Jump to content

ICT say "NO" to leagues of 10.


Charles Bannerman

Recommended Posts

Thinking more about what I said above, I realised that this has practical examples from North America

... go the money route and fill a few elite teams in a smaller league with superstars from other countries because we have few if any of our own at this time. This kind of short-sightedness may make the game more interesting for a short while but it stifles development outside the elite. Smaller teams cannot make the leap to the big time and homegrown players are neither as valued nor as 'cosmopolitan' as having some mysterious foreigner in your team .... In this sort of scenario teams like ICT could NEVER aspire to reaching the SPL and players like Graeme Shinnie or Nick Ross or even incomers like Jonny Hayes or Adam Rooney would have far fewer opportunities to come in and stake places in a team that would always be looking over its shoulder at relegation should it have the audacity to try and compete with the big boys !!!

The NASL (North American Soccer League) is a perfect example. It was formed in 1968 after a merger between the FIFA sanctioned "US Soccer Association" and the unsanctioned "National Professional Soccer League". It grew slowly but surely until around 1975 and was slowly developing home grown talent but around that time the New York Cosmos caused it to boom exponentially by signing Pele and Beckenbauer. Other big (but fading) names followed ... Alan Ball, Gordon Banks, Peter Beardsley, George Best, Johann Cruyff, Peter Bonetti, Alan Brazil, Willie Donachie, Eusebio, Trevor Francis, Archie Gemmill, Jonny Giles, Bruce Grobelaar, Jim Holton, Geoff Hurst, Wim Jansen, Willie Johnstone, Peter Lorimer, Rodney Marsh, Bobby Moore, Gerd Muller, Johan Neeskens, Jimmy Nicholl, Phil Parkes, Bruce Rioch, Hugo Sanchez, Graeme Souness .... to name but a lot !!!!

It is thought that in many circles this short-term boom, coupled with FIFA's award of the World Cup to Mexico instead of the USA in 1986, and their insistence on removal of some of the 'Americanized' rules in use caused the league to eventually burn itself out. Cosmos were pulling in crowds of 80,000 but behind the scenes there were little or no controls in place and less and less development as young American players were pushed out in favour of ageing 'names' looking for a final pay packet.

... The other alternative is to rebuild it from the ground up. reward teams for developing players, put structure in place that allows teams to develop players, and encourage it. It may take a longer time to become attractive but once you have good players coming through the excitement builds, the costs become more bearable and ultimately teams have assets (players) they can sell/export which allows them to continue their own development. We turn the current downward spiral upside down and hopefully begin an upward trajectory. If we were to become a net exporter of players over the next few years that also heightens awareness and interest from other areas of the globe ....

Major League Soccer was founded in 1993 as part of the agreement reached for the USA to host the World Cup in 1994. It started with 10 teams and this season, which kicks off in March there will be 18 teams (16 x USA teams, 2 x Canada).

Much of the focus of MLS is the development of young players. Every new team coming in has to establish an academy and after an initial couple of seasons where there were a few 'fading' superstars from other countries - much like the NASL - the league shifted its philosophy and focused the development on North American talent in preference to imports. This philosophy has been credited as part of the reason for the USA's better than expected performance in the 2002 World Cup (reaching the QFs) and for the general resurgence in the US national team. With two Canadian teams now in MLS and a third due to join in the next year or two, I personally predict Canada will also experience this bounce as new young talent comes through [TFC signed two youngsters from their own academy last year and blooded another 3 or 4 in other games during the season].

while it is true to say that MLS allows teams to import some players they do put restrictions on it .... David Beckham and Thierry Henry are probably the best known imports right now but their teams cannot just go out and sign a team full of superstars like the old NASL, they must have so many young players in their overall squad, so many domestic players and such like. MLS is also now becoming an exporter of players ... Obvious names are Maurice Edu at Rangers who was the MLS 'rookie of the year' in 2007 and Andy Dorman who went to St Mirren a couple of seasons ago but there are loads of others dotted around leagues in Europe and South America and even some older heads like Freddie Ljunberg, Dwayne DeRosario, Landon Donovan and others are looking to head from MLS to Europe either on a permanent basis or on loan deals until the season restarts.

The league lost money from its creation up until last year but it is now heading into profit and continues to grow slowly but surely with plans to further expand in coming years ..... This is a league that is growing and which has fairly dynamic management.

We may not want to use some of their policies or procedures, but the overall philosophy of development from within is rock solid !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think taking ideas from MLS is a good one, and the A-League, and Russia also have sensible ideas. Having some top foreign players is great, just not 11 mediocre ones.

The problem is, while we are all looking at things such as the MLS for inspiration, Topping Doncaster are making it up by themselves, with a little help from a failed politician/ex-football player.

They've come up with nothing, nada, that is remotely sensible, comprehansive, well thought through, representative or original. Just 2 men making it up by themselves. That's the danger the game faces now.

Who decides the future of the game? Surely not a handful of men that aren't experts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont profess to know the best structure, but I know that a top league of 10 is not it. I would however dispute the fact that we dont have enough 'good teams' .... Was last season not extremely enjoyable in a league of 10 teams that are supposedly inferior to what we are now ? Do the Dunfermlines, Dundees and even Ross Countys of this world not merit some interest? the first two have been in the top flight (as have many others in the lower leagues) and County reached a national final last season as did smaller teams in most of the last few seasons ..... I would make a counter-point to this argument and say that its not that we do not have enough good teams, its that we have two too many teams that because of the current slicing and dicing of finances, sponsorship and TV money have been allowed to grow further and faster than the rest. This is not a serious suggestion - as it would never happen - but how about 2 leagues of 20 with each team playing each other once at home and away each season and a SuperDuper Elite Premier League where the other two play each other every week for the TV companies !!!!

Firstly I don't know how to multi quote but to Tug- It is not the time frame it is the losing 8 games from the season. 4 home game per team, it doesn't generate enough games in that respect. And before someone mentions an expanded league cup, groups, just look at the crowds in the competition just now, even in derbys. It would never make up the shortfall.

As for not having enough good enough team, I ws refering to an 18 team league and we definitely don't. For a start you would have to get rid of any stadium requirement whatsoever as at the moment you could only make 18 teams that meet the current requirements by going down to the 2nd division and then into the 3rd. At the moment we could just about get away with 18 teams but then we would have Cowdenbeath, Morton, Brechin etc at the top of the 1st battling to get into the top league. There is just not enough quality and enough big clubs to sustain an 18 team league. Also there would be so many meaningless games in an 18 team league that it would be so dull. At the moment only 1-3 qualify for Europe, it would create far to many dead games in the middle of the league.

The only options that will be seriously considered I think are 10, 12 or 14 team league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but thats my point ..... we should not be thinking for "at the moment" we should be thinking how we can develop it long term.

Ultimately, other than the actual league structure, one of the biggest problems I see is the fact that we have so many layers of bureacracy. We should have one governing body not 3 (more if you include all the other amateur, welfare or junior associations). we should not have a situation where one entity runs the top league, another runs the three leagues below that and a third supposedly oversees it all and runs the national cup competition ... thats ludicrous.

slim down the bureacracy, have one governing body and if necessary have committees or working groups below that to run the leagues and cups. Have another working group or committee to look after youth and community development and a further one to look at sponsorship and revenues but all under one umbrella organisation. Make the focus on sustaining the current teams, fostering development, and maximising revenues for the league as a whole not just the chosen few. If that means teams must pay a fee to the league which gets ploughed into development or making sure there is not such a huge gulf between payments in each league then so be it .... If a team dropped 10s of thousands in guaranteed league revenue when they dropped from the SPL to SPL2 (or SFL1 or whatever) rather than losing hundreds of thousands then having a league of 10 might then be a realistic possibility as relegation is then a setback rather than something that could actually kill your club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its strange how the teams with the greatest potential to finish in the top six this season-Hearts,Kilmarnock,ICT and United are the realists in this and have their doubts.

Whilst St Johnstone, St Mirren and Aberdeen have so far stated that they are keen on this idea are the ones closest to the edge of the gang plank.

Never mind Motherwells slogan Keep cigarettes away from the matches. Ive got a new one Keep drugs away from the directors you bunch of delusioned numpties (with reference to jonny midden and don)

Edited by 12th Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont profess to know the best structure, but I know that a top league of 10 is not it. I would however dispute the fact that we dont have enough 'good teams' .... Was last season not extremely enjoyable in a league of 10 teams that are supposedly inferior to what we are now ? Do the Dunfermlines, Dundees and even Ross Countys of this world not merit some interest? the first two have been in the top flight (as have many others in the lower leagues) and County reached a national final last season as did smaller teams in most of the last few seasons ..... I would make a counter-point to this argument and say that its not that we do not have enough good teams, its that we have two too many teams that because of the current slicing and dicing of finances, sponsorship and TV money have been allowed to grow further and faster than the rest. This is not a serious suggestion - as it would never happen - but how about 2 leagues of 20 with each team playing each other once at home and away each season and a SuperDuper Elite Premier League where the other two play each other every week for the TV companies !!!!

Firstly I don't know how to multi quote but to Tug- It is not the time frame it is the losing 8 games from the season. 4 home game per team, it doesn't generate enough games in that respect. And before someone mentions an expanded league cup, groups, just look at the crowds in the competition just now, even in derbys. It would never make up the shortfall.

As for not having enough good enough team, I ws refering to an 18 team league and we definitely don't. For a start you would have to get rid of any stadium requirement whatsoever as at the moment you could only make 18 teams that meet the current requirements by going down to the 2nd division and then into the 3rd. At the moment we could just about get away with 18 teams but then we would have Cowdenbeath, Morton, Brechin etc at the top of the 1st battling to get into the top league. There is just not enough quality and enough big clubs to sustain an 18 team league. Also there would be so many meaningless games in an 18 team league that it would be so dull. At the moment only 1-3 qualify for Europe, it would create far to many dead games in the middle of the league.

The only options that will be seriously considered I think are 10, 12 or 14 team league.

Raith Rovers, Dundee, Dunfermline, Falkirk, Partick Thistle all have the grounds and top flight experience. Livingston will likely be promoted this season so thats six teams with everything in place already. So all would likely come from the first div by the time change came about. As for the teams battling to get into the SPL in the future would they not have to show there ambition by meeting the required criterea just like everyone else had to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardcore fans may be bored with playing the same teams 4 times a season, but in order to appeal to a wider audience, the league has to be tight and competitive.

You are kidding yourself on both points. For one thing, Scottish football doesnt appeal to that wide an audience and changing the setup will not change that outside of maybe having an extra old firm game on TV outside the UK each year. and as for competitive ... a little look at who has finished first and second for the last few years will answer that one.

I should clarify what i mean by "wider audience" and "tight and competitive". By "wider audience", i simply mean wider than the hardcore of season ticket holders and regular attendees who continually call for a 16 or 18 team league. Their views should definitely be considered, but clubs cannot be expected to ignore the fact that attendances and tv audiences increase when there is something at stake in a game, games which occur more frequently in tighter leagues in which most of the teams compete for either the title, European places or relegation. The fact that nobody outside the OF can challenge for the title is sad, but there are many cultural and historical reasons for that dominance and it has persisted through 10, 12 and 18 team leagues.

To see how a 16 team SPL might look, it's worth looking at the Swedish and Norwegian leagues of last season. In Norway there were 30 points and 10 teams between the last Europa League place and relegation play-off position. In Sweden, 28 points and 10 teams. That's helluva lot of dead rubber and people just won't watch it IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?spl - just sign this one...we are still against the SPL

To: Scottish Premier League, Scottish Football Association, Scottish Football League, Scottish Parliament

The following persons wish to make known their anger at the Scottish Premier League's ("SPL") decision to deny Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC the right to take up their place in the SPL (on 1st June 2004). We would also like to protest against the SPL's management of the Scottish game as a whole, and to call for the Scottish Football Association ("SFA") to take control of the administration of all leagues in Scotland. This, in our opinion, is the only way that the Scottish game can progress

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

I'm sure a genuine one will appear soon, so its a bit silly asking people to sign a petition for the above, not only does it carry no weight it just makes us look stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some are saying that "meaningless" games are a reason as to why a bigger SPL is a bad idea. I for one disagree with view. While some may be less keen to go to these, that will not turn so many away as the lack of attacking, entertaining football that we lack in this country. If there were more "meaningless" games, then that could encourage a more attacking and open style of football being played in the this county, along with an opportunity to play some more younger players to give them more match experience, especially with good tactical ability. In a 10 team SPL, there'll be more "must not lose" games with teams playing defensive football and little opportunity or excuse to play younger players. This will indeed also hurt as the national team as it's likely that reject foreigners will get a game over local ones. More "meaningless" games could give the opportunity for a young starlet to show off the talent he has, where as a smaller SPL would certainly give less opportunity. Teams may also find in the long run that "meaningless" games may in the end not be so meaningless after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<rant on>

Given that the current SPL set-up, mostly, bar the very odd most welcome bookies' aberration if you are inclined to bet on something such as ICT holding one or other of the OF to a draw, is the most mindbendingly boring set up in existence....what makes the SFA think that reducing the number of teams is the way to go....except to increase the take for the ten left....and to hell with every other team in Scottish football? Being cynical, I do wonder if the ten will be chosen on merit at the end of the season according to league placements if Aberdeen ends up 11th or twelfth or if they reserve the right to do picky and choosy depending on the wishes of the Central Belt Shoo-in clubs.. :ponder:

We can do logic and query whether 42 senior teams in four leagues with a few teams in a few of those leagues paying really relatively silly money to players, are sustainable at all in Scotland, even at the self-important level of Rangers and Celtic, with an average possible attendance, if every soul from babes in arms to old women on zimmers were to attend, of 123,000 per team, when you consider that England, without including the population of Wales could, using a whip, "encourage" nearly 560,000 punters of all ages to turn up and pay at the gate.

Or we can do realism..and acknowledge that the SPL is run by the OF for the OF...and the SFA does not have the backbone of an amoeba.

As a one-time...and long-time...Celtic Supporter, who has, over the years, gradually become more and more hacked off by the influence of the Old Firm on Scottish Football to its detriment, I think that it is well past time Rangers and Celtic were put in their place as one of many and not the be-all and end-all of Scottish football. After all, if the Engish Premiership don't want them, (and they don't appear to want them, despite pleading), what option do they have but play where they are...and in that case, why should they be any more favoured than any other club? How come Dundee went into administration with a lot less debt, while Rangers are still running, but not in official administration attracting penalties....but bank administration just the same. The difference in pure chancer level is what, exactly?

The OF may have been giants in football terms at one time...but no longer...and why on earth should the SFA kowtow to their image of themselves as the most important clubs in Scotland when the only reason they are the best is because they, unlike other teams don't have to live in the real world because there is always someone prepared to make allowances for them..and because there is a plethora (and I admit I was once one of them) of punters who do glory rather than football? I always remember the Lisbon Lions of 1967, when every player was born within 30 miles of Glasgow.......and looking at the Ne-erday team of this year, I was struggling very hard to find a Scotsman in the named squad and bench of either team.

And, in the end, that is not good for Scottish International football...because I am not convinced that every Scottish kid taken up and then let go by the OF is crap....but there is a tendency for the SFA to assume that if they don't play in the SPL/English Premiership after 19 they are not worth looking at....and it is a laughable situation that those scouts paid (I assume) big bucks by the SFA to find suitable Scotland contenders appear to wait for coaches to point them at kids outside the incestuous Central Belt, rather than turning up at games all over the country and actually doing the job for which they are paid.

Scottish Football, a bit like Politics, is a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" set up, and, while I have always hated Quangos with a passion....Scottish football is one place where a Quango of punters, rather than CEOs may just inject an element of realism into the irrationality of Club owners looking to add money to their back pockets by reducing the options so less clubs are getting a share of the available pot.

I'd much rather have a Scotland team of Scots doing relatively well in World football than an SPL team, in which you can count the Scots on two or three fingers, taking every European title in the firmament......but then, maybe I'm weird.

</rant off>

Edited by Oddquine
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raith Rovers, Dundee, Dunfermline, Falkirk, Partick Thistle all have the grounds and top flight experience. Livingston will likely be promoted this season so thats six teams with everything in place already. So all would likely come from the first div by the time change came about. As for the teams battling to get into the SPL in the future would they not have to show there ambition by meeting the required criterea just like everyone else had to do.

That kind of backs up what I said! For that you would have to go into the second division as things stand just to make 18 teams. Then who...6th placed Airdrie in division 2 and two teams at the bottom of the 3rd in Queens Park and Clyde.

As for the teams who would then be challenging to get up we just do not have clubs of a decent size to sustain it so meeting any ambition would start killing off clubs. As the league stands right now Cowdenbeath would be top of a new 1st division. A club who got 500 at their last home game and there are plenty more of their size who would be near the top end of a 1st division. and it is not the same as 'every one else' as the cowdenbeths, Stirlings and Brechins are never battling for promotion to the SPL at the moment as they are not big enough clubs to reach that level, have an 18 top league and then they will be among the next level of team.

Not to mention the tedious amount of meaningless games that would be created, we don't have the level of european places to make it anywhere near interesting outside the top 5, bottom 5 and no reduction of a 'fear factor' will lead to silky football with the standard of player in Scotland. Crowds also drop in meanigless games so that would affect the league as well. The games need to be worth something to bring the crowds out, that is shown in football every year with relegation threatened teams seeing a rise in crowds for big games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The time is here for change. The senior officials of the SFA are, however, still clinging to the past but refer to admit it and change, as if it is a beautiful Princess but in reality they really view it as a Cinderella. Their claptrap is for effect not reform.

If they are astute enough to actually agree that change is now mandatory then they had better have a renaissance in their thinking because the word radical-about-face has not yet apparently entered their Dictionaries.

It's all window dressing and all about money--not player development within the Scottish fabric and not about the fans wishes for sure. And it sure as heck is not about change with the gloves off and a hell-for -leather approach to welcoming change with open arms. It's "well, er, we do want it but ...er, we can't really do it the way they want without having to wring our hands, go bankrupt and we won't be able meet the demands or expectations of the Old Firm ---ad infinitum .

I like the post from the lad who says.."who the heck are Rangers and Celtic anyway, this is 2010 not 1956?" He is right, there are more than two good teams in the SPL.And all the teams should get a far greater share of the pie.

In other words it's "same old, same old" self-serving attitude from the bodies at the top of the SFA but they want to dress it up in crinoline and lace when they actually see it as a frilly frock underpinned with cotton bloomers which they do not think needs changing yet.

The real problem is the Beaks and not Scottish Football. The top of the SFA needs gutting and fresh attitudes and dynamic thought , like what Scotty refers to in North America,is a must.So is amalgamation of all the bodies in football so that there is only one overarching supervisory body.

And a minumim of 14 teams and a max of 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jan 6th, Henry McLeish: "A smaller number of clubs receiving a higher share of income, which recognises the financial problems facing the game, is a very understandable road to go down.

"The fans are close to the game but not its finances. I acknowledge they want a bigger league but it would create serious financial difficulties.

"Everyone has a right to be heard and debate is good but we must be realistic and not pretend the financial nature of our game is going to change overnight."

They are the ones pretending it's going to change overnight! PricewaterHouseCoopers have said in their reports that cutting costs is the way forward. They're the financial experts. Or should we listen to a disgraced politician who resigned after sub-letting his free apartment paid by us. He had to pay back 36,000 quid. Why are we now being told what is good for the game by Topping, McLeish, Regan, Doncaster none of whom are fit to run anything?

They are making it up - they do not know. They've done no no consultation, and have offered only one idea by one man.

Edited by Kirishima
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have ICT actually said "No"?

From what I can see on reports so far (not read this mornings press yet), all they have said is that they didn't expect the 10 team recommendation and will now need to go back and have another board meeting.

When this was talked about a few years back (2006), ICT were actually in favour of it - clicky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we not in a situation where the SPL is always going to be a dead duck and 2 horse race regardless of being 10, 12, 16 or more teams. The fact is that thanks to UEFA the Champions League has killed national leagues, its always the same 2, 3 or 4 teams in each country that win the league and always qualify ignoring blips or billionaires coming in to invest. Other countries of similar size to Scotland have the same issue with a league being dominated by 1 or 2 clubs, just look at Denmark, Belgium etc always the same teams win and get into the Champions League - until that flow of cash is stemed we wont ever see a level playing field or anywhere near it.

The structure has to involve loacalised leagues at lower level with amalgamation of smaller clubs, Scotland can't sustain 42 senior clubs plus, juniors, amature leagues etc. A serious look has to be taken at what can be done to improve clubs and help the smaller clubs survive - yes history may be lost but its a long term goal for sustainable football. It worked for us when we had the prize of getting into the SFL, it could work for others if the prize was promotion from lower leagues into the SFL/SPL set up.

As for the top flight, 10 teams is too small, we will have the top 2 as usual then 8 fighting to avoid the drop - how will this encourage youth development as the onus every year is to survive where the big money is, it creates even more pressure than a 12 team league we have now. We go to 16 its too few games, 18 or 20 then do we really have enough teams in Div 1 that can come up with suitable attandances that will bring anything of value? There is the potantial as siad for many meaningless games mid table, but could the lower pressure allow youth to get developed? Or do we stay with what we have, everyone hates the split - its a stupid concept, but it creates some excitement afterall everyone wants top 6 and 2 extra OF games. if we cant propose anything better then stick with the status quo and revolutionise grass roots - unless the OF are willing to split the Champions League cash equally with the other league teams (wont happen though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I can't get is that the 10 team league will allegedly bring in more money but the proposal is for a two tier SPL of 20 teams so what money goes to the SPL 2 teams?. That must take a chunk out of the extra money.

Second point, if it has to be a 10 team league then the finacial revenues should be split equally amongst the 10 clubs, and I include gate receipts amongst this. This would create a more level playing field for all teams as you need all 10 teams being successful to make a good league. I can just imagine the majority of clubs agreeing to that!. Where is the leadership required from the SFA/SPL, oh I forgot Henry McLeish and Neil Doncaster. Says it all really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the supporters trust going to do at this meeting. There is no mention of anything to do with this on their website. I hope that they talk to the trust members and take forward the members views to the board meeting.

the ict supporters trust, along with the trusts from all the spl clubs, and supporters direct - scotland, have been invited to speak with neil doncaster regarding their proposals. i'm sure the views of the fans along with their members will be made known to him.

Edited by maimie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing I can't get is that the 10 team league will allegedly bring in more money but the proposal is for a two tier SPL of 20 teams so what money goes to the SPL 2 teams?. That must take a chunk out of the extra money.

Second point, if it has to be a 10 team league then the finacial revenues should be split equally amongst the 10 clubs, and I include gate receipts amongst this. This would create a more level playing field for all teams as you need all 10 teams being successful to make a good league. I can just imagine the majority of clubs agreeing to that!. Where is the leadership required from the SFA/SPL, oh I forgot Henry McLeish and Neil Doncaster. Says it all really.

Until this discussion, I have never been a big fan of some of the administrative procedures in play in MLS .... but the more I read, and the more I get involved in this discussion, the more I realise that MLS may just be onto something .....

MLS try to create a somewhat level playing field by using the college drafts in the same way as the NBA or NFL (something that would never work in the UK), but also have the designated player rule and "allocation money" rules that allow teams to sign the odd superstar outside of the salary cap and if - in the case of New York for example - they want to sign multiple designated players, to pay a "luxury tax" that gets ploughed back into the league and distributed to poorer teams ....

As much as I dont like citing Wikipedia as it can be grossly wrong, the following pages seem reasonably accurate in terms of the philosophy and rules within MLS.

Read the 'ownership' and 'game first' sections of this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer

How the league can control finances, distribute money but still allow teams to make a bid for superstars if they want to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_Player_Rule

How the league tries to even up the playing field a bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allocation_(MLS)

How the league fosters and develops talent (along with requiring each team to have a youth academy):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Adidas

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole "We have to do it for the money" argument just underlines everything that is wrong with the game and the mindset of those charged with running it. Doncaster and anyone else spouting such nonsense should be driven from the game.

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. : Terms of Use : Guidelines : Privacy Policy