joewarkfanclub Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 The Celtic support threatening boycotts and playing the integrity card is ridiculous. Strikes me more of an attempt to jump in with threats so if we end up voting 'no', they can champion themselves as the saviours of the game, without whom our board would surely have voted 'yes'. For what it's worth, after weighing up the points from Andrew Wilson on Twitter (who deserves credit for answering questions from a number of 'Well fans on there following the statement), the explanations from Flow (again, credit due for him for answering questions on Twitter, albeit purely his own opinions), and the woman from Well Society who answered my e-mail regarding a refund if I cancel my membership - all of whom stressing their belief that the club statement was not reasons to vote 'yes', but rather preparing the fans for what lies in store if we vote 'no' - I've calmed down somewhat and reckon we could still fall on either side. If anything, the backlash from a statement that implies a 'yes' vote must have given the club an idea of just how huge the backlash would be if they actually voted 'yes'. With the 'fans forum' presumably next week and the protest on the 30th growing in numbers, I believe a 'no' vote is just as likely as a 'yes' vote at this stage, despite the statement - which I still maintain was either a deliberate attempt to sway some 'no' voters, or a very poor bit of public relations. Cheers Jay, interesting update! Hope your observations are proved to be correct. I hope the club can see the strength of feeling here and how a NO vote could in fact STRENGTHEN the position of our club through The Well Society, season ticket sales and other gate receipts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I just wish folk would read things properly and make up their minds on the content instead of having pre-conceived notions about the content which then clouds their understanding. At no time did I read in that statement that we were going to vote Yes, it's just not there but some would have it as fact. I did see a Shellic blog claiming it in bold tabloid style headlines but they probably only went on what some Well fans were saying about it to give it credence. Whatever the intention of releasing the statement the backlash shows the strength of feeling at least but aside from that I really do believe a Yes vote would be more detrimental to Motherwell long term, it's not about punishing a corpse for me, they're not worthy of my concern. But voting Yes will cost us severely, probably the Well Society first and if that dies we are in the shit. Some clever minds on our board, need to start being extremely clever in the next few weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milo Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 The board are damned if they do and damned if they don't. We could be fucked whichever way we vote. Wouldn't it at least be better to have your fans behind you in hard times? Anything other than a "no" vote would be suicidal for Motherwell with the Well Society dying on it's arse, life longs 'Well fans deserting the club in their droves and potential boycott from the mhankies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Whatever the intention of releasing the statement the backlash shows the strength of feeling at least but aside from that I really do believe a Yes vote would be more detrimental to Motherwell long term, it's not about punishing a corpse for me, they're not worthy of my concern. But voting Yes will cost us severely, probably the Well Society first and if that dies we are in the shit. Some clever minds on our board, need to start being extremely clever in the next few weeks. Agree with this. Everybody, including the board, need all the facts so an informed decision can be made. Right now, facts are thin on the ground, but hopefully will be clearer by the 4th of July. I think the board was correct to start laying out the potential implications of a 'No' vote. It's easy for us to sit here and say 'just need to cut our cloth to suit' etc. etc., but these are the people who would have to do it. Our board refuses to go into debt, but let's not kid ourselves that many of our rivals would do that (in the short term at least). There would potentially be a number of tough financial decisions to be made, and if they get one wrong, it could put the club's future in jeopardy. I'm still leaning towards a 'No' vote, but if someone showed me the figures that meant the SPL would survive without Rangers, but Motherwell FC would fold, then I'd be mad to support it. Hopefully, at the fans' forum, there will be more information available - or at least in the run up to the SPL vote itself. I think there is plenty of horse trading to be done before that though. If, for example, you offered me a scrapping of the current voting system, a 16 team league, a fairer distribution of TV revenue and a 20 point deduction for Rangers for the next 3 years, then I might consider letting them stay. If it's just a 'take it or leave it' then it's still a 'No'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Just heard, from a member of the Rangers supporters association, that if the Newco is voted straight into the SPL, The Rangers fans will boycott all away grounds due to the sanctions that would most likely be imposed as a condition. So wth them and Celtic fans boycotting (not to mention our own) what are the advantages of a yes vote? ...................................Aye you're right, hee haw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Craig Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Hopefully, at the fans' forum, there will be more information available Any word when this will be? And will it be open to all fans or just the Well Society memebers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Dont listen to the doom and gloom bullshit merchants about all the deparate times ahead if the blue ugly sister is not in the SPL. Clubs will survive...Scottish football will survive, yes all the clubs will have less income coming in and will need to re-budget accordingly but they will still operate. How many clubs relegated from the SPL and therefore receiving no income from the ugly sisters visits etc have went bust ? thats right..None. The rest of the SPL clubs need to send a message to the rest of the world and get rid of Rangers for good, its the only way scottish football can hope to have any degree of integrity or respect. They have cheated their way to sucess for years at the expense of every other club, this is payback time....only voting no will do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotts Well Fan Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Dont listen to the doom and gloom bullshit merchants about all the deparate times ahead if the blue ugly sister is not in the SPL. Clubs will survive...Scottish football will survive, yes all the clubs will have less income coming in and will need to re-budget accordingly but they will still operate. How many clubs relegated from the SPL and therefore receiving no income from the ugly sisters visits etc have went bust ? thats right..None. The rest of the SPL clubs need to send a message to the rest of the world and get rid of Rangers for good, its the only way scottish football can hope to have any degree of integrity or respect. They have cheated their way to sucess for years at the expense of every other club, this is payback time....only voting no will do. Sitting firmly on the fence I see!!! However, I fully endorse everything you say. Integrity before money at every stage or the game is finished anyway. Just vote NO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
underboyleheating Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 you offered me a scrapping of the current voting system, a 16 team league, a fairer distribution of TV revenue and a 20 point deduction for Rangers for the next 3 years, then I might consider letting them stay. Even under those strict conditions, they would probably still hump us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Any word when this will be? And will it be open to all fans or just the Well Society memebers? It'll be for all fans I assume, there would be no other way to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 what ideas do people have for a fairer distribution of tv money? the only thing you can really do is take 9% out of the top two places and spread it out between 3-11. it's easy to design a fairer system but i'd say it's impossible to design a distribution of tv that would have any noticable effect on the game as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 what ideas do people have for a fairer distribution of tv money? the only thing you can really do is take 9% out of the top two places and spread it out between 3-11. it's easy to design a fairer system but i'd say it's impossible to design a distribution of tv that would have any noticable effect on the game as a whole. In which case, there will be no problem getting the OF to agree to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TvTotherwell Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 what ideas do people have for a fairer distribution of tv money? Everyone gets an even share. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 In which case, there will be no problem getting the OF to agree to it. i agree. i suspect they want to hold onto the unfair division more as a status symbol than for financial reasons. i'm just saying that whatever changes they make to the way prize money is divvied up it isn't likely to make the league any more competitive. however that isn't a reason not to go for a fair settlement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Everyone gets an even share. Indeed. We do something revolutionary - insane, some might say! We sell the rights to the SPL as a package containing twelve teams, and split the TV money fairly between those twelve teams. Who Sky Sports and/or ESPN then put on the TV is entirely up to them. If any team thinks they could make more TV cash on their own outwith the SPL (presumably selling the rights to live footage of their training sessions) then they can batter in. Sheer madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotts Well Fan Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Indeed. We do something revolutionary - insane, some might say! We sell the rights to the SPL as a package containing twelve teams, and split the TV money fairly between those twelve teams. Who Sky Sports and/or ESPN then put on the TV is entirely up to them. If any team thinks they could make more TV cash on their own outwith the SPL (presumably selling the rights to live footage of their training sessions) then they can batter in. Sheer madness. Jay this is what happens in Spain and has distorted the league massively as both Barcelona and Real get most coverage and are able to sell the rights individually(including training session sad Phuque as I am I have watched Barca train on tv on holiday!!). Is this any different to what happens in Scotland at the moment? - no it is just another method of distortion. A fairer way to work is the Dutch model where every game in the league is shown from Friday night through to Sunday night and the teams equally share TV revenues. This was the plan for SPL pre Setanta i believe. SPL TV is in my opinion the best way forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Craig Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 But SPL TV wasn't perfect either in that there wasn't guaranteed to be enough subscribers to make it viable. And it was discussed here on the Forum. I'm for it but it wasn't a popular idea then and I don't think much would've changed. We're always going to suffer due to Sky giving the EPL/Football League a higher billing than the SPL. Until the SBS (Scottish Broadcasting Service) is up and running post-2014 that is... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TvTotherwell Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Ta Hell with TV deals. lets not have none. The amount some people spend on sports in a year would easily pay for a season ticket at the Ark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohwulliewullie Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 I'm trying hard to keep up with the debate, pros / cons etc, as well as trying to focus on the facts rather than just go with my gut feel, which is to punt them. The conclusions I reach at the moment are basically: 1. Rangers need a severe punishment 2. However, MFC (and other clubs for that matter) can't win... whatever they do on the vote will be wrong in some people's eyes, and the implications could be far reaching and long lasting, one way or another 3. It's in no-one's interests that clubs' fans end up taking action against the interests of their own clubs, when those clubs have not had any part in creating the root cause So some kind of solution (i.e. punishment) has to be found without the need for a polarising vote, but that both sides in the argument can live with (i.e. severe enough that it hurts, but not severe enough that the finances of our game are damaged in such a way that recovery will be hard to imagine in the short to medium term). Easier said than done, but the best I can come up with is that the SPL / SFL / SFA / whoever (acting indirectly on behalf of all clubs) agree to relegate Rangers to the First (not Third) Division, as well as to apply the transfer embargo and the three year European ban. This will be in addition to a change in the voting structure and distribution of TV money, to make it more equitable long term. For it to work, Rangers will have to 'go quietly' and accept it, as well as demonstrate some kind of contrition / apology, which so far seems to be sadly lacking. I personally could live with that, as it would just about satisfy my gut feel to punt them, without necessarily having difficult to predict and possibly damaging long term implications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 No one in Scottish football has the power to put a European Ban on Brand New Club FC. The European Ban is not a punishment from the Scottish Football Authorities. Hell it is not even a punishment from UEFA. The matter of the fact is Brand New Club FC will not meet the basic criteria (3 years worth of audited accounts) for well... three years! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Since the Celtic supporters ass. agree that integrity should be put before money, I hope they would also be happy with a return to some sort of split gate arrangement to help out us 'wee' teams that will lose out. I'm a fan of the television money being split more evenly, but I understand why the likes of Celtic wouldn't want their home games gate money being split 50/50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuwell Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Was thinking 80-20 or 85-15, would be worth around £250K to bottom 6 and £500K to top other 5 and would hamstring celtic a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Was thinking 80-20 or 85-15, would be worth around £250K to bottom 6 and £500K to top other 5 and would hamstring celtic a bit. They'd never go for that, and rightfully so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 How did split gates work in the past. Was it half of the attendance-season ticket holders or was it just half of the attendance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuwell Posted June 20, 2012 Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 Sorry should be £125K bot 6 and £250K for others - would double if rangers came back up. 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.