS IS A LIE. Hearts sent in a similar resolution which Ann Budge has a receipt/acknowledgement for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 6 hours ago, jaggy said: We get your point Allyo, you’ve made it countless times. The bottom line is we are 2 points behind QoS with a game and in hand and should not be relegated by a vote from teams that are above us and stand to gain from voting yes Really? To be honest I thought I'd been flip-flopping a bit, as I'm not really sure what to think or who to blame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledjag Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Dick Dastardly said: I'm not understanding why this is so important to the spfl ? Is it all about setting a precedent to give Celtic 9 in a row ? If so, why is that so important to the spfl, or indeed Celtic who would surely be odds on to do it next year anyway. Quite agree. I have also been unable to figure out why this proposal is so important to SPFL and why it's worth spilling blood' This has set me thinking there must be some bigger conspiracy going on in the background. So I looked at the 3 clubs being punished and reached the following conclusion. 1. Can't be anything to do with Stranraer 2. Wouldn't have thought SPFL/Lawell would target Hearts - big club (bigger than Dundee Utd), big support, asset to SPL 3. That leaves us. Perhaps Lawell considers us a distraction and he wants Glasgow to be a 2 club city. Wouldn't have thought we would have been that much of a distraction. Maybe he wants our property for some purpose - to build a supermarket!! So really have no idea but feel there is something going on in the background! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, jlsarmy said: Maybe I’m been simplistic about it but there should be money there , total Income from tv deals UEFA is roughly 40 million , prize money to the Clubs is 25 million. The spin was that all the income from the deals went to the Clubs which is probably not true as obviously the SPFL have running costs , salaries and tax implications to cover but IMO there is probably cash reserves there . Banderas the voting is one thing and of course it looks shambolic I am more talking about being fair to the spfl in respect of the representations being made by rangers and hearts and the media (and others) which have no relationship with the reality of company law and the position the directors of spfl find themselves in Jls, I’ve told you that Their accounts have a negative balance sheet. Spfl limited is technically insolvent. Therefore the directors actions must be governed by certain considerations. The cash will be there you are right . But they could face a clawback of that from sponsors if the season is never ended. If they distributed money that people are not entitled to until the season is over - they open themselves to potential issues under insolvency law. It’s absolutely basic and I am surprised so many people (including rangers!) are struggling to see it. to put it simply - someone gives you money in exchange for seeing their name next to the chamoions for the season you are an insolvent Company but as directors you decide to pay out that money before the season has concluded, despite perhaps knowing that sponsors want their money back if the season is voided (Which May yet be the decision of your members) the only solution that ultimately gets sufficient votes is the voiding of the season sponsors reclaim their money or a portion thereof you can’t pay it back as you are insolvent and you have irresponsibly as a director paid out money when you knew there could be a clawback furthermore as the money was paid to shareholders before they had legal entitlement to it, it would probably be a gratuitous alienation and the insolvency practitioner would be entitled to reclaim the money from each club thereby creating a domino effect and threatening the people you are supposed to be saving spfl goes bust and your personal reputation takes a hit as well and a few clubs go to the wall I know we all want to attack the big bad spfl (and their voting has been shambolic) but if you are going to solve a problem your starting point needs to be understanding the problem Edited April 13, 2020 by jaf 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, exiledjag said: Quite agree. I have also been unable to figure out why this proposal is so important to SPFL and why it's worth spilling blood' This has set me thinking there must be some bigger conspiracy going on in the background. So I looked at the 3 clubs being punished and reached the following conclusion. 1. Can't be anything to do with Stranraer 2. Wouldn't have thought SPFL/Lawell would target Hearts - big club (bigger than Dundee Utd), big support, asset to SPL 3. That leaves us. Perhaps Lawell considers us a distraction and he wants Glasgow to be a 2 club city. Wouldn't have thought we would have been that much of a distraction. Maybe he wants our property for some purpose - to build a supermarket!! So really have no idea but feel there is something going on in the background! Not sure that 3 stacks up as we are doing a good enough job of obliterating ourselves and not worth spilling blood over If they had gone for null and void, that would have pissed off Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove, surely lesser force than Hearts, Us and Stranraer and it would have kept an Edinburgh and Dundee derby. My only conclusion is that this is about Celtic getting 9 in a row. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allyo Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said: Not sure that 3 stacks up as we are doing a good enough job of obliterating ourselves and not worth spilling blood over If they had gone for null and void, that would have pissed off Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove, surely lesser force than Hearts, Us and Stranraer and it would have kept an Edinburgh and Dundee derby. My only conclusion is that this is about Celtic getting 9 in a row. I expect jaf explanation is far closer to the mark. No way Celtic wanted 9 in a row on these terms, and their 10 in a row, if achieved, will always have that wee star beside it. I do suspect a Celtic influence but more on the basis of European competition, or avoiding any reconstruction. Just guessing though. Eta...9 in a row over null and void would make sense actually (for Celtic). I was thinking more that they wouldn't want to end the season early just to call 9 in a row. Edited April 13, 2020 by allyo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 10 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said: Not sure that 3 stacks up as we are doing a good enough job of obliterating ourselves and not worth spilling blood over If they had gone for null and void, that would have pissed off Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove, surely lesser force than Hearts, Us and Stranraer and it would have kept an Edinburgh and Dundee derby. My only conclusion is that this is about Celtic getting 9 in a row. Or the fact that sponsors can reclaim money for a null and void season and that the spf are technically insolvent , ie they need future money to pay all their debts as they fall due? perhaos it’s more simple than such a conspiracy theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dl1971 Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said: Not sure that 3 stacks up as we are doing a good enough job of obliterating ourselves and not worth spilling blood over If they had gone for null and void, that would have pissed off Dundee Utd, Raith and Cove, surely lesser force than Hearts, Us and Stranraer and it would have kept an Edinburgh and Dundee derby. My only conclusion is that this is about Celtic getting 9 in a row. I have to agree. Null and void is the worst possible scenario for both Celtic and Dundee United. It's why Rangers have to be seen fighting this to appease their fan base. Celtic would be doing exactly the same if Rangers were in their position. We are being caught in the crossfire. If Hamilton had been in Hearts position and Alloa in our position the result would have been different. That doesnt make the disgusting politics of this any more palatable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbyhouston Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 15 minutes ago, jaf said: Banderas the voting is one thing and of course it looks shambolic I am more talking about being fair to the spfl in respect of the representations being made by rangers and hearts and the media (and others) which have no relationship with the reality of company law and the position the directors of spfl find themselves in Jls, I’ve told you that Their accounts have a negative balance sheet. Spfl limited is technically insolvent. Therefore the directors actions must be governed by certain considerations. The cash will be there you are right . But they could face a clawback of that from sponsors if the season is never ended. If they distributed money that people are not entitled to until the season is over - they open themselves to potential issues under insolvency law. It’s absolutely basic and I am surprised so many people (including rangers!) are struggling to see it. to put it simply - someone gives you money in exchange for seeing their name next to the chamoions for the season you are an insolvent Company but as directors you decide to pay out that money before the season has concluded, despite perhaps knowing that sponsors want their money back if the season is voided (Which May yet be the decision of your members) the only solution that ultimately gets sufficient votes is the voiding of the season sponsors reclaim their money or a portion thereof you can’t pay it back as you are insolvent and you have irresponsibly as a director paid out money when you knew there could be a clawback furthermore as the money was paid to shareholders before they had legal entitlement to it, it would probably be a gratuitous alienation and the insolvency practitioner would be entitled to reclaim the money from each club thereby creating a domino effect and threatening the people you are supposed to be saving spfl goes bust and your personal reputation takes a hit as well and a few clubs go to the wall I know we all want to attack the big bad spfl (and their biting has been shambolic) but if you are going to solve a problem your starting point needs to be understanding the problem The cabal tried to bully clubs and relegate ours for reasons I think we all believe but don’t want to admit, SPFL are corrupt to the core and have been found out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joekea Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, jaf said: Or the fact that sponsors can reclaim money for a null and void season and that the spf are technically insolvent , ie they need future money to pay all their debts as they fall due? perhaos it’s more simple than such a conspiracy theory? How does that work with the 28 day rule. Would the SPFL wait the full 28 days before paying the clubs the balance due to them, just in case a club (which had already voted yes) changes its mind and retracts their vote within the 28 days, just as Dundee appears to have done albeit in a shorter time scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emsca Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, Bobbyhouston said: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 18 minutes ago, jaf said: Banderas the voting is one thing and of course it looks shambolic I am more talking about being fair to the spfl in respect of the representations being made by rangers and hearts and the media (and others) which have no relationship with the reality of company law and the position the directors of spfl find themselves in Jls, I’ve told you that Their accounts have a negative balance sheet. Spfl limited is technically insolvent. Therefore the directors actions must be governed by certain considerations. The cash will be there you are right . But they could face a clawback of that from sponsors if the season is never ended. If they distributed money that people are not entitled to until the season is over - they open themselves to potential issues under insolvency law. It’s absolutely basic and I am surprised so many people (including rangers!) are struggling to see it. to put it simply - someone gives you money in exchange for seeing their name next to the chamoions for the season you are an insolvent Company but as directors you decide to pay out that money before the season has concluded, despite perhaps knowing that sponsors want their money back if the season is voided (Which May yet be the decision of your members) the only solution that ultimately gets sufficient votes is the voiding of the season sponsors reclaim their money or a portion thereof you can’t pay it back as you are insolvent and you have irresponsibly as a director paid out money when you knew there could be a clawback furthermore as the money was paid to shareholders before they had legal entitlement to it, it would probably be a gratuitous alienation and the insolvency practitioner would be entitled to reclaim the money from each club thereby creating a domino effect and threatening the people you are supposed to be saving spfl goes bust and your personal reputation takes a hit as well and a few clubs go to the wall I know we all want to attack the big bad spfl (and their voting has been shambolic) but if you are going to solve a problem your starting point needs to be understanding the problem To be fair there are a fair number of ‘coulds ‘ and ‘ifs’ because we don’t know ..... 1 have the sponsors said they will clawback ? Not to my knowledge and would that not be stated in the 120 page document ? 2, who would take action under insolvency law ? How long would that take ? we do know that a hearts resolution was rejected - and they had to get their lawyer to fund out - because they used the word ‘instructed’ rather than ‘requested’..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirdrieJag Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Dick Dastardly said: Where are you getting that from. The last news I saw (yesterday) had their plan to complete the CL and EL tournaments in August after domestic leagues had completed. I gather there's to be article in the Daily Ranger to that effect https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-red-alert-fifa-bigwig-21853906?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar Edited April 13, 2020 by AirdrieJag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emsca Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 24 minutes ago, jaf said: Banderas the voting is one thing and of course it looks shambolic I am more talking about being fair to the spfl in respect of the representations being made by rangers and hearts and the media (and others) which have no relationship with the reality of company law and the position the directors of spfl find themselves in Jls, I’ve told you that Their accounts have a negative balance sheet. Spfl limited is technically insolvent. Therefore the directors actions must be governed by certain considerations. The cash will be there you are right . But they could face a clawback of that from sponsors if the season is never ended. If they distributed money that people are not entitled to until the season is over - they open themselves to potential issues under insolvency law. It’s absolutely basic and I am surprised so many people (including rangers!) are struggling to see it. to put it simply - someone gives you money in exchange for seeing their name next to the chamoions for the season you are an insolvent Company but as directors you decide to pay out that money before the season has concluded, despite perhaps knowing that sponsors want their money back if the season is voided (Which May yet be the decision of your members) the only solution that ultimately gets sufficient votes is the voiding of the season sponsors reclaim their money or a portion thereof you can’t pay it back as you are insolvent and you have irresponsibly as a director paid out money when you knew there could be a clawback furthermore as the money was paid to shareholders before they had legal entitlement to it, it would probably be a gratuitous alienation and the insolvency practitioner would be entitled to reclaim the money from each club thereby creating a domino effect and threatening the people you are supposed to be saving spfl goes bust and your personal reputation takes a hit as well and a few clubs go to the wall I know we all want to attack the big bad spfl (and their voting has been shambolic) but if you are going to solve a problem your starting point needs to be understanding the problem Ok, I understand what you say. If that is the concern, surely the first thing to do is speak to the sponsers. They are not living in a vaccum and understand the circumstances. Say to them , look we want to pay out the prize money early- can you please guarantee that , in the unprecedented situation we find ourselves in, you will not seek to clawback the money. Get that agreed and you remove the potential problem. I still believe the SPFL are hiding behind this "excuse" for their own agenda, which I do not understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winter of '63 Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 The former St Mirren Director Stewart Gilmour in his Sportsound Interview yesterday said with particular emphasis yesterday that Doncaster "really didn't like it" when he didn't get his way and also that SPFL Lawyer Rod Mackenzie habitually used the rules to block alternative suggestions. Have Ladbrokes suggested that they will be looking for a return of their sponsorship money if the League is not called this week? Would that be a good business position for a betting company to take in current circumstances? I doubt Ladbrokes are short of money or that the relatively small amount of SPFL sponsorship payment is a crucial financial factor for them. The highest paid Chief Executive in the UK last year was the Boss of Bet365 who was paid a mere £323 million so I suspect Ladbrokes won't be relying on recovering funds from the SPFL to keep their business afloat. I checked the English Premiership Table and noted that Aston Villa are in a relegation spot but have a game in hand which if they win will take them clear of the drop. It will be interesting to see how that situation is dealt with. I'm not sure if there is a genuine reason to make an urgent decision at this time - there will have to be degree of fixture co-ordination for Football though-out Europe and I don't expect Football to return to anything like normal for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, javeajag said: To be fair there are a fair number of ‘coulds ‘ and ‘ifs’ because we don’t know ..... 1 have the sponsors said they will clawback ? Not to my knowledge and would that not be stated in the 120 page document ? 2, who would take action under insolvency law ? How long would that take ? we do know that a hearts resolution was rejected - and they had to get their lawyer to fund out - because they used the word ‘instructed’ rather than ‘requested’..... Was it not the Rangers proposal which was rejected because of the wording? Whichever, it's a strange organisation which elects a board and employs staff to do their bidding but then has to "ask" those same people to do what is needed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
javeajag Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 1 minute ago, scotty said: Was it not the Rangers proposal which was rejected because of the wording? Whichever, it's a strange organisation which elects a board and employs staff to do their bidding but then has to "ask" those same people to do what is needed! No hearts had one as well ....it’s in their statement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 32 minutes ago, allyo said: I expect jaf explanation is far closer to the mark. No way Celtic wanted 9 in a row on these terms, and their 10 in a row, if achieved, will always have that wee star beside it. I do suspect a Celtic influence but more on the basis of European competition, or avoiding any reconstruction. Just guessing though. Eta...9 in a row over null and void would make sense actually (for Celtic). I was thinking more that they wouldn't want to end the season early just to call 9 in a row. There is a fear the UEFA may null and void the seasons, so it would delay or stop Celtics 9 in a row. By declaring it prior to any UEFA decision that issue is removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 16 minutes ago, javeajag said: To be fair there are a fair number of ‘coulds ‘ and ‘ifs’ because we don’t know ..... 1 have the sponsors said they will clawback ? Not to my knowledge and would that not be stated in the 120 page document ? 2, who would take action under insolvency law ? How long would that take ? we do know that a hearts resolution was rejected - and they had to get their lawyer to fund out - because they used the word ‘instructed’ rather than ‘requested’..... Correct, we don't know (but we also don't know the quality nor compelling nature of the Rangers evidence but you are keen to take that at face value before seeing it?), but one of the duties of a director is to protect the stakeholders. Whilst uncertainty exists (especially against a backdrop of the SPFL being technically insolvent), I can see how those directors are in a difficult position. And one way of removing some of the uncertainty was calling the season complete. That doesn't mean they have handled it well, or its the right decision, just I can understand why they would pursue that agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirdrieJag Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, Norgethistle said: There is a fear the UEFA may null and void the seasons, so it would delay or stop Celtics 9 in a row. By declaring it prior to any UEFA decision that issue is removed. That's what some of the Celtic fan sites are suggesting is their agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norgethistle Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 3 minutes ago, jaf said: Correct, we don't know (but we also don't know the quality nor compelling nature of the Rangers evidence but you are keen to take that at face value before seeing it?), but one of the duties of a director is to protect the stakeholders. Whilst uncertainty exists (especially against a backdrop of the SPFL being technically insolvent), I can see how those directors are in a difficult position. And one way of removing some of the uncertainty was calling the season complete. That doesn't mean they have handled it well, or its the right decision, just I can understand why they would pursue that agenda. What Rangers posted if false could be classed as libelous so I’m sure (and have heard) they have something. What I’ve heard from someone close to Norwegian football is one of the likely scenarios that UEFA are looking it is null and voiding all league and European competitions this year and when the season restarts European places will go to those that had them for 2019-20 season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaf Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 As an aside, I noted that the deficit of SPFL Limited of assets against liabilities has doubled on Doncasters watch - that issue ought to have been tackled long before now. (Doncaster and the insolvent Balance Sheet!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Dastardly Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 If jaf is right then what they suggested was perhaps the best option for the spfl 1. Can't release money on loans incase sponsors want money back at a later date 2. Can't null and void as that will piss of UEFA and may also cause the sponsors to demand money back 3. Can't reorganise the leagues as SPL sides wouldn't support it (dilute the prize money) and TV deal may need to be renegotiated 4. Can't have clubs changing their YES to NO as that would again need money to be recalled from clubs who have already spent it 5. Clubs need the money now, not 28 days, hence the short deadline. Perhaps this is incompetence rather than corruption, but if so it is incompetence on a grand scale and heads must roll. Even clubs that voted YES can't be happy as they are not going to get the much needed cash for some time now. Even if Dundee change their vote, there will be a court injunction to block the payments before the e-mail arrives with the SPFL. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.