Thinker

There's no harm in finding out and very little effort involved so why not? Something noteworthy may come to light. Glass half full or half empty?

Good read, but just to be pedantic: the heliocentric model is the correct one for our solar system. Geo-centricism would be the view analogous to the dhim stance.

Until I read this, I'd assumed the Junior leagues would have to be involved in any Lowland league. The East of Scotland and South of Scotland leagues only cover a limited area of "the lowlands" - Ayrshire and Tayside, for example, aren't represented, which I find disappointing. Hopefully, as the pyramid is expanded in coming seasons this can be rectified.

Will they even suffer a points deduction? I've heard it suggested that if they exit administration before the season starts they won't be penalised. Does anyone know if that's true and (if so) if that's how it's always been?

It's Nicholas Parsons that does the voiceovers for Wonga.com - I think even they would have pulled it had it been Stuart Hall.

That's pretty much how I feel about it. The SFL clubs took part in a democratic vote. Personally I think they've been mugs to vote the way they did but it's their funeral. We're in the same league as the SPL clubs this season as opposed to next (if the vote had gone the other way the SPL2 plan would surely have kicked in). As far as I can see that's the only difference and it's hardly a big one.

Isn't there some caveat which gets around this if the clubs join the SPL? Don't know how "SPL2" comes into that but I'm sure that would be the clause they try to invoke. Regardless, there's also the question of the £1.8 million / year that the SPL pay the SFL. Without a complete merger, surely that would have to continue. The figures don't add up.

How does this thread fit into that picture of things then?

The equivalent thread to this on RM is worth a look.

It seems that the SPL, rather than (as some are suggesting) trying to fast-track us up the divisions, are far more intent on shafting us. I suppose it's possible that this might be an accidental change of small print in a rule, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it turned out to be deliberate and malicious anti-Rangers behaviour.

I don't think that was well handled at all, but it would be more of a business issue anyway. It's not even in the same ball park as what's being proposed. Your argument seems to be that, since not everything in football is squeaky clean, any heinous act is acceptable. There is a limit, and once your past that point sport stops being a contest - it becomes rigged and it's no longer exciting or fun.

Morality in football is dwindling, but I wouldn't say it was completely bankrupt yet. Picking and choosing who gets to be in what division based on their commercial potential would be a massive step further than anything that's gone before.

This is getting increasingly hypothetical. It's 12-10-10-10 that's on the table. 12-12-18 fell at the first hurdle.

"People" were mainly demanding that the league should not be restructured mid-season. If the authorities were determined to do it, then most folks were demanding that we should at least have received what we believed we were competing for - i.e. some form of promotion. The league should not be-jigged to the detriment or for the benefit of any particular team. The only way it's fair and sporting is if the criteria for promotion / relegation is made clear at the start of the season and is competed for fairly. I'm sure you understand that.

It doesn't seem like this is even on the cards but... For any club to be invited to skip a division simply because they're a better source of income is just plain wrong. It's completely against the ideals of sport. If [/i ]the SPL were to admit they'd falsely accused and incorrectly punished us (and I don't believe for a second they would) then why would we accept a boost up to the second flight? Surely we'd be due our place back in the top flight (with compensation) and anything less would be continued penalisation for their mistake. But in any case, that's not what's being suggested here. In the scenario that's being put forward (albeit an unsubstantiated rumour of a scenario) all the SPL are doing is admitting that they need to increase their revenue and want to use our selling power to help achieve that. There's no apology and nothing in it that could make us feel vindicated in any way. We'd simply be complicit in a scheme which puts cash ahead of all other sporting considerations.

Why does anyone who expresses a different opinion have to be pushing an "agenda" these days? I regularly disagree with GS's take on things (same goes for STB) but I don't believe he's got an agenda. Chris Graham was accused of this the other day on RM. There's so much fog surrounding what goes on with regards to the running of the club these days that it's near impossible to make sense of it. Different people are bound to interpret the hazy facts in different ways and form differing opinions. If you're determined to see ulterior motives in other folks' point of view you'll drive yourself demented.

The IPA must know that BDO and the police are also looking into this - in which case they can't gloss over it. Surely the IPA would have to declare it if they thought there was anything untoward going on - Otherwise they're just setting themselves up for the embarrassment of looking incompetent or corrupt when the other parties find out too and publish their reports. I honestly can't see why they'd be motivated to try and cover anything up.

I know exactly how you feel. It seems these days it's impossible to be too paranoid - and with that in mind an entirely "suitable" candidate to take the helm would be a rare breed indeed. We may look enviously at clubs with sugar daddies, like Chelsea or Man City, but how secure is their future long term? What happens when the rich man gets bored or starts to run a bit short? It might seem like a noble idea to have the club securely in the hands of the fans, but can that model really provide decisive leadership? I know nothing about finance, but could there be some system whereby the fans own the heart of the club - the stadium and the right to play in the league - whilst the business of operating things is kept separate? - Kind of how Chelsea have a pitch-owners' association, but with a bit more clout. A way for the fans to hold all the cards that matter for the long term future of the club, that can't be damaged by businessmen?

We definitely shouldn't be paying the second highest wage bill in Scotland for the performances we saw this season past. But... we will need to have the second highest wage bill (at least) to win #55 - That's only two seasons away, if everything goes to plan. How many seasons does it take to build a squad capable of becoming national champions? And how much of an increase in income does a return to the top flight really bring? The prize money probably isn't as important, in the grand scheme of things, as restored ST prices and European competition when it comes to income. These two things are far more likely to roll in if there's a decent squad on the park...

Looking at the numbers, I'm not sure they mean to invite us. Partick Thistle are to be promoted, Aidire are relegated so aren't involved. That leaves the other 8 SFL1 teams plus Dundee and QotS. Div1 is rebranded as the Championship and gets a cut of the SPL income (such as it is). Nothing else changes. Seems sensible, if that's the case.

Maybe I'm not recalling things correctly but wasn't it always the plan to have tickets at 2/3 SPL prices in Div3 and 2, rising to 75% in Div1 and then back to normal for our return to the top? I seem to remember a sensationalised newspaper headline around 6 months ago describing it as a plan to "hike season ticket prices". I'll see if I can find it....

There's something about the split that's not very satisfying - it seems like a bit of a pauchle. But the reasons for it make sense. Our other options in Scotland are; a small league with everyone playing each other 4 times; a large league with a massive range in quality between top and bottom; or a medium-sized league that doesn't generate enough games. A 14 team league with a 7/7 split certainly creates the right number of matches but having an odd number in each section would mean that each match-day one team from each section wouldn't be in action. That could cause problems on the last day of the season. IMO, what we really need is a league with less meaningless mid-table positions (creating more meaningful matches) and more money in the second flight so that relegation isn't a financial disaster. For structure, I'd take a lesson from Austria and Switzerland and have the top two flights with 10 each - but with more relegation/promotion (perhaps the same system as in the other SFL divisions). Spreading the TV and sponsorship money down into the second flight would maintain a healthy pool of contenders for the top flight, and teams wouldn't fear relegation so much, so there'd be less negative football. You probably get bigger, happier crowds when your team is winning the first division than when it's getting humped in the Premier, so being relegated and rebuilding might actually be seen as a positive thing. The play-offs would probably get decent viewing figures if they were televised too. I know everyone got sick of the 10 team play-each-other-4-times SPL but with more movement of clubs and fairer distribution I honestly think it's our best option.

Should be done by 5 to.

If Ticketus are involved (via some investment psuedonym) won't it be on the same basis as every other shareholder? If so, what does it matter? The only concern I have is that Whyte has triple-crossed Green and still has some control over some assets. The fact that Dave King has rubbished that idea reassures me quite a bit though - I don't think he's the type to try and sugar-coat it if things looked bad.

Did King not make a comment about picking up shares from some of the other investors (blue pitch, norne, etc.)? Possibly (if I'm correct about the statement) that could be to get a reasonable amount of control over the situation without having to deal with Green or Ahmad. As usual we're left guessing what the score is though.