weeyin

Was thinking that too. But then again, it's us thinking this way that makes it easier for them to get away with it. Bottom line, though, is that, if I could, I would go to the game to help support the team rather than stiff Utd. Completely understand the other point of view though and certainly not against their actions - especially after the problems they have had there in the past.

Because it was still the case that you had to take all or none. If there had been cherry picking involved St Mirren (or whoever) could have taken the financing and the governance but left the league reconstruction on the table.

It's funny because google says "overreaction" is one word, amirite?

The sad state of Scottish football means I don't trust St. Mirren any more than I trust Aberdeen. I hope I'm wrong, but I'll wait to see what the next set of proposals bring.

MLB and NFL are supposedly handicapped, but for me it's irrelevant to this discussion as they exist purely to serve the playoffs and the TV punter. Nobody cares about winning a league, and there is no promotion/relegation, there is a draft (and salary cap in the NFL) - there isn't really a comparison to be made. *handicapped in that the better teams are supposed to get the tougher schedules so as to maintain parity (particularly in the NFL).

Any concept of a league where teams don't play each other the same number of times, where there is a split, and where you can end up playing more games away than at home, is just mental. The fact that we are even proposing it shows what a state our game is in.

If it was just Celtic, all it would take is the other 11 clubs to vote it through regardless.

We tried that before, and it was a bit of a disaster as groups were often decided early on. Wouldn't be averse to trying it again, but I'd be surprised if it made up for the lost revenue of league games.

The question remains though - how do you do that? There are clubs who feel they need the OF to survive, and without their votes nothing can get approved. If it was that easy, the proposal would have been tabled today and we'd all be applauding the result.

It almost certainly changed their "Sevco-into-the-SPL" vote as all the noise coming from the Board prior to that was heavily biased towards a "Yes". Regardless, I'm not expecting miracles at this stage, but I'd expect more influence when the Society picks up more shares. Baby steps.

That, plus (as it was relayed to me) 11-1 voting was getting dumped so even when Sevco returned we could no longer be held hostage to the OF's whims. If that is no longer the case, then it's an absolute deal breaker for me.

Ah, got ye big man. Hopefully being a Well Society member will help influence some of the decisions, but not this one, it seems.

In what way? I still support my team (including financially) and want them to compete in a league that follows a league format. Leave the one-offs for the cup.

Not this fan. I think playoffs undermine the entire concept of a league.

Aye, but he grew up in Leeds as a Leeds Utd supporter and played schoolboy level there too did he not?

I would have thought the Leeds job would hold his interest too.

While I wasn't sold on it, I could understand the club being in favour of the "all or nothing" package that included a voting change. If the voting procedure remains at 11 - 1 it becomes pretty pointless.

You and me both, but I guess sponsors and TV companies like the idea of the relegation/promotion playoffs, points resetting and the like as it adds excitement and meaningful games. It looks almost like they want to move to an American sports model where the league is secondary to the play-off structure.

From what I understand, it's not the structure itself that the clubs want, but the finance behind it. At the Well Society meeting the club said that a number of financial deals were contingent on the league structures changing. If the clubs wanted the money flowing in, then the status quo was not an option.

Of course it makes a difference. Prize money is a great example. At 11 - 1, Celtic can stop any change that makes them lose some of their current share (with the help of their Northern buddies). I don't think we'd have too much trouble changing that with a 9-3. Of course, everything I hear about Aberdeen could be wrong, but at 11-1 nothing will ever change; especially when the other half return.

It's relevant because, apparently, Aberdeen see themselves on a par with the OF and are likely to vote with Celtic on changes that negatively impact the 'wee' clubs like us (or prevent positive changes from passing). A 9 - 3 would nip those delusions of grandeur in the bud and give us protection when Sevco is reunited with its bigoted sibling.

From The Scotsman - “People were shouting at me to make changes, including McFadden. But I thought they were doing so well they all deserved to stay on” smiled McCall.

On the plus side, on MFC TV McCall said that will give him time to sit down with all the players and discuss new contracts.

No idea if we have signed him, but it's Jamie Longworth you are talking about. His stats

When I was a nipper, it a was all about the Kia-Ora and Chipmunk Crisps.