DoofersDad

Dundee appear to have confirmed to the SPFL that they have not voted but have not informed them on whether they intend to vote. And whilst the 5pm Friday deadline was missed, that was just a requested deadline and legally Dundee don't need to vote until a 28 day period is up. The SPFL cannot inform other clubs whether the proposal has carried or not until either Dundee cast their vote or the 28 day period is up. It is vital that we move on and that at least the payments are made to cash strapped clubs. Dundee know this and said as much in their statement. It may be that Dundee are simply making a point here that the 5pm deadline was far too short for proper consideration of such a lengthy document on which many clubs had not been consulted. Given how important their vote has now become after the SPFL were foolish enough to announce how the vote was going before some clubs had cast their votes, it may be that Dundee are trying to get some assurances before they case their vote. I think we will get clarity soon as they will make themselves very unpopular with other clubs if they hold this up too long. As reported above, according to Sky, there is a technical question about the competence of Dundee's failure to vote, but the biggest question of competence must be about the competence of the SPFL. Yet agains, they make Scottish football the laughing stock of the football world.

I would assume it means 2 clubs other than Dundee have voted against the the proposal.

https://dundeefc.co.uk/news/club-statement-24/ Dundee have confirmed they are not happy with the proposal but their statement doesn't actually state whether or not they voted. The Record has apparently got conformation that Dundee have informed the SPFL that they have declined to vote. If that is a formal abstention then the proposal falls. What a bizarre saga this is. The SPFL could make a a bob or two selling the film rights - should be the comedy of the year!

Newspaper headlines can be very misleading. If the SPFL were even neutral on the subject of restructuring, they would not have linked the current vote with to the prospect of restructuring. They would have convened discussions on restructuring quite separately from any proposal of what we do with this season, and those discussions would already be happening. There is also the added hurdle of the absurd rule of any restructuring proposal requiring the support of 11 the current 12 premiership sides. Restructuring discussions may take place, but I think it unlikely we will see ourselves back in the top flight next season. I hope I'm wrong! Our club is yet to put a statement out on the topic of this vote. They made a very principled stand on the James Keating red card so it will be very interesting to hear what the club have to say in due course.

Rangers' statement reads We prepared this update in advance of the scheduled SPFL board meeting this morning, in the full anticipation that the SPFL board would rule our proposed resolution was not competent. As a member club, we sought assistance from the SPFL Executive on several occasions yesterday, to ensure our resolution was deemed competent. For the avoidance of doubt, no advice was forthcoming prior to the meeting starting. Now that the SPFL have belatedly identified the reason why our members resolution was not competent, we will immediately resubmit our resolution, based upon their advice. If this advice had been forthcoming earlier, we would not have lost valuable time in this process. We are confused as to why attempts have been made to slow the progress of Rangers’ resolution. Either, they or the SPFL are telling porkies, because the SPFL statement directly contradicts what Rangers are saying. On such an important issue that affects all clubs in the SPFL this is very concerning. It will be very interesting to see whether the belated "help" from SPFL lawyers will result in a motion being accepted as competent by the SPFL. If not, then I would expect that the SPFL motion would be defeated.

Rangers' motion rejected by SPFL as "not competent". Interesting comments from Ibrox. https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/rangers-football-club-members-update/

The Rangers are not exactly my favourite club, but I have to say I think they are making a very good point with their resolution. It does seem to me that the SPFL proposal smacks of bullying tactics. It's a sort of "vote for our motion and you'll get your money now and we'll look at league reconstruction." Although, looking at league reconstruction doesn't mean they have any intention of actually having any reconstruction. With the current cash flow situation, many clubs will feel they desperately need the money now and will feel pressured into voting for the SPFL proposal. Rangers' motion also calls for the money to be paid up front but calls for wider discussion on options and a club statement from them makes the point that "relegating clubs by a vote would be abhorrent". If the SPFL are serious about possible league reconstruction next season then it seems inappropriate to put a motion which means that specific clubs will be relegated. It should also be noted that whilst the SPFL statement says "we have consulted extensively with clubs in all four divisions" it goes short of saying that they have consulted with all clubs. One assumes that had they consulted all clubs their statement would have specifically stated that. And if they have not consulted all clubs prior to presenting a proposal to clubs to vote on at exceptionally short notice, then one would have to ask why. No doubt today will be a day of frantic phones calls between the various clubs. It would be nice to think that something good could come out of this dreadful coronavirus crisis, and some kind of league reconstruction would be something good. With football over for the season very prematurely, the Rangers motion provides a golden opportunity for some serious and considered discussion about the introduction of restructuring, and perhaps radical restructuring, for next season whilst avoiding the rather unpleasant spectacle of football clubs voting for fellow clubs to be relegated.

It actually says 75% in each division! Given that there are only 10 teams in each of the bottom 3 divisions, that in practice means 80% or 8 of the 10 clubs in favour. To me that sounds as though it will only get through if some clubs take the role of turkeys voting for Christmas. What the SPFL statement doesn't say is what happens if the vote is not carried. What's the alternative? If these are percentages required to carry a resolution then I can't see any suggestion being carried so it will end up being up to the SPFL to impose a solution. I may of course be wrong. The SPFL state they have had extensive discussions with the clubs and therefore should have a handle on what might be accepted by the clubs. It does, after all, seem rather silly to put forward a resolution after consultation when you know it is not going to gain support. The SPFL wouldn't do anything silly would they? It will be interesting to see if the club puts out a statement regarding this.

The Government has made a lot of pledges and commitments to provide financial support. Inevitably it will not reach all who most urgently need the support but it will help a lot of folk. It will also cost an awful lot of money and short of borrowing it, there appears to be no plan of where it is going to come from. Some emergency measures to raise taxes in the short term would not go amiss. As most of us in a position where we are unable to go out and spend as much money as we usually do, those whose income has not been adversely affected by the current situation should be in a position to pay a bit more tax to help those less fortunate. The Tory party has always been the party of low tax, but they are making spending commitments like never before. So perhaps its time to finally hit the very rich with some serious taxation and impose some more moderate tax hikes for the relatively well off.

I find this quite extraordinary. Calderwood, as CMO was the lead person on advising the Government on measures which were designed to "save lives and protect the NHS". She made a conscious decision to do precisely what she was telling the nation not to do and she did this not just once but twice! In so doing, and on the basis of her own message, her actions risked lives. It was a betrayal of every single NHS worker. It also seriously undermined the vitally important message she was charged with championing and utterly destroyed her own credibility. It seems staggering to me that once her actions came to light that she didn't resign immediately. Her actions were so irresponsible that it would not surprise me if the General Medical Council called her to account. They might consider her actions as gross professional misconduct. I also find the First Minister's response quite inexplicable. Usually she is a pretty shrewd woman with good judgement, but I'm afraid she has seriously misjudged this. We are in the biggest peacetime crisis of our lives and if ever there was a case where immediate dismissal is called for, this is it. I don't for a minute question the point that Calderwood's advice has been extremely helpful to the First Minister in recent weeks, but surely the First Minister should realise that Calderwood's advice ceases to be helpful when her credibility has been fatally undermined by her own refusal to follow her own advice! Secondly, saying she still needs to have Calderwood's advice implies the First Minister doesn't have any other senior doctor in Scotland who is capable of giving the necessary advice. To imply Calderwood was irreplaceable must have been a real kick in the teeth to the rest of the team and to Public Health consultants across Scotland.

I'm surprised they are not arguing for a pay rise as obviously this would mean even more taxes going in to boost the NHS.

Thanks for posting that RiG. I think that second goal from Iain Stewart is my all time favourite ICT goal! Great work from from Barry and then such a casual, controlled and cheeky finish. Sublime!

It's a nightmare. I think we can assume that it is highly likely that in Europe most leagues are not going to be able to complete the current season before the next season is due to start, so if there can at least be a universal decision that no further games will take place in the current season, (they are still actually playing in Belarus!) then we can then begin to move and consider the options. I'm sure we all have our opinions and preferences but the key consideration of the authorities will be to avoid legal challenge from those clubs disadvantaged. Bear in mind that a legal challenge could result in an injunction to prevent any games in a league taking place until the process of the challenge (and perhaps any appeals) have been heard.Some leagues and associations may have rules on the process to follow in the event of unforeseen events preventing the completion of the season and others may not. It may be that some leagues are responsible for determining how the league positions are decided but a separate body determines how promotion works between different leagues. One then has to consider how consistent the local rules are with any guidance and rules laid down by the international ruling bodies. I am sure clubs, leagues and associations around the world are busy consulting with their lawyers. In England the FA has come to the decision (yet to be ratified by its Council, I believe) that the season for clubs below the national league structure is to be declared null and void. Clearly some clubs who have had outstanding seasons are far from happy with that, but my guess is that this may be seen more widely as the fairest (or least unfair) and easiest solution.

Don’t know about Doncaster Rovers but we’ve certainly had some donkeys in the past.

I certainly agree with you about Nicholas Witchell, and from what I have heard, the Royals themselves regard him as sickly sycophantic and toadying. But I do feel a bit sorry for Charles. All his adult life he's been waiting for a vacancy to arrive and then after 50 years of waiting, instead of getting a coronation he gets coronavirus.

I think Sean Porter had that number in 2008/9 but I'm not aware it had been used prior to that.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-52049039 I read this report just before coming on to this site. I wouldn't say this represented "sycophantic deference" at all. The correspondent describes the decision to test Prince Charles as "puzzling" and the report has a clear focus on those people who are critical of the decision. It is, of course, perfectly appropriate to report on the fact that Prince Charles has tested positive as he is the heir to the throne.

Whether this crisis results in us playing in the top tier or not, next season is certainly going to be a challenging one for the club. It will be a very challenging one for many of the supporters too. Some will find themselves better off as a result. Pensioners and those in jobs which are considered essential will not see any fall in their income but as they cannot go on holiday or go out to the pub or restaurant or entertainment venues, they will be spending a good bit less money than usual and will maybe be able to spend a bit more on the football. However, for many it will a very different picture with loads of businesses "on hold" and workers being paid reduced wages and, in many cases, laid off. The Government may be putting unprecedented amounts of money into the economy to support people but it will only go so far and many will fall through the net. The recovery will be slow and painful. In these circumstances any hike in season ticket prices will make it difficult for some long standing fans to afford. What we need is some innovative thinking and collaborative working to find ways of securing funding from those best able to afford it whilst making attendance affordable for all. The club's excellent initiative to distribute food packages to some of its older supporters is one which has generated a lot of goodwill in the community. When all this is over, hopefully it will the turn of the wider community to show its support for its football club.

Why restrict sandwiches? Who on earth would want to horde them?!

I’m sure most clubs would want to get the season finished, but unless you get it finished by 30th June then there will be all sorts of contractual difficulties. This is going to get very messy indeed. You could use current league positions on a points / goal difference per game but it could be considered unfair because some teams will have played stronger teams more often than weaker teams. It is difficult to see any proposal for resumption which would not be open to legal challenge.

It’s a relatively easy decision to take to suspend the season, but it will be far more difficult to decide how to proceed when the suspension is lifted. When will that be? If the epidemic peaks in May as suggested then it is unlikely the suspension would be lifted before the end of June. It would presumably be too late to complete the current season before the start of the next. So what are the alternatives? Make this season null and void? In which case we would still be in the 2nd tier with Dundee Utd. Use current league positions as final positions? That would mean Hearts being relegated and us having a play off with Hamilton. Or using the results of the 1st 2 rounds of matches as the final positions so that it would reflect each side playing everybody else home and away? There would be arguments for all these options and clubs would favour the one that suited them best. It’s not going to be easy. But what may be an even bigger problem is the financial implications for clubs (like ours) with very tight budgets. No doubt we will hear more as the implications of the suspension become clearer, but I fear that this crisis may well threaten the viability of a few senior Scottish clubs.

No. It proposes 3 divisions with ICT in the top flight. Sounds good to me!

If it doesn’t go ahead it will mean that County will still be the reigning champions

There’s no threshold for a police presence. The club has a contract with the police and whether or not there is a police presence is decided on a risk assessment basis. If the police are not present then it may of course be that police are subsequently called if there is an incident.

It’s interesting that the stated reason for stopping public events with over 500 people in Scotland is to relieve pressure on the emergency services. It is not a measure designed to reduce virus spread. But given that we don’t have a police presence or standby ambulance at most of our games then this might be regarded as rather arbitrary. As yet, I think this is still just a “suggestion” rather than a Government directive and I am sure the SFA will be seeking some urgent clarification and discussion on the implications of the suggestion. The SFA have confirmed that all of Saturday’s games are going ahead as usual.