weeyin Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Enjoyed listening to Mr Gilmour and his very well thought out arguments. The one bone of contention is clearly the 11-1 voting. Really cant understand this attitude from the clubs considering one of the ugly sisters is irrelevant now... 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Enjoyed listening to Mr Gilmour and his very well thought out arguments. The one bone of contention is clearly the 11-1 voting. Really cant understand this attitude from the clubs considering one of the ugly sisters is irrelevant now... 11-1 should be the only thing that is relevant for now without it changing to something like 9-3, nothing effectively changes, as soon as the two cheeks are paired up again it would all be reset as effectively they would just restore their dominance on votes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 The voting could be 9-3, 7-5, 6-6, it wouldn't make any difference. Every vote taken by every board from every club is done purely for the benefit of themselves. There is zero interest in making decisions for the benefit of Scottish football as a whole. As a result, it really doesn't matter how many votes it takes to pass a decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weeyin Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 The voting could be 9-3, 7-5, 6-6, it wouldn't make any difference. Every vote taken by every board from every club is done purely for the benefit of themselves. There is zero interest in making decisions for the benefit of Scottish football as a whole. As a result, it really doesn't matter how many votes it takes to pass a decision. 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Really? Who's going to stand up to the Old Firm? At 9-3, are we honestly convinced that the 10 'diddy' teams will stand united on issues? I'm not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 Here's hoping that after the meeting on Thursday our club will be in a position to be equally principled. Be careful what you wish for. The meeting may not help at all, it may hinder the club's position or it could even deliver a decision which is not what you want. I presume that the club will combine the Society vote and Thursday's vote. The first vote was 57 for and 3 against. Now supposing all 120 fans (if that number turn up) voted to reject the proposals then the final figure would be 68% in favour of rejecting. However it would only take 33 of the 120 fans to vote for acceptance to ensure a split 50/50 vote. In that case does the club abstain from voting as we would have a divided support. Its also possible that more than 33 fans would vote for acceptance and in that case the club would be duty bound to vote for the proposals. Would you be happy with that outcome from a principled point of view? I'm not entirely sure about of St Mirren's or indeed Ross County's motives here. They might indeed be very principled or there may be an element of self interest as both clubs would be likely to finish in the bottom 4 of the pre split fixtures and hence be in the middle 8 post split. All may not be as it might appear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 It's not a vote though, it's a Q&A. It might just be an opportunity for the club to explain to a group of fans why they are voting for these changes. Which is fair enough, provided they give valid reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted April 8, 2013 Report Share Posted April 8, 2013 It's not a vote though, it's a Q&A. It might just be an opportunity for the club to explain to a group of fans why they are voting for these changes. Which is fair enough, provided they give valid reasons. You might very well be right. If however no vote is taken how does the club reflect the fans views in determining which way to vote? I had simply assumed that because a vote was taken at the Society meeting that one would be taken at the open meeting. That might be totally and utterly wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 The thing is that I understand the need for the package of measures to get most things we want. Why would a diddy team vote for play offs (greater chance of relegation) and get nothing in return? The middle 8 givers them a better chance of returning to the top table. I understand the concept that if we all come together under this package then change will be easier in the future. I'm not certain how that change will happen if all the big decisions are protected by an 11-1 vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted April 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 You might very well be right. If however no vote is taken how does the club reflect the fans views in determining which way to vote? I had simply assumed that because a vote was taken at the Society meeting that one would be taken at the open meeting. That might be totally and utterly wrong. Aye but it's an open meeting so it is likely that people who were present at the first meeting will be present at this one so if there was a meaningful vote then people would have 2 votes. Now that wouldn't be fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted April 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 The thing is that understand the need for the package of measures to get most things we want. Why would a diddy team vote for play offs (greater chance of relegation) and get nothing in return? The middle 8 givers them a better chance of returning to the top table? i understand the concept that if we all come together under this package then change will be easier in the future. I'm not certain how that change will happen if all the big decisions are protected by an 11-1h vote It also gives them a greater chance of never returning. You could win 22 games in a row and you're flying but then you go to zero points and you have to finish above 4 teams that you didn't finish above the season before. Having a 3 up and 3 down would give them a better chance of returning than the middle 8, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Be careful what you wish for. The meeting may not help at all, it may hinder the club's position or it could even deliver a decision which is not what you want. I presume that the club will combine the Society vote and Thursday's vote. The first vote was 57 for and 3 against. Now supposing all 120 fans (if that number turn up) voted to reject the proposals then the final figure would be 68% in favour of rejecting. However it would only take 33 of the 120 fans to vote for acceptance to ensure a split 50/50 vote. In that case does the club abstain from voting as we would have a divided support. Its also possible that more than 33 fans would vote for acceptance and in that case the club would be duty bound to vote for the proposals. Would you be happy with that outcome from a principled point of view? I'm not entirely sure about of St Mirren's or indeed Ross County's motives here. They might indeed be very principled or there may be an element of self interest as both clubs would be likely to finish in the bottom 4 of the pre split fixtures and hence be in the middle 8 post split. All may not be as it might appear. Everyone else is voting seflfishly so they have every right to protect themselves too. A vote of this magnitude cannot be undertaken through selfish clubs but who will call the shots to force through change. Get the one body leadership first then have decisions like this taken centrally, then they will be accountable if it fails unlike now. Fans have spoken, the demand is for bigger leagues, no need for more debate to protect certain revenue streams, you either dismiss or heed the warnings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 I dont care where Motherwell finish in an 8x8x8 set up. My objection to it is that it is a ludicrous system that will do nothing to advance the prospects of Scottish football. Maybe St Mirren are being selfish in that respect but at least they are in line with the views of the paying customer. My understanding is that Motherwell are broadly in line with those views but are buying into this all or nothing nonsense. Why cant we have the bits everyone likes and jettison this nonsense? No-one wants to answer that question. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 It also gives them a greater chance of never returning. You could win 22 games in a row and you're flying but then you go to zero points and you have to finish above 4 teams that you didn't finish above the season before. Having a 3 up and 3 down would give them a better chance of returning than the middle 8, no? No. if you win 22 games in a row you will not be in the middle 8 and will not have points reset to zero. 4 up gives you a better chance of a return. No? I am not defending the set up, Don't particularly like it but we need to not poke holes in it that aren't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted April 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 No. if you win 22 games in a row you will not be in the middle 8 and will not have points reset to zero. 4 up gives you a better chance of a return. No? I am not defending the set up, Don't particularly like it but we need to not poke holes in it that aren't there. Dundee are relegated this year and next year they win 22 games in a row then there points will be reset to zero and the will have to finish above one of at least 3 and possibly 4 teams, over 14 games, that they couldn't compete with this year in order to win promotion. That is fact. If Dundee go down and next year there is a straight 3 up and 3 down system and no points zeroing after 22 games, no joining up with teams from a higher league then they would have more chance of Promotion than the proposed system, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weesacs Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Why cant we have the bits everyone likes and jettison this nonsense? No-one wants to answer that question. According to Neil Doncaster, "that cant happen because it would mean the clubs are giving up too much to get nothing in return". Elaborate please! Everytime the question is asked they do try to avoid it like the plague and then give an answer you would expect from a politician. What are the bits people want to keep? And what do we want to scrap or change? What is the ideal scenario? From listening to Neil Doncaster, it appears that the 1st Div clubs are really struggling financially and he wants money distributed to them as of next season. This is because they are full time clubs whereas those in the 2nd / 3rd div, run on a tighter ship and dont go throwing money they dont have to try and achieve promotion. We are only the fans - so we are not allowed to know all the important information Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 1365497643[/url]' post='378875']Dundee are relegated this year and next year they win 22 games in a row then there points will be reset to zero and the will have to finish above one of at least 3 and possibly 4 teams, over 14 games, that they couldn't compete with this year in order to win promotion. That is fact. If Dundee go down and next year there is a straight 3 up and 3 down system and no points zeroing after 22 games, no joining up with teams from a higher league then they would have more chance of Promotion than the proposed system, no? Yes, you are right looking at it from the second league's point of view. I was looking at it from the position of the top league. But still in comparison to the status quo there are four chances to come up rather than one. Still don't like it but can see the arguments for and against. My biggest issue is that in the top league one or two teams will get detatched even in the first 22 games, these teams just down tools until the 'new split'. Also, what is the timing of the split with respect to the January window? i am sure your transfer activity will be linked to what league you will be in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 What are the bits people want to keep? And what do we want to scrap or change? What is the ideal scenario? I would say everyone is agreed on 1. One league body. 2. Financial redistribution. 3. Change to voting structure (Celtic/Aberdeen excepted maybe) These can be agreed quickly for next season without too much pain. League reconstruction and a pyramid system can be given more time to agree on something everyone, including the fans, can support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted April 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Yes, you are right looking at it from the second league's point of view. I was looking at it from the position of the top league. But still in comparison to the status quo there are four chances to come up rather than one. Still don't like it but can see the arguments for and against. My biggest issue is that in the top league one or two teams will get detatched even in the first 22 games, these teams just down tools until the 'new split'. Also, what is the timing of the split with respect to the January window? i am sure your transfer activity will be linked to what league you will be in. I share the same issue too and although there are 4 chances to come up it is very unlikely that you will get 4 teams who will come up from the second division. Look at Dundee this season when they hammered Morton who were top of the 1st division at the time. The status quo is that 1 team is guaranteed to be promoted from the second tier and under the new proposals there is no guaranteed promotion. That is one of my biggest issues with the whole thing. i want to see more guaranteed promotion not more 'chance' of promotion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dezz Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 I would say everyone is agreed on 1. One league body. 2. Financial redistribution. 3. Change to voting structure (Celtic/Aberdeen excepted maybe) These can be agreed quickly for next season without too much pain. League reconstruction and a pyramid system can be given more time to agree on something everyone, including the fans, can support. The three points above are definitely things I support and would like the see them in place for next season. I'm still unsure why Doncaster and co. are adamant that it has to be 'all or nothing' in regards to the points above and league reconstruction though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldonmac Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 The reason it was all or nothing, as was pointed out at the Well Society meeting, was that the Clubs were prepared to make concessions on the bits they liked less in order to get the bits they did like agreed to. Ok, so what's proposed isn't perfect but it delivers a number of the changes we are looking for eg voting, financial distribution, one league body. To effectively "cherry pick" the good points is unlikely to happen. as certain Clubs will continue to block progress unless it's on their terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cambo97 Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 The reason it was all or nothing, as was pointed out at the Well Society meeting, was that the Clubs were prepared to make concessions on the bits they liked less in order to get the bits they did like agreed to. Ok, so what's proposed isn't perfect but it delivers a number of the changes we are looking for eg voting, financial distribution, one league body. To effectively "cherry pick" the good points is unlikely to happen. as certain Clubs will continue to block progress unless it's on their terms. Reading Stewart Gilmour's comments yesterday it the proposals not only retained the 11-1 voting but also guaranteed that they couldn't be changed for 3 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldonmac Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 Reading Stewart Gilmour's comments yesterday it the proposals not only retained the 11-1 voting but also guaranteed that they couldn't be changed for 3 years. For some reason, I seem to remember Leann saying that the voting requirements would change and required a certain percentage of the top league to agree and a percentage of the rest to agree for any major decisions. This would stop "the tail wagging the dog". But it was a while ago so I might have imagined (hoped) for this. As for the current 11 - 1, that will never change without a radical overhaul of all aspects of Scottish football as certain teams, for whatever reason(s), are allying themselves with Celtic and in other cases look as if they are preparing for the return of the other half of the Old Firm and wanting to be seen as their "friend". The rationale given for the 3 years without change was to introduce stability and make it attractive to sponsors etc. It all boils down to the fact that Doncaster et al have been pitiful with regards PR, they should have been making the information available regularly in a clear, concise manner ensuring that when an incorrect/misleading comment appeared in the Press that the correct facts were issued to ensure the fans were advised. That to me has been the biggest failing of this whole sorry escapade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nethertonwellfan Posted April 9, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 The reason it was all or nothing, as was pointed out at the Well Society meeting, was that the Clubs were prepared to make concessions on the bits they liked less in order to get the bits they did like agreed to. Ok, so what's proposed isn't perfect but it delivers a number of the changes we are looking for eg voting, financial distribution, one league body. To effectively "cherry pick" the good points is unlikely to happen. as certain Clubs will continue to block progress unless it's on their terms. So there are clubs out there that actually want this bombscare of a league structure? If true then heaven help us because I don't see how splitting the league in to 3 8s benefits anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted April 9, 2013 Report Share Posted April 9, 2013 This is an absolute clusterfuck 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.