DoofersDad

This is just such a difficult situation for all involved in trying to find a way forward. So much is completely out of the hands of those trying to come together to make decisions which will be acceptable to such a wide variety of needs and interests. In some ways it is great that we have now seen some modest relaxation of the lockdown rules but there is a lot of scientific advice saying that even this is too much too soon. The UK still has one of the highest rates in the world for new infections and the rates are a good bit higher than when other countries started to ease lockdown. There is a risk that rates could start to go back up again with a resultant return to full lockdown. It is clear that one of the last things to return will be mass gatherings and that is a real challenge for football clubs which rely more heavily on gate receipts for their survival. It is possible for the big clubs to play behind closed doors and get money in through televised coverage. Also, amateur clubs and some semi professional clubs could also survive as they get so little income from gate receipts anyway. Also, easing of lockdown may allow for gatherings of 100 or so provided the space available allows for social distancing rules to be respected, so a club which normally gets gates of 300 may be able to carry on as normal but a club with gates of 3000 will not. It is therefore clubs like ours that are likely to find it hardest to get back to some kind of normality. There is no easy way out of this. What is vital is that we get the virus under control and we can all help in this in maintaining social distancing and hygiene rules when we do go out. Then when football does finally return to our stadium, those of us that can still afford will need to make a point of supporting the club as much as we can. Whatever next season holds for ICT, the one thing we can guarantee is that it will need the support of its fans.

When I accessed the site there was a "thank you for your vote" message. I haven't voted but would have voted for Mark Ridgers. There appeared to be an option for the young players the year but my vote wasn't registered. The "vote" button simply disappeared when I moved the cursor over it. Clicking anyway made no difference with my chosen player still highlighted and the "vote" button reappearing when I moved my cursor away.

I have some sympathy for your view Lizi. But I'm afraid the "powers that be" do have an idea of what we want. The real power here is Sky TV, and their viewing figures show that the Scottish viewing public want to watch The Rangers and Celtic and particularly when they play each other. They also know that Scots would rather sit at home or in the pub and watch Liverpool or Man Utd or Barcelona than go out and support their local team. As long as premiership clubs feel they will be better off with the TV money than without it, then our league structure (at the top end at least) will be dictated by how much the TV companies are willing to pay for what.

It was good to hear our Chairman totally refute the suggestion that ICT were involved in a secret motion to null and void the season. There is not a shred of evidence that our Board and CEO have been anything other than totally consistent in their position throughout this fiasco. Perhaps those on here having a pop at our club should get in touch with those Chairmen and media outlets who have made the allegation and ask them to produce some evidence and to explain what our club would possibly have to gain from a null and void scenario. It is true that ICT were on board with Rangers and Hearts on an alternative motion to separate the payments to clubs from any decision on the final league placements and relegation and promotion issues. Scot Gardiner is on record as saying that the SPFL tried to dissuade them from pushing forward with the motion on the basis that if the motion was not passed it would leave us in a null and void situation (even though that would only ever have been the case if nothing else was agreed!). It seems likely to me that other clubs have somehow got the impression that the motion the 3 clubs were suggesting as an alternative to the SPFL's own motion was, in fact, a proposal for a null and void position. I wonder who could possibly have given them that impression?

Interesting article by Tom English. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52646285 In it, he says "Scottish football missed an opportunity to examine itself three years ago and it has missed another opportunity now. Strip away the bile and all the inter-club warfare and ask a simple question - can we do better than this? If a neutral party put that to a vote and asked club leaders, players and supporters to respond yes or no, what would the result look like? Can we do better? The answer, surely, would be an emphatic yes. This is the problem, though. When you try to lift the bonnet to have a look at how things are done, the thing that some want to know first is who's doing the lifting and why? What's their agenda? Who are they acting on behalf of? What are they really trying to do? That mentality chokes progress. It protects the status quo. Clubs have it in their gift to introduce radical change to the game if they so wish, but they don't want it - or don't want it enough. People like to talk about change, but not many are brave enough to see it through." Seems to sum up the situation pretty well.

Neil Doncaster?

Not unexpected but still very disappointing. The Stenhousemuir Chairman's statement explained very well why having an inquiry was so important. If the various allegations are founded in fact then it is clearly important they are brought out into the open and dealt with. If an independent inquiry found that the allegations were largely baseless then those making the allegations would need to start toeing the line. Either way, the outcome clears the air and allows the organisation to move on. So surely an inquiry should have been welcomed both by those who think the SPFL are doing a good job and those who do not. It seems those who have supported an inquiry are largely clubs who have been publicly critical of the SPFL. These are the clubs who are willing to put their side of things to an independent arbiter. Those who have been supportive of the SPFL position seem unwilling to have the allegations put to independent scrutiny. There really is only one conclusion that you can draw from that! It is all very well saying that we now need to draw a line under this and work together, but the best opportunity for that was for all to accept the conclusions of an independent inquiry. Working together in an organisation where the leadership clearly adopts a bullying culture of divide and rule and where nobody can trust anybody else will not be easy. Directors and staff from other clubs will have moaned about the SPFL in private and will have pledged their support, but then been too gutless to act. How on earth are you supposed to work constructively in that kind of environment? No doubt the club will put out another statement, but it does now need to accept the decision of the majority of member clubs and focus on the season ahead.

Not only are our club rightly incensed by the Record article, I imagine that McArthur is non too pleased either. The Record states "But McArthur hit back when he released a statement of his own on Dunfermline’s official website, rejecting Gardiner’s claims and giving details of a counter proposal to null and void the league." and "Details of Gardiner’s plan only emerged as a group of Championship clubs threw their weight behind a statement from Dunfermline chairman Ross McArthur - in which he mentions for the first time a proposal to have the Scottish season wiped from the record books." At no point in his statement did McArthur claim that ICTFC had any such plan! The point McArthur was making was that if the clubs rejected the SPFL motion and then the alternative one proposed by Rangers, Hearts and ICT, then we could be left in the null and void scenario. It was not an inevitability though. It would only have happened if the SPFL failed to get agreement on alternatives. My understanding is that the null and void scenario was one our club was keen to avoid and, far from us proposing it, it was the SPFL which was using it to threaten clubs to vote for their motion!

It is remarkable how little is actually said in McArthur's statement beyond a bit of self-indulgent, indignant bluster. He limits himself to the allegation of threats and says that all he was doing was pointing out that if the SPFL failed and the Rangers' motion was subsequently put and failed, that distribution of Championship prize money might be dived into 10 equal portions. He ignores the fact that Inverness would be the 2nd biggest loser in that scenario and therefore stood to benefit more than most from supporting the SPFL motion. He ignores the fact that the "consequences" he mentions would only become reality if the SPFL chose to make them so, and therefore fails to understated why this was rightly seen as a "threat" rather than merely unavoidable "consequences". McArthur concludes " There are many more things I would like to say, but I will retain my dignity and continue to be more concerned about the long term future of Scottish football at this time. The endless point scoring is becoming tiresome, and I would have preferred to rise above it, but I have a duty to protect the reputation of Dunfermline Athletic FC." What gutless, pompous cr*p! Hiding behind his role as Pars Chairman allows him to squirm out of answering a range of valid concerns raised in the ICT statement. As a member of the SPFL Board he also has a duty to the the other 41 member clubs and to the wider reputation of Scottish football. That is a duty he is abjectly failing in.

Roy, this is what you said in 2012. “The majority of fans throughout the country are telling us the SPL structure as it stands isn’t working. “The customer is telling us the product isn’t right and interest has started to wane. We need to grow up and do something about that before giving anyone the opportunity to say the game is dying. “We’re doing fine and we’re getting to know the league but I’m more interested in reconstruction. “I have no view as yet on what is the perfect solution, whether it’s to expand the league to 14 or even 16, but we have to take a longer-term view of the SPL.” Don't betray "the majority of fans throughout the country" Roy. Man up and let's have some Highland solidarity here!

If there's one sure way of never getting change, it is to stop debating.

Yes, very predictable but it was a lot more than a distraction. it made the task of planning for the restart of football post Coronavirus even more difficult because clubs simply didn't know in what division they would be playing. It also illustrates the dishonesty of the SPFL for linking their vote to end the season with a promise to look at reconstruction when they knew it was never going to happen. Forget the need for an 11-1 vote of Premiership sides, apparently a majority of Premiership sides have told the SPFL that they are opposed to any change in the 12,10,10,10 structure. The SPFL could have established that with 24 hours weeks ago. They could then have put a clear motion about the end of season to the clubs without any dishonest carrots being dangled. It absolutely stinks.

The club is in an incredibly difficult position at the moment. With discussions going on around restructuring, there is a real possibility that we might be back in the top flight next season. But then there is a real possibility that we won't. The club simply don't know where we will be playing but they do know that the revenue streams from those two options would be very different. In these circumstances it is almost impossible to do any realistic budgeting and to decide who they want to keep and who they don't. It may well be that the best option is to plan for just keeping afloat in the Championship. If we do end up in the Premiership then we would do so on a very low budget and would be hot favourites for the drop. However, a low budget and increased revenue stream would help make us financially stronger and would allow us to be in a much better position to be competitive in the Championship the year after in the likely event of us being relegated next year. Of course, we might not get relegated, in which case we would be in a position to strengthen. The club might expect that if we end up in the Premiership, we will be a more attractive option to out of contract players who may be happy to be on a lower wage if it gives them exposure in the top flight. The club is not really in a position to be making commitments to out of contract players at this time. Once a decision on the possible restructuring is made then the club should be in a better position to make decisions. The continuing Coronavirus situation will, however, continue to impose other very considerable uncertainties for some time to come.

Looks like a 14,14,16 option is what is coming out of the discussions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52545305 Like the 14,10,10,10 it has the advantage that no team would be relegated this season. As pointed out above, the league 2 sides seem keen on a 14, 14, 14. I suppose the devil is in the detail with proposals around splits and play-offs and (for the league 2 sides) the arrangements for teams dropping into the minor leagues. It looks as though the SPFL will put a proposal to the clubs if they have reason to believe that any particular option will receive the necessary support. No doubt there is frantic activity behind the scenes trying to find a way of getting some consensus. Any of these options would have us in the top flight next season.

Not having any reconstruction is also highly problematical. If you do that, do you call the current season null and void or do you you say that final positions are as per the recent controversial vote? If the latter, how do you deal with the play-off places? If you just shelve the play-offs so it is a simple one up, one down between championship and premiership then that is in itself a form of reconstruction as it is applying different rules to those previously agreed. The 14, 10,10,10 idea seems the best to me as it avoids teams being relegated following an incomplete season. The point to remember is that if you do that, it doesn't need to be a permanent solution. It is a sensible solution to the immediate problem and allows breathing space for a more considered look at reconstruction when things have settled down. The real problem here is the voting system and the opportunity should be taken to look at that. Needing the Premiership clubs to vote 11-1 in favour of a motion is patently absurd. Equally, requiring a simple majority would also be absurd because you would end up with constant change due to one or two clubs changing their mind. Most organisations require something like a two thirds majority for change. This is tried and trusted. This would prevent change when there was a temporary change of view of a small number of clubs, but it allows for change when there is a clear majority appetite for change. Until the voting rules are changed then we are not going to get a solution which is in the best interests of Scottish football

I seem to remember eyebrows being raised last year by some folk wondering why Motherwell were signing Polworth when they thought he wasn't good enough to be in our starting line up. Some players just need better players around them to show what they are capable of. Polworth would see the clever ball into space but far too often those around him just weren't on the same wavelength. This season he has been a major reason for Motherwell's good performance in the Premiership. I think White is also an intelligent player and his problem has been that he makes the runs into the space where the midfielders should be playing the ball but all too often, don't. I can see Polworth and White combining pretty well. Despite the frustrations and un-called for criticism from some of the fans, big Jordan always gave 100%. I'll be sorry to see him go but wish him the good fortune he deserves.

I do most of my food shopping in Dingwall and find that wrapping my ICT scarf over my face is an excellent way of ensuring folk keep at least 2m away from me!

Scot Gardiner has asked me to put this link onto CTO as donations to Mikey's line have been drying up during this period when the need for support for folk has never been greater. This is a great initiative from the manager and it would be great if folk could share this to help make the event a success.

There is currently no plan for Livi to be on board with. What they are on board with is their own proposal. I don't like their proposal as it seems to do away with the play offs apart from potentially between the Championship and the Premiership. The play-offs keep the season meaningful to the end of the season for several clubs. I'm not sure why they would want to move away from that.

Theres a separate thread on the restructuring. The details of the panel have been posted there.

Welcome to the forum! The only thing that makes sense to me is that they are playing the long game. I honestly can't see both Rangers and Celtic voting for a restructuring that involves more than 14 teams in the Premiership. If we have a 14 team top flight next season with Hearts not being relegated and Utd and us going up, then Dundee will be best placed to go up the following season. Once up, it will be easier to stay in a top flight of 14 rather than 12 providing the promotion / relegation arrangements stay the same. Next season will be difficult to plan for, what with all the loss of revenue this season and the continuing uncertainty. Dundee will probably be better placed that any other championship to cope with that and it would give them the time to make the necessary plans to ensure they were competitive in the top flight the season after. Compare that with the situation we find our selves in. The priority for the Board is simply survival at the moment. If reconstruction took us back into the top flight we will have neither the time nor the money to strengthen the squad. We would be hot favourites for the drop. After the traumas of coronavirus, Dundee may be planning to rebuild their strength carefully and steadily. If we are in the Premiership next season we may find we overstretch ourselves and end up suffering from post viral fatigue syndrome.

Interesting. Can't help but notice that Dundee are represented after being persuaded (and allowed) to change their vote. Partick too after deciding against taking legal action over the vote. Both the Highland and Lowland Leagues are represented but neither of the big 2. It smacks to me as a sop to some of the smaller clubs to make them think that the SPFL is serious about restructuring and a sop to Hearts and Partick to suggest that the SPFL are doing their best to prevent them from being relegated after an unfinished season. They may come up with some good suggestions which have the support of most of the clubs, but unless Rangers or Celtic support the proposals then any proposal simply won't be carried and we will be back to square one. I live in hope though.

It makes for much greater opportunity for moving through the divisions. For instance, the top four in the Championship could also be the top four in the league of 8 and therefore all get promoted to the Premier Division. That makes it quite appealing and is also why there is absolutely zero chance of 11 of the current Premiership sides voting for it.

Unless there has been some shady deal behind the scenes, I can't see Partick taking the SPFL's acceptance of Dundee's changed vote lying down. There are 3 issues here. The first is the obvious one of whether the rules allow for a club to retract their vote and to subsequently vote differently. The second is whether the rules allow for information about how the vote is going to be released before all clubs have voted. The third is perhaps more intriguing. Remember that the 5pm deadline was merely a request and as per the rules there is actually a 28 day deadline. Dundee submitted their revised vote after the requested 5pm deadline. If Dundee's retraction and subsequent revised vote is accepted by the SPFL as legitimate, then surely it is open to any other club also to inform the SPFL to consider their vote as "not cast" and then subsequently submit a changed vote at any time within the 28 hours deadline. So, for instance, if Ayr United decided that the subsequent discussions were not to their liking and they felt they had been duped by the SPFL, they could change their mind in 3 weeks time thereby causing the motion to fall after all! It follows therefore that given the precedent of the changed Dundee vote, the SPFL should not be taking any actions in implementing the result of the vote until the 28 days are up. The coronavirus pandemic is an unprecedented event and places clubs and their employees in real financial difficulty. The SPFL's failure to apply a bit of basic common sense and separate payments to clubs from wider issues of final positions and possible restructuring is quite mind boggling. There is an easy solution to this which would find the support of the vast majority of the Scottish football community. Instead the SPFL find themselves facing demands for an external inquiry and the possibility of legal challenge.

If the increase in the number of clubs resulted in Rangers and Celtic playing each other less that 4 times a year, then not only would restructuring mean more clubs to share the money, but there would probably be less money to share. The amount of TV money is dependent on viewing figures and the harsh reality is that more people tune in to watch The Rangers play Celtic than ICT play Livingston. In reality I can't see all but one of the current Premiership sides voting for a significant increase in the size of the division although increasing it to 14 might actually work well. If the split occurred after each team had played each other home and away (i.e. after 26 matches) then a top 6, bottom 8 split would allow each team to play the other teams in their sections once more both home and away. This would mean that the top 6 would play a further 10 games for a total of 36 and the bottom 8 would play a further 14 for a total of 40. The beauty of this is that you avoid the somewhat unfair inevitability of the current system where some teams will play one or two teams 3 times away and only 1 at home and vice-versa.Splitting it 7:7 so that all play 38 games would also work but the 6:8 split means that there is less chance of problems with fixture congestion for the top teams who may be involved both in Europe and in the latter stages of the cup competitions. If there is any chance of getting 11 of the Premiership sides to agree to this then surely it is now. The Rangers have come out very strongly indeed that it is morally wrong to vote to relegate a club. By rejecting an increase in the number in the Premiership, they would, in effect, be voting to relegate Hearts. Of course, it is not beyond the realms of possibility the The Rangers would stab Hearts in the back but they would now be under huge moral pressure to support such a proposal. The proposal would mean that no club was relegated following an incomplete season and that, surely is right and proper. There is a real opportunity for some sanity to emerge from all this mess. But this is the SPFL we are talking about and therefore I very much doubt that sanity will prevail.