St Mirren to vote against proposal to change league structure http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22063775 Well done Saints having the bottle to join RC and oppose these absurd proposals. Fans throughout Scotland already showing their relief common sense has been applied.

Couldn't agree more - hopefully other clubs will listen to the majority of their fans and vote down this latest ludicrous proposal. How about it Caley Thistle? The manager doesn't want it neither do the supporters.....

What pretty much all supporters want is a merger of the league bodies and the end of the SPL's ludicrous 11-1 majority voting requirement.  Without overcoming those obstacles, nothing will ever change.

 

The number of teams in the league is actually pretty irrelevant to me, because if it doesn't work then you can just change it. I think it would be really sad if we missed this opportunity for fundamental reform.

What pretty much all supporters want is a merger of the league bodies and the end of the SPL's ludicrous 11-1 majority voting requirement.  Without overcoming those obstacles, nothing will ever change.

 

The number of teams in the league is actually pretty irrelevant to me, because if it doesn't work then you can just change it. I think it would be really sad if we missed this opportunity for fundamental reform.

 

Indeed the words cutting, nose, spite and face come to mind.

What is essential is one league body, a change in the voting system, playoffs and a filtering down of a proportion of TV and sponsorship income.

 

All that could be achieved without this ludicrous contrived 'middle eight' business. If it is such an attractive arrangement why have the only leagues in the world to have experimented with it long since abandoned it ?

 

Well done St Mirren and County. I hope we have the bottle to follow suit.

Some people must be under the impression that there is a perfect alternative re-structure just waiting in the wings that the clubs can get behind, there isn't. It's what's on the table or the status quo. If the re-structure goes ahead it does however make it far easier for changes to league sizes/setups to be made down the line. That's the way it is sometimes, you've got to watch the crappy rom-com with the missus tonight so that you can go to the pub next weekend.

I think SPL 2 could be around the corner he first division clubs are not going to like this as they need that money just look at Dunfermline so even if it doesn't go through we haven't heard the last of restructuring

Change it.. I don't give a feck. Yolo...

I think RC consulted their fans on these proposals. Is that correct and did ICT do likewise?

Hmm.

 

 

So Chuckles Le Vert turns up at Midden Park and then a week later they announce that they will be voting No.

All that could be achieved without this ludicrous contrived 'middle eight' business. If it is such an attractive arrangement why have the only leagues in the world to have experimented with it long since abandoned it ?

 

The problem is, it can't.  If it could then it wouldn't be on the table.

 

It's part of the compromise needed to get sufficient support to give the proposals...which should be more about the improved financial and voting structures than the league structure...a chance of coming to fruition.

 

To get clubs in the SPL to give up something...mostly money...then you need the sweetener of increased opportunity for improved income.  i.e. you only need top 8 to get games against better supported clubs who will put more punters through your gate.

 

To get support from the SFL you need to give them a better bite at the cherry of top league football...an improved chance at success in return for the hard work an investment.

 

The 12-12 to 8-8-8 is the "transition", because you can't get enough support for any proper leap to a larger league.  It's far easier to move from the newly proposed setup to a 16 team top league, than it is from what we have at the moment....not purely because it will have improved voting structure, but because (all being well) people in positions of authority will come to accept that there's not this huge gulf between bottom of the SPL and top of Division 1.

 

You also shouldn't believe all you read in the press about this system being used elsewhere.  It actually served it's purpose in Austria and Switzerland...and if it was so bad, then why did Switzerland use it for 15 years!!!!

With due respect Caley D, absolute tosh.  Put aside selfish self interest and self preservation and all these things could be achieved without the rest of the nonsense.

 

The only thing stopping it is pure greed and if ICT found itself outside the self serving clique of the SPL I am sure we would be singing a different tune.

I think RC consulted their fans on these proposals. Is that correct and did ICT do likewise?

 

The club asked that CJT present the information, which we did at a meeting following the Societies AGM (meeting was open to all fans, ICT or otherwise).

With due respect Caley D, absolute tosh.  Put aside selfish self interest and self preservation and all these things could be achieved without the rest of the nonsense.

 

The only thing stopping it is pure greed and if ICT found itself outside the self serving clique of the SPL I am sure we would be singing a different tune.

 

Of course there's self interest...but the self interest actually serves those outside the SPL more than it does those in it.

 

The question is, how do you move beyond the self interest when you have a (current) 11-1 voting structure?  It needs to be done one step at a time and with compromise.  The alternative is that we stay as we are now and just keeping banging our head off the wall and get nowhere.

 

Trust me, I've had all the frustrate and angry conversations there is to have with people (including the club) over this....but it doesn't change the fact there needs to be change and this, under the circumstances, is the only option with any chance of moving things in the right direction.

Change it.. I don't give a feck. Yolo...

 

The 95%+ of Scottish Football Fans who haven't attended any meetings on the matter, or didn't complete the fans survey, would seem to agree with you.

 

Which, if you look at it, means that those who have said no equate to less than 5%...which is less than 1/11 representation.  Surely fans can't seriously think that decisions should be made on that kind of minority!!!

The big problem with that is that a sizeable majority of this industry's paying customers disagree. As with any walk of life, the commercial organisations ( in this case professional football clubs) ignore the wishes of the paying punters at their peril.

ive just been thinking what will the new body be called when the spl and the sfl join

The big problem with that is that a sizeable majority of this industry's paying customers disagree. As with any walk of life, the commercial organisations ( in this case professional football clubs) ignore the wishes of the paying punters at their peril.

 

No, the sizeable majority of the industry's paying customers are so disinterested that they can't even be bothered to take the opportunity to have their say on the matter.  

 

That's something in itself which I find extremely frustrating.  Not in a long time have fans had such opportunity to be heard, yet they make it so easy for people to ignore them because they won't take the time needed to attend a meeting or take part in a survey.

 

Look back 12 months to the Rangers scenario, promises of extra support if clubs "did the right thing" etc....did it transpire?  Did it heckers like.

It would appear agreement on post split fixtures cant be made, what chance league reconstruction???

The fact that they have not been vocal does not mean that they don't hold strong views. Personally, I have not attended a single meeting or forum but I bet that my views are every bit as strong and as well informed as those who have and every bit as valid.

So, I wonder if there will be a 12 team SPL 1 and 12 team SPL 2, both controlled by the SPL, sharing out the money more equitably, and regional leagues below that.

 

If so, that would be much better than anything I've heard so far.

The 11 - 1 majority for change is the big problem here.  The current situation illustrates the folly of those who were short sighted enough to agree to it in the first place.    Having such a voting rule cannot be justified by anyone with a shred of decency in them and in my view those who oppose it should band together and put pressure on those who don't.  I suppose if we thrashed Celtic 10 - 2 they would claim the 3 points.

The fact that they have not been vocal does not mean that they don't hold strong views. Personally, I have not attended a single meeting or forum but I bet that my views are every bit as strong and as well informed as those who have and every bit as valid.

 

So how do prove these people hold one view or the other?  You or I claiming they are as opposed to the proposal holds as much weight as anyone else saying they don't.

 

FWIW, I actually don't believe the vast majority of people who attend games give two hoots on this issue.  All they want to do is go along and watch a game of football and see their team win....that comes from getting out there and actually talking to them.

 

You also need to remember that much of what fans have been asking for is delivered by the proposal, it's only the larger league issue that is the stumbling block.  Are they really willing to give up the other 85% of things they asked for and consign football to who knows how many more years of the status quo through pigheadedness?

 

The setup as it is just now will never deliver a large league....like it or not.  At least with the proposed changes you get a more democratic voting structure which has a chance of delivering a larger league somewhere down the line.

 

Taking the ball and storming off home in a huff achieves nothing.

The 11 - 1 majority for change is the big problem here.  The current situation illustrates the folly of those who were short sighted enough to agree to it in the first place.    Having such a voting rule cannot be justified by anyone with a shred of decency in them and in my view those who oppose it should band together and put pressure on those who don't.  I suppose if we thrashed Celtic 10 - 2 they would claim the 3 points.

 

What's even more ironic is that two of the clubs who have been most vocal against the 11-1 are going to use it to their (perceived) advantage to prevent change!!!

The 11 - 1 majority for change is the big problem here. The current situation illustrates the folly of those who were short sighted enough to agree to it in the first place. Having such a voting rule cannot be justified by anyone with a shred of decency in them and in my view those who oppose it should band together and put pressure on those who don't. I suppose if we thrashed Celtic 10 - 2 they would claim the 3 points.

What's even more ironic is that two of the clubs who have been most vocal against the 11-1 are going to use it to their (perceived) advantage to prevent change!!!

Or are using it to prevent what they perceive to be the wrong change! Seems to me from listening to Stewart Gilmour on the radio tonight that the biggest issue St Mirren has is the 11-1 voting structure remaining in place.

Change is needed, but surely having a more balanced voting structure needs to be pushed through as a priority - before the old firm gang up together in a couple of seasons time?

The 11-1 voting structure will not remain in place, and that's the problem when those doing the questioning and running these programmes have not done their homework properly.

 

What does is exist is something called "protected matters".  These are put in place to offer stability and time for change to take effect and  for clubs to adjust within a "known" environment of operation.  They also stop people forcing through change under the guise of "for everyone's benefit", only to adjust them the moment they get what they want.  They are normally time locked....and in this instance that is 3 years.  All other matters (non protected matters) would be decided as is normal for any business.

 

I don't have a full list of the protected matters within the reconstruction proposals, but it includes the league structure and financial distribution model.

 

In effect, it would take a large majority of the 42 clubs to change any of these "protected matters"....but only during the first 3 years.  After that time, it would take the same level of votes as whatever is set for other business.

 

Gilmour was trying to argue that this was a bad thing because what if they've overlooked something and it desperately needs changed.  Well, if that's the case and it's such a big issue for the majority, then getting the numbers needed to change it within the 3 years would not be a problem.  That has to be better than a structure whereby they could, for example, decide after a year that they wanted rid of 10 teams and the other 32 vote them out of the setup because it only needs 75% (or less).

 

Even if you are absolutely dead set against the "protected matters" issue, you are only being asked to commit to it for 3 years....then it's gone.  Under the status quo we could be stuck with the 11-1 voting structure for much longer than that as there's no certainty that it will ever be changed.

 

The other benefit of these "protected matters" is that it gives you something with a minimum term to go and sell to sponsors, media etc. This, again, gives stability because 3+ year deals can be put in place to secure and grow the league income.  At the moment it seems to be all deals with "get out" clauses if/when things changes or aren't working out for league partners....how can clubs forecast and put long term plans in place within that type of environment?

 

These "protected matters" are not something that has just been added to the proposal, they have been there from at least January and I'd be surprised if it wasn't an element on any of the proposals that have been considered.  In fact, it would be the basis upon which any reconstruction plan must be based.

 

All in all, a total red herring and (IMO) Stuart Gilmour only served to make himself look extremely stupid on Sportsound tonight because there's no good reason to reject reconstruction on that basis....even Roy MacGregors "how do we sell season tickets for the new setup" argument made more sense....and that's saying something!!!