St Mirren say "No"

[Caleyjag157]

At the end of the day Scottish football has too many clubs. There is teams in the lower divisions getting average attendances of 400-600. Why should clubs with support of thousands even tens of thousands support clubs like this a lot of the lower league clubs should be looking at mergers or playing junior leagues. The whole of Scottish football is a joke and it will remain that way until we get new people in with a passion and love for the game who can embrace the fans opinions instead of just listening to sponsons/tv companies. Once we get the nation in love with the game again and clubs standing together instead of backstabbing and bickering through the media then the sponsors etc will come rolling in.

[Naelifts]

It pains me to say this but the teacher is correct. Ditch the Old Firm. Have a competitive domestic scenario which draws crowds who will all think their team has a bona fide chance of success. This season has surely pointed us in that direction. Sure a new firm will arise in time...........who knows ........it may be ICT and RC! The money in the game will take a dive and so will turnstyle prices........no bad thing in my book.

[RiG]

After all, according to St Mirren & County, we don't want change.

 

Where have Ross County and St. Mirren said this?

[Kingsmills]

Agree with RIG. Both St Mirren and Ross County are advocates of change just not the ludicrous take it or leave it, all or nothing package that was on the table.

 

Understand that Davie holds a different view from me but very disappointed that a spokesperson for our principal fans organisation should seek to distort the position on this forum.

[RiG]

I'm all for change in Scottish football but this change was not right in my eyes. Certainly certain aspects are very appealing but the whole package as a take it or leave it option was ludicrous. Ridiculous scaremongering by certain parties pre meeting followed by desperate bargaining during the meeting as well by all accounts.

 

Ross County and St. Mirren said no to this change specifically and not no to any change whatsoever. The way this seems to be getting forced upon teams is not right. It seems rushed and if the SPL or whoever is in charge really wants change for the better they'd be well advised to get it right first time with full and open consultation with fans, clubs and other relevant working groups. We have the chance to make a huge change to our game but it shouldn't just be the first thing that pops into our heads. What's wrong with copying something like the Belgium set up? That seems to be a good set up by all accounts (in terms of the league structure).

 

At the end of the day Scottish football has too many clubs. There is teams in the lower divisions getting average attendances of 400-600. Why should clubs with support of thousands even tens of thousands support clubs like this a lot of the lower league clubs should be looking at mergers or playing junior leagues. The whole of Scottish football is a joke and it will remain that way until we get new people in with a passion and love for the game who can embrace the fans opinions instead of just listening to sponsons/tv companies. Once we get the nation in love with the game again and clubs standing together instead of backstabbing and bickering through the media then the sponsors etc will come rolling in.

 

 Sorry but I think that's nothing short of disgraceful. Let us not forget that ICT were once one of those smaller clubs with smaller attendances. Now we have some of our fans saying let's get rid of these teams? Absolutely shocking. Those clubs aren't asking for us to support them as far as I am aware.

 

You say we need to get the nation in love with the game again yet you suggest that we should rid the country of some of our football teams because they don't attract as many supporters along? I'd wager that those fans are just as passionate about the game and their team as ICT fans are.

 

EDIT: Just read some more about the Belgian system. Scrap that idea!

Edited April 16, 2013 by RiG

[davie]

Agree with RIG. Both St Mirren and Ross County are advocates of change just not the ludicrous take it or leave it, all or nothing package that was on the table.

 

Understand that Davie holds a different view from me but very disappointed that a spokesperson for our principal fans organisation should seek to distort the position on this forum.

 

I am perfectly comfortable with people holding opposing views to mine, and quite happy to disagree without denegrating them. There were proposals on the table which both Roy MacGregor (County chief reveals he voted against reconstruction because he listened to fans throughout the country - daily record 16.04.13)

 and Stuart Gilmour (who has said he will release a statement later, but also quoted " the great majority" in his origninal club statement) voted against and both quoted their belief that they were reflecting the views of the "majority by attaching qualifying criteria to their opinions of fans and what we want. Both have therefore said that they believe fans did not want change (and the only change we can really talk about is the one that was on the table - the rest is speculation) so that is what they have said. Demonstrably no distortion on my part.

[Caleyjag157]

RiG - ICT has come from 2 football teams that have merged and look how much stronger we are now!

So what's wrong with some of the lower division teams merging to give a stronger team and more support?

[Kingsmills]

With all due respect, both Stuart Gilmore and Roy MacGregor have both stated on several occasions that they do want a change from the status quo.

 

If you can refer me to a single instance of either one of them saying or inferring that they want no change I will retract my statement that to say they have is a distortion of the facts.

[Charles Bannerman]

It pains me to say this but the teacher is correct. Ditch the Old Firm. Have a competitive domestic scenario which draws crowds who will all think their team has a bona fide chance of success. This season has surely pointed us in that direction. Sure a new firm will arise in time...........who knows ........it may be ICT and RC! The money in the game will take a dive and so will turnstyle prices........no bad thing in my book.

Thank you very much Naelifts boy! Consider your 100 lines for offensive chanting cancelled!

However I fear that "ditching the Old Firm" isn't a solution either. They exist in their current over inflated form and will continue to do so wherever they play such as in England. So they will continue to carry their very large support and destructively large cash grabbing capacity with them wherever they are. The Old Firm are simply a phemonenon of Scottish society and Irish politics which won't just go away. Scottish football is stuck with this potentially fatal component.

So I fear there is NO solution to this problem of the Scottish game. I think what is happening is that in the current era, a number of factors such as the televised alternative and an even greater polarising effect due to the "gloryhunting" principle as people's expectations increase, are making much smaller units outwith the Old Firm progressively less viable.

There simply isn't enough residual cake left for much else to survive. It's the classic Monopoly situation. The Old Firm have got their hotels on Mayfair and Park Lane so the other clubs, with at best a house or two on Trafalgar Square, or worse still the mere owners of Old Kent Road, don't have much of a chance. The scales are progressively tipping against them and "passing GO and collecting £200" (ie the £1.3M on offer) isn't going to make a huge amount of difference either.

[Sneckboy]

^^^ I like that Monopoly analogy!

Here's one for the SPL voting structure.

A dozen guys are on a stag night finishing their drinks in a pub. "Right lads, do we stay here for a another pint or will we head to the next bar? Hands up we move on." (a forest of hands (ten) goes up). "Okay, that's unanimous ...10 wanting to hit the next pub. So, it's decided guys, we're staying here! Not a sufficient amount of us want to move on" !!!  DEMOCRACY!??!

[rinomac]

 

Stewart Milne hasn't got a leg to stand on. It was him and his club that stopped the 11-1 majority vote from being changed earlier in the season. Ironically enough, if he had voted for it then, league reconstruction would have been passed through today.

 

Despite the many good parts of the plan (redistribution of money, playoffs, pyramid structure) the abomination of the planned splits, especially the middle 8, was ridiculous. How can you expect clubs to be able to sell season tickets at the start of the year not knowing what mini-league they would be in. Here you go guys, get your season tickets, we might have another game against Celtic, we might have one against Morton. Who knows!

What like it has been for the last 15 years ?

 

For the likes of Dundee this year, who knew they weren't going to make the top 8, they could have sat back, made sure they avoided suspensions, injuries etc and basically only turn up for the last part of the season. And the likes of Ross County this year wouldn't have made the top 8 and look where they are now! And it was a farce that if the whole thing DID get voted through and it turned out to be a complete disaster, nothing could be changed for 3 years.

Who said it couldn't be changed for 3 years ? Who ever told you that was wrong. What was in the original proposal was that any structure changes within 3 years needed a larger majority than most other changes. If everyone wanted to change after the first year it could be done.

From the reports, even that was removed and changes to structure would be on the same majority as everything else so the single sticking point that St Mirren gave as the reason for saying no was removed and they still said no.

 

Personally I think we should retain the current league structure but introduce the good ideas: redistribution of money, playoffs, the pyramid structure, one governing body, and the 9-3 voting majority. The current split has generated plenty of excitement over the years. Granted, the last 5 games can be meaningless if you are in the bottom half and have already secured survival, but think of the excitement of not knowing who would make the top 6 in the previous 33 games before it.

But to get the good points above that would help the lower end, there had to be compromise from the higher end, as they would lose out. You were never going to get the money redistribution without there being something in it for those giving up the biggest share of money. So you couldn't just cherry pick what you like as not everyone would cherry pick the same things and so there would have been no chance of getting what you want.

 

Hopefully now this means Doncaster will be resigning. I will personally drive him and Regan back to wherever the hell they came from.

And will you take Stuart Gilmour with them ? The St Mirren vote seems to me to have been about them being convinced they would have been in the middle 8 nearly every season, and then losing out on potential home games with the big teams, Celtic, ICT etc. Thing is if that is their normal position then they likely miss out on that game anyway, and if we went with a 16 team league, once home and away, then they definitely miss it.

Yes 12-12-18 is not perfect, but there is no perfect solution for everyone. I posted some thoughts on a possible format last It gave a top 16 with playoffs at top and bottom, and although some here liked some of it, there were some points that probably would never be agreed on by enough teams.

This was a chance to get the bits that most fans want, fairer distribution of money, playoffs, pyramid system, with a compromise on how we got there and making it easier to tweak later if it wasn't working. It seems to me some teams, and people, couldn't see that we needed to take a little pain in the short term, to make it better long term.

 

 

1. Well for the last however many years, at least teams have been able to sell season tickets on the basis that they WILL be playing SPL teams after the split, and as cal234ey said, it is for a much smaller portion of the season.

 

2. I don't see why we couldn't cherry pick. If all the chairmen, like Stewart Milne, are coming out and giving it the whole "for the good of the Scottish game" then they don't need any more of an incentive for redistribution of money. I don't see the problem with having a vote for each individual element. Playoffs. Pyramid. Money redistribution. Etc. The fact that the clubs were effectively being blackmailed into accepting the whole thing or nothing is my major gripe. As County said, 80% of the proposals were good. 

 

3. I am thankful that Gilmour voted against it, with McGregor. I only wish our chairman had also voted against it. St Mirren know that they would miss out on the "big games" against Celtic and whoever else, as you say, but they DO KNOW they will be playing an SPL team, not the team coming 4th in the 1st Division.

 

4. A 16 team league will never be brought in. It's not financially viable. Teams would end up having much fewer home games and they would never vote for it.

[Yngwie]

A dozen guys are on a stag night finishing their drinks in a pub. "Right lads, do we stay here for a another pint or will we head to the next bar? Hands up we move on." (a forest of hands (ten) goes up). "Okay, that's unanimous ...10 wanting to hit the next pub. So, it's decided guys, we're staying here! Not a sufficient amount of us want to move on" !!!  DEMOCRACY!??!

 

I like that idea! But it's perhaps more a case of:

 

"This bar's a dive and if we stay we're gonna get our heads kicked in. Who wants to go somewhere else?"

[All 12 put hands up.]

 

"Right, votes for the Red Lion?"

[10 hands]

 

"Queens Head?"

[st Mirren fan]

 

"Blue Oyster Bar?"

[County fan]

 

"Oh well, no agreement on where to go so we'll just stay here."

[RiG]

RiG - ICT has come from 2 football teams that have merged and look how much stronger we are now!

So what's wrong with some of the lower division teams merging to give a stronger team and more support?

 

Because they don't have to merge to move forward as Thistle, Caledonian (and Clach) apparently had to do so at that time.

 

I don't think we should be reducing the number of teams but I do think that we should look at restructuring the leagues and include a pyramid system.

Edited April 16, 2013 by RiG

[PaderbornCaley]

What is baffling is that Gilmour said he is voting no because the new structure still had 11-1 voting system. According to Milne in the press this was Middens stumbling block. So the Chairmen agreed to change it to 9-3 and he still said no! He seemed to have public reservations about the change not long after Chuckles Le Vert visited Midden Park.

[Scotty]

I am afraid that EVERY system would be flawed in somebody's eyes - I am glad that this proposal has not gone through but we have to change. I would prefer to go more like the English system - I would suggest three leagues of 14 - the bottom 3 go down automatically - the top two go up and the next four fight for the third place.

 

I am going to say it .... yup .... I agree with IHE !!!

 

Not sure about 14-14-14, but IHE is right, every system that could be proposed would be flawed in someone's eyes.

 

For me, whatever the solution is, the foundation has to be simple ..... no splits or complicated realignments of leagues in mid season, no complicated self-preservationist tactics or rules, no multiple ruling bodies and a focus on turning the downward spiral in the opposite direction ...

 

 

I tend to fall into the 16-16-16 camp with the addition of 6 new (ambitious) teams from juniors/HFL/South. If the likes of Caley Thistle and County can reach the SPL in 10 and 18 years respectively, then there is no reason others could not follow a similar path .... 16 teams does present a problem of only 15 home games per season as opposed to the current 18 in SFL or 19 in SPL, but maybe there could be some creative thinking on that with the establishment of an additional national cup competition or even regionalised cup competitions with home/away legs that would inevitably lead to a few derbies (and increased crowds).

 

Failing that, if adding ambitious teams is not an option, I wonder if 20-20 might be an option? It would obviously call for 2 teams to be lost to non-league play, but with current finances and the game dying on its feet that - unfortunately - may not be as contentious, or as problematic an issue as it sounds .. go 20-22 initially and drop it to 20-20 over a few years through attrition. 2 leagues, 3up, 3 down, playoffs for a few more, pyramid system below that to allow ambitious teams a route into the 'big time', and all being run under a single organisation where each member club has a single vote and a simple majority is needed for most decisions. Youth development would also have to be taken seriously but not all clubs could afford academies so perhaps regional academies (initially) funded by the league and/or any grant funding available which could then be utilised by all clubs both big and small (assuming they did not already have their own that they chose to continue using). I know this will never happen, but its a fairly simple concept .....

 

These are ideas off the top of my head ... they may be good, they may be crap, but something has to change and for me the most important part is getting the foundation right and then building on that ... the rejected proposal doesnt seem to address that, but no-one else has really shouted a viable alternative from the rooftops .......    

[ICTRoughi]

St Mirren Statement:  http://www.saintmirren.net/pages/?p=22582

 

 

Further to yesterday’s SPL Club meeting held at Hampden Park, St Mirren FC is extremely disappointed by the comments of certain clubs’ representatives and some journalists towards our club and seeks to clarify our position.

We made it perfectly clear in our statement issued last week that we were against the league structure proposed and also that of the proposed 11-1 voting system. It would appear that certain individuals have tried to move this round to being only an objection to the voting structure. Please read our statement of last Monday (see below*) for clarity of this. Both of these items were our primary issues with the proposals.

The following resolutions are described as Qualified Resolutions in the proposed rules and require an 11-1 vote to change:-

- Retaining home gate receipts
- League restructuring
- Distribution model of finance
- Squad size
- Under 21 rules
- Season start date
- Numbers of home live TV matches
- Salary capping

You will probably be aware that during the meeting a proposal to change one of these Resolutions, namely the League Restructuring section, was brought to the table by two clubs who suggested reducing this to a 75% majority ie 9-3.

As this was only part of the Qualified Resolutions this was not acceptable to St Mirren. The items in this section require to be changed completely to a 9-3 level of voting, excepting the retention of home gate receipts which would be totally unfair to the larger clubs. We are also happy to contract that no club shall have more live home TV matches than anyone else.

This democratic set up in the SPL is one that has been in place since its inception and has proved not to be fit for purpose, hence our objection to  it. It is ironic that this is what has stopped the proposal going forward.

However, clubs have the right to vote as they see fit and directors have a legal responsibility to look after the interests of their club, a criticism that appears to be directed towards St Mirren. It should be highlighted that Aberdeen could have indeed changed this voting structure last year had they seen fit to vote with their fellow clubs. That is their decision and we respect that, however before being critical of others they should possibly take stock of their previous decision not to allow this change to go forward.

While on the subject of criticism, we find it hard to accept other Football Clubs telling us how to vote on football matters, or indeed questioning our motives. It is the right of all Clubs to make their own decisions and other Clubs should respect this.

We are being accused of self interest. Is that the self interest in consulting with our supporters and staff prior to the board making this decision? If so, we are guilty. We are very grateful for all the messages of support we have received not just from our own fans but also from supporters of many other clubs who did not wish this proposal to go ahead. We firmly believe in our heart and in our head that this is the correct decision for Scottish Football.

St Mirren Football Club are still intent on change in Scottish Football within a system for all 42 clubs. We wish to make it very clear that we have no SPL 2 agenda. We believe that that is not the way forward.

It should be noted that at the start of yesterday’s meeting we asked clubs to consider revisiting the proposal before the meeting. Our suggestion was that we looked at the following compromise;

- One League Body
- All Through Financial Distribution Model
- Introducing a Play Off Place
- A Voting Structure of 75% of the Top League Clubs having to agree.
(Subject to an agreement re home gates and the number of home live TV matches)

Some clubs were willing to discuss this and hopefully come to a compromise.

Regrettably this was rejected by a majority of clubs who wished to only stick to the all or nothing proposal.

There have been suggestions of influence on our Board by other clubs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Board of St Mirren has only the interests of St Mirren and Scottish Football at the centre of their attention.

Finally, St Mirren FC hope that all 42 Clubs can get round the table in the very near future to progress the formation of one league body and the all through financial distribution model as the first steps to finding the best league format to encompass the views of Clubs, supporters, sponsors and all other people involved in Scottish Football.

On behalf of the Board of Directors of St Mirren Football Club

 

[PaderbornCaley]

Ridiculous statement.

So they wanted more change to the voting structure. Fair enough. However they weren‘t given all the changes they proposed but were given a concession on the league structure voting. So instead of getting some of the changes they wanted, Gilmour thinks it‘s in Middens best interests to get NO changes!

[Rasczak]

1. Well for the last however many years, at least teams have been able to sell season tickets on the basis that they WILL be playing SPL teams after the split, and as cal234ey said, it is for a much smaller portion of the season.

 

So you are saying that you wouldn't want to risk having to play such lowly teams as, for example this season, Morton, Partick Thistle, Falkirk and Livingstone, who are obviously so much lesser teams than ICT ?

 

2. I don't see why we couldn't cherry pick. If all the chairmen, like Stewart Milne, are coming out and giving it the whole "for the good of the Scottish game" then they don't need any more of an incentive for redistribution of money. I don't see the problem with having a vote for each individual element. Playoffs. Pyramid. Money redistribution. Etc. The fact that the clubs were effectively being blackmailed into accepting the whole thing or nothing is my major gripe. As County said, 80% of the proposals were good.

Because each club would have different ideas on which to cherry pick and so a single proposal that got most of what was needed would have got part way there and made it easier to get the rest if it was really needed later.

 

3. I am thankful that Gilmour voted against it, with McGregor. I only wish our chairman had also voted against it. St Mirren know that they would miss out on the "big games" against Celtic and whoever else, as you say, but they DO KNOW they will be playing an SPL team, not the team coming 4th in the 1st Division.

And of course the difference in class and ability between SPL teams and the current SFL1 is so great that they no top 4 SFL1 team could ever push a bottom 4 SPL team to need a 3 goal comeback and extra time in a national cup semi-fin... oh wait.

 

4. A 16 team league will never be brought in. It's not financially viable. Teams would end up having much fewer home games and they would never vote for it.

But it keeps getting said that is what the fans want, but you are also saying you don't want to play the top 4 of the SFL.

So where do the extra 4 teams for the top league come from ?

Why is it abhorrent to have the possibility of playing the 12th to 16th top teams under 12-12 to 8-8-8, but brilliant to have the guarantee of playing those exact same teams under a 16 team top league ?

For what it's worth I agree that a 16/18 team top league with extra playoffs and possibly an extended League Cup that gives back the extra home games would be a goal to get towards. I also know it cannot be done overnight and to get there we need to show that it is the way. IMNSHO, the proposal as was gave that chance to start the move.

[CaleyD]

 

I am afraid that EVERY system would be flawed in somebody's eyes - I am glad that this proposal has not gone through but we have to change. I would prefer to go more like the English system - I would suggest three leagues of 14 - the bottom 3 go down automatically - the top two go up and the next four fight for the third place.

 

I am going to say it .... yup .... I agree with IHE !!!

 

Not sure about 14-14-14, but IHE is right, every system that could be proposed would be flawed in someone's eyes.

 

For me, whatever the solution is, the foundation has to be simple ..... no splits or complicated realignments of leagues in mid season, no complicated self-preservationist tactics or rules, no multiple ruling bodies and a focus on turning the downward spiral in the opposite direction ...

 

I tend to fall into the 16-16-16 camp with the addition of 6 new (ambitious) teams from juniors/HFL/South. If the likes of Caley Thistle and County can reach the SPL in 10 and 18 years respectively, then there is no reason others could not follow a similar path .... 16 teams does present a problem of only 15 home games per season as opposed to the current 18 in SFL or 19 in SPL, but maybe there could be some creative thinking on that with the establishment of an additional national cup competition or even regionalised cup competitions with home/away legs that would inevitably lead to a few derbies (and increased crowds).

 

Failing that, if adding ambitious teams is not an option, I wonder if 20-20 might be an option? It would obviously call for 2 teams to be lost to non-league play, but with current finances and the game dying on its feet that - unfortunately - may not be as contentious, or as problematic an issue as it sounds .. go 20-22 initially and drop it to 20-20 over a few years through attrition. 2 leagues, 3up, 3 down, playoffs for a few more, pyramid system below that to allow ambitious teams a route into the 'big time', and all being run under a single organisation where each member club has a single vote and a simple majority is needed for most decisions. Youth development would also have to be taken seriously but not all clubs could afford academies so perhaps regional academies (initially) funded by the league and/or any grant funding available which could then be utilised by all clubs both big and small (assuming they did not already have their own that they chose to continue using). I know this will never happen, but its a fairly simple concept .....

 

These are ideas off the top of my head ... they may be good, they may be crap, but something has to change and for me the most important part is getting the foundation right and then building on that ... the rejected proposal doesnt seem to address that, but no-one else has really shouted a viable alternative from the rooftops .......    

 

 

The problem is not that any of the above are bad ideas, the problem is delivering something from within the system that exists already and getting it past the 11-1 vote.

 

As it stands we have some clubs who want a 10 team league, some who want 12 and others who want a larger league 14/18/16 or whatever.  The reasons for each differs, some of it is opinion, but a great deal of it is determined by the business models under which each club currently operates....and within the SPL you probably have 3 or 4 very distinct business models based on club size, income sources, costs etc.  You have the club at the top with a turnover of £50 or £60 Million all the way down to clubs with a turnover of £3 or £4 million.

 

What seems to be widely agreed is that relegation has a huge financial impact on clubs.  With that being the case then you have clubs who want to do as much as possible to "protect" their SPL status, clubs who think (arrogantly or otherwise) that they are never going to be relegation contenders and don't fear it, clubs who believe they have a business model which would survive relegation (and may be the case if they have wealthy benefactors)...and Celtic!!!

 

That group of 12 clubs then have an opportunity to grow the games income, but in order to do so they need to open the doors to the whole (professional) game in Scotland.  That then brings in the added complication of having to come up with a proposal that brings those other 30 clubs to the table.  The two things most likely to appeal to the other 30 are better finances and an increased opportunity of promotion to the upper tier.

 

Strangely, the finance issues seems to have been the one that has caused least problems with the SPL saying they were quite happy to give up £1.3 Million in the first instance...there were also guarantees that if/when finances were increased then this would be used to further level out the curve before the top league saw another penny.

 

The other factor was always going to be tricky.  How do you offer reduced risk of relegation to the (current) SPL clubs AND offer increased opportunity of promotion to (current) SFL clubs AND do all that without reducing the number of games in the season below acceptable levels?  The answer to that, as far as the 12 SPL clubs were concerned (back in January) was the 12-12-18 structure.  Probably not ideal in the eyes of any of the 42 clubs, but acceptable in return for everything else that came with it.

 

Also, let's not forget that this proposal was not defeated because anyone voted against the structure.  St Mirren and Ross County can play the "listening to the fans" card all they like, but their decision to vote against was based on other factors....although it seems totally unclear what those factors really were/are.

 

The voting levels required on protected matters was always a smokescreen.  I stated that before the meeting yesterday and the events and outcome of that meeting showed that I was right.

 

Everyone around the table yesterday is a businessman and most of them will be dealing with contracts, company rules etc on a regular basis.  They will be no stranger to the concept and reasons for protected matters.  In fact, any ICT fans who has/had an interest in the merger of Thistle and Caley will be no stranger to them as the outcome of negotiations that allowed the merger to happen contained many...everything from what colours must be used on shirts, to which people were entitled to appoint members to the club board.  These things were in place for a set period of time and were designed to "protect" certain matters which were important to those contributing to the new organisation.  All of these are now gone because (although some are now honoured as tradition) with the exception of one thing......ICT fans benefit to this day from one particular protected matter, and that is the 10% voting right which is attached to just 108 company shares which are currently held by CaleyJagsTogether.

 

You can argue the rights and wrongs of all those protected matters but the fact is that without them and without compromise then ICT would never have came in to being and we would not be where we are today.

 

Given how difficult it was to get that agreement between two clubs should give us more of an appreciation than anyone on the need for/benefit of compromise and how difficult it will have been for the SPL to find enough common ground within 12 clubs to get the reconstruction proposal to the stage they did.

 

We can argue the rights and wrongs of the decision taken yesterday, it's all "what if" and "what might be"....we'll never get the full answer to the first and only time will tell on the second.

[+DoofersDad]

With all due respect, both Stuart Gilmore and Roy MacGregor have both stated on several occasions that they do want a change from the status quo.

 

If you can refer me to a single instance of either one of them saying or inferring that they want no change I will retract my statement that to say they have is a distortion of the facts.

 

They may have said they want a change but the sad fact is that they didn't vote for it.  They may not have liked the structure that was on the table but that was part of a package which, rightly or wrongly, was the only package on offer.  However, what was part of the package was a move to a 9 - 3 voting system which clearly would have made it easier to bring about change in the future.

 

There are several on this forum defending Gilmour and MacGregor on the basis that they dislike the structure which was part of the package.  Some are proposing alternatives.  These alternatives may be better, but whether they are better or not is totally irrelevant to the debate - they were simply not on offer!  If you wanted an alternative to either the current structure or the one in the package then you have to ask yourself, is it more likely you will get a specific structure with a 9 - 3 voting system or an 11 - 1 voting system?  Frankly, it's a no brainer.  If Gilmour and MacGregor wanted something different there was simply no alternative but to vote for the package which would have made change more likely in the future. 

 

There were really only 3 reasons for voting against the package:

1. Because they think the pyramid system is a dreadful idea and no way must new blood be allowed into the league.
2. Because they think the 11 - 1 voting system is great
3. Because they think the current league set up is the best

Gilmour and MacGregor should come clean and tell us all which of these reasons was their overwhelming reason for voting no.  Yes, they may have said they want change but not only have they voted for no change, they have voted to make change a lot more difficult in the future.

[cal234ey]

 

1. Well for the last however many years, at least teams have been able to sell season tickets on the basis that they WILL be playing SPL teams after the split, and as cal234ey said, it is for a much smaller portion of the season.

 

So you are saying that you wouldn't want to risk having to play such lowly teams as, for example this season, Morton, Partick Thistle, Falkirk and Livingstone, who are obviously so much lesser teams than ICT ?

 

2. I don't see why we couldn't cherry pick. If all the chairmen, like Stewart Milne, are coming out and giving it the whole "for the good of the Scottish game" then they don't need any more of an incentive for redistribution of money. I don't see the problem with having a vote for each individual element. Playoffs. Pyramid. Money redistribution. Etc. The fact that the clubs were effectively being blackmailed into accepting the whole thing or nothing is my major gripe. As County said, 80% of the proposals were good.

Because each club would have different ideas on which to cherry pick and so a single proposal that got most of what was needed would have got part way there and made it easier to get the rest if it was really needed later.

 

3. I am thankful that Gilmour voted against it, with McGregor. I only wish our chairman had also voted against it. St Mirren know that they would miss out on the "big games" against Celtic and whoever else, as you say, but they DO KNOW they will be playing an SPL team, not the team coming 4th in the 1st Division.

And of course the difference in class and ability between SPL teams and the current SFL1 is so great that they no top 4 SFL1 team could ever push a bottom 4 SPL team to need a 3 goal comeback and extra time in a national cup semi-fin... oh wait.

 

4. A 16 team league will never be brought in. It's not financially viable. Teams would end up having much fewer home games and they would never vote for it.

But it keeps getting said that is what the fans want, but you are also saying you don't want to play the top 4 of the SFL.

So where do the extra 4 teams for the top league come from ?

Why is it abhorrent to have the possibility of playing the 12th to 16th top teams under 12-12 to 8-8-8, but brilliant to have the guarantee of playing those exact same teams under a 16 team top league ?

For what it's worth I agree that a 16/18 team top league with extra playoffs and possibly an extended League Cup that gives back the extra home games would be a goal to get towards. I also know it cannot be done overnight and to get there we need to show that it is the way. IMNSHO, the proposal as was gave that chance to start the move.

 

 

1. It is not a risk to play these clubs I am extremely confident we would beat them over 14 games. The point is why should ICT an SPL team have their SPL season finished after just over half a season to play SFL1 teams.

 

2. Well they should at least try an isolated vote on each idea. Where is the harm in that? If they all get voted no then there is not much that can be done.

 

3. Missed the point entirely there. There was never a question on the gulf in class between a bottom SPL team and a top SFL1 team. The point is once again as an SPL club you should play a full season against SPL opposition. I don't care even remotely what the difference in ability is. We and the other 11 clubs are SPL teams on merit and therefore should not have to play SFL1 teams in the league season. The teams the get promoted to the SPL deserve to be there and I am pleased to see their clubs playing ours.

 

4. Missed the point again. If the league was restructured to 16 (not going to happen but lets just go with it for now) then the 4 top SFL1 teams would join the league. They would no longer be SFL1 clubs they would be SPL clubs. At the start of the season you would know that throughout the entire year you would be playing all SPL clubs. It isn't that I want ICT to play the same 11 clubs each year that is not it at all. What I want is ICT as an SPL club to play SPL teams all season long. Be there 12 clubs 16 clubs or 30 clubs in the SPL whether the league contains Celtic, St Mirren, Partick, Alloa etc. I don't care as long as they are designated an SPL club at the start of the season then that is good enough.

Edited April 16, 2013 by cal234ey

[Rasczak]

1. It is not a risk to play these clubs I am extremely confident we would beat them over 14 games. The point is why should ICT an SPL team have their SPL season finished after just over half a season to play SFL1 teams.

 

But under the proposal there would have been be no SPL, just a single league body who arrange the leagues. Teams then play games through the season based on their position at the beginning.

 

2. Well they should at least try an isolated vote on each idea. Where is the harm in that? If they all get voted no then there is not much that can be done.

 

Except come up with a proposal that gives most benefit to most teams, even through it is not perfect and get the ball rolling to get where we want to be. No point in thinking out of the box like that.

 

3. Missed the point entirely there. There was never a question on the gulf in class between a bottom SPL team and a top SFL1 team.

But that is exactly how it seems to be phrased;

they DO KNOW they will be playing an SPL team, not the team coming 4th in the 1st Division.

The point is once again as an SPL club you should play a full season against SPL opposition. I don't care even remotely what the difference in ability is. We and the other 11 clubs are SPL teams on merit and therefore should not have to play SFL1 teams in the league season. The teams the get promoted to the SPL deserve to be there and I am pleased to see their clubs playing ours.

4. Missed the point again. If the league was restructured to 16 (not going to happen but lets just go with it for now) then the 4 top SFL1 teams would join the league. They would no longer be SFL1 clubs they would be SPL clubs. At the start of the season you would know that throughout the entire year you would be playing all SPL clubs. It isn't that I want ICT to play the same 11 clubs each year that is not it at all. What I want is ICT as an SPL club to play SPL teams all season long. Be there 12 clubs 16 clubs or 30 clubs in the SPL whether the league contains Celtic, St Mirren, Partick, Alloa etc. I don't care as long as they are designated an SPL club at the start of the season then that is good enough.

So you are against the current playoffs between the second bottom in the SFL leagues and 2nd, 3rd and 4th in the league below ? If you are a SFL1 club then you should only play SFL1 clubs and not have to play against SFL2 clubs to finish the season.

I don't expect you are against the playoffs, but surely you can see how that can be inferred. Think of it as the middle 8 in effect being an extended play off for the relegation and promotion places. You may believe the extended period is too long, but the intention of giving playoffs, which have been asked for, is there.

You (both ?) also seem to be under the impression that I think the 12-12 to 8-8-8 is the panacea for the league. It is not and I can see that it is not perfect, some clubs will lose out on the big games, the split effects are bigger than now, there could be more chance of relegation if your form dips at the wrong time. I can see the good points of it as well, more potential opponents, a second chance at staying up if you had a bad early season, and see that it was never meant to be the solver of issues on its own. It was a concession to get the bits that everyone wants, single league body, fairer financial distribution, playoffs etc.

If we had got it, then we could have had a chance to see if it would work for Scotland, just because it didn't work elsewhere doesn't automatically mean it wouldn't have worked for us. If it didn't, which I agree is not unlikely, then further change wouldn't be blocked by 2 clubs with a disproportionate ideas of their own importance.

[Bluesman]

MacBeth, A Scottish Tragedy -

 

She (Football) should have died hereafter

There would have been a time for such a word

Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day to the last syllable of recorded time

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools to dusty death (relegation) 

Out, out brief candle (reconstruction)

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player (Vigurs)

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more

It is a tale told by an idiot (Doncaster)

Full of sound and fury (Milne)

Signifying nothing....

Edited April 16, 2013 by Bluesman

[Oddquine]

 

 

 

Very disappointed that this wasn't voted through.  Financially, it would have been a better package.  At first reading I thought the structure was crazy but once I got my head around it I really liked the concept.  It would have been much more exciting than the current structure. 

 

I'm reading on various social media such as Twitter that ICT fans are complaining that the club didn't consult them.  I live in Glasgow now but I was well aware of the open meeting with CJT that was advertised on here, the official website, and elsewhere.  I couldn't attend but read all the documentation from the meeting.  Happy that Kenny voted yes but it's a shame it wasn't enough for others. 

 

How?

 

More money is would be redistributed from the SPL to the SFL so ICT would see a reduction in money through this avenue. 12-12-18 results in 36 games for the top 24 teams so that equals 1 less home game per season than now so again less money for the club.

 

Sponsors are not gone to be queueing up to invest money in this product any more than they would now as it is still the same clubs just a different league system. So I don't see how it can possibly be financially a better package for us. Glad it has not gone through.

 

 

 

I was going to paste in the financial re-distribution graph to answer but I see Don has already done that! 

 

 

And that graph shows that the red line (the proposed financial model) is lower than the blue line (current financial model) for the majority of SPL clubs. Therefore they would earn less money than currently through commercial monies distribution.

 

I maybe wasn't clear enough with my point sorry. How is this financially a better package for  the SPL clubs namely ourselves rather than Scottish football as a whole?

 

Maybe because if Scottish football as a whole enters the black hole of unsustainability because of this vote, it isn't going to matter much  how ICT fares financially...there will be no league set-up worth the name  from which to profit..  Scottish football doesn't revolve around ICT's income.and this was about the future of Scottish football as a whole, not of ICT. The ICT directors understood that.

 

If the ICT directors etc thought it was the way to go, and were prepared to cope with whatever it throws up, why are some of us carping?  From what I can make out it was only going to be a max of three years anyway, before further change could be considered, which would give a decent time span to come up with something which was actually thought through and would work in the long term.  This was a compromise in the short-term, imo....as a consequence  of  Rangers demise and all that has happened in the last season or so.....a knee-jerk reaction to events  as opposed to a pro-active change for the good of the game in Scotland.. The next three years would have allowed the time to come up with a well  thought through, well researched and adequately consulted alternative......but unfortunately, the continuation of the 11-1 voting will likely mean, as it has this time, that the whole package will be refused because a couple of clubs don't like one specific item in it..

 

 

 

 

[Caleyjag157]

RiG - ICT has come from 2 football teams that have merged and look how much stronger we are now!
So what's wrong with some of the lower division teams merging to give a stronger team and more support?

Because they don't have to merge to move forward as Thistle, Caledonian (and Clach) apparently had to do so at that time.

I don't think we should be reducing the number of teams but I do think that we should look at restructuring the leagues and include a pyramid system.

Look at the ares of Fife as an example - it has 4 football teams, I know it will never happen but a merger of Dunfermline, Raith, East Fife, and Cowdenbeath would give a far stronger team a bigger support and 1 stadium to upkeep.

Dunfermline average attendance 3676 capacity 12558
Raith avarage attendance 1854 capacity
10104
East Fife average attendance 513 capacity 2000
Cowdenbeath average attendance 799 capacity 5268.

Information from http://stats.football365.co.uk/dom/SCO/D1/attend.html