The main reason Gilmour said he would vote against the league restructuring, is because it tied the league into an 11-1 voting structure. Absolutely spot on in that regard. However, I'm hearing that a concession was made at the meeting today to change the voting structure to 9-3, and he still voted against. Absolutely reeks of dirty payments from a team situated not too far away...
SPL season 2012-13
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
Looks like the vote against changing 11-1 has come back to haunt the people that blocked it. 
Can only hope that with the SFL cancelling Friday's meeting that they'll now ask for the SFA to intervene and get a solution good for the whole game, not just the SPL/1st division teams.
Can only hope that with the SFL cancelling Friday's meeting that they'll now ask for the SFA to intervene and get a solution good for the whole game, not just the SPL/1st division teams.
Last edited:
The 11-1 voting structure is a prime cause of the stagnation that's brought Scottish football to where it is now. I would much rather see 9-3, or equivalent in a larger league.
Lmao so it's still Rangers fault. Heard it all now. You're chairman blocked the chance to get rid of the 11-1 voting structure it's came back to bite him. Well done Ross county and St Mirren for showing the integrity not to be pressurised by there bully boys and for listening to their support just like they did last year when they voted not to let us in. Pity the other chairmen lack the same integrity.
Even though it'll likely cost Thistle a fair amount of cash I'm glad this never went through. All the talk seemed to indicate looking at the league structure again in two or three seasons, which would've been the last thing we needed.
With the reactions today from some chairmen it really makes you wonder what's going on behind the scenes with all the rumours about the TV or sponsorship deals. Would the SPL be able to pay next year's payment to the SFL?
With the reactions today from some chairmen it really makes you wonder what's going on behind the scenes with all the rumours about the TV or sponsorship deals. Would the SPL be able to pay next year's payment to the SFL?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 4,245
- Location
- Inverkip
I hope some sort of compromise can be found as the 11-1 ratio stinks, as does the negation of a straight promotion\relegation league set-up.
Play-offs may bring in some gate money but what's the point of playing all year and then even though you finished second, you might get usurped by the third placed team.
Play-offs may bring in some gate money but what's the point of playing all year and then even though you finished second, you might get usurped by the third placed team.
Aberdeen have released a statement on reconstruction here.
If the SFL had agreed to the bottom tier of 18 teams then why are so many teams against it now, or is it just a case of certain people within the SFL agreeing to this? Also, they were only willing to change the 11-1 vote for league reconstruction and keep it for the "protected" topics ie. finances.
Once again the hypocrisy of self-preservation comes through from Aberdeen and other SPL teams in the name of "for the good of the game". Given Milne's reaction you have to wonder at the state of their finances if it's as bad as the rumours say it is.
If the SFL had agreed to the bottom tier of 18 teams then why are so many teams against it now, or is it just a case of certain people within the SFL agreeing to this? Also, they were only willing to change the 11-1 vote for league reconstruction and keep it for the "protected" topics ie. finances.
Once again the hypocrisy of self-preservation comes through from Aberdeen and other SPL teams in the name of "for the good of the game". Given Milne's reaction you have to wonder at the state of their finances if it's as bad as the rumours say it is.
It would appear that only an offer of changing the vote on 'reconstruction' to 9-3 was made by the panel the other day, as opposed to the 7 other votes that would have remained at 11-1. Turns out Gilmour made absolutely the correct decision. Changing that voting system is the first step on the way to breaking the death-grip that Scottish football is held in by the (what was formerly known as) old firm duopoly.
I don't agree with Milne's stance on this now that we have the pertinent facts. However, the idea that reflects some financial crisis at Aberdeen is baffling. Surely the easiest way to ensure that everyone (bar Celtic) get more money is to simply vote to split the money in a more equitable way. Celtic would obviously vote against, but I doubt any of the others would, so it wouldn't even require a 9-3 vote at this moment in time. He clearly has some other motive here.
And let us not fall into the mistake of assuming that a chairman of a club actually represents the views of his fans. Aberdeen fans in general are highly capable of individual thought, we're not sheep after all. Or Rangers fans.
I don't agree with Milne's stance on this now that we have the pertinent facts. However, the idea that reflects some financial crisis at Aberdeen is baffling. Surely the easiest way to ensure that everyone (bar Celtic) get more money is to simply vote to split the money in a more equitable way. Celtic would obviously vote against, but I doubt any of the others would, so it wouldn't even require a 9-3 vote at this moment in time. He clearly has some other motive here.
And let us not fall into the mistake of assuming that a chairman of a club actually represents the views of his fans. Aberdeen fans in general are highly capable of individual thought, we're not sheep after all. Or Rangers fans.
There are various rumours that Aberdeen are in debt up to £16m to the banks. These same rumours were saying that the SPL had a sponsor lined up on condition that this reconstruction deal went through and also involvement of Sky on the TV deal.
Given how defensive Neil Doncaster and the clubs have been about confidentiality many are now suggesting that this lines up with the rumour that Sky have the option to drop the current deal if they don't have Rangers' TV rights negotiated over the league membership. With BT being the SPL's only hope if they do it might work out even less than currently on offer if Charles Green continues to refuse to deal with the SPL.
With the SPL in court over pub TV rights to the tune of £2m+ and next year's SFL payment of £2m+ it all begins to add up that SPL finances could be in a real mess over the summer.
Of course, these could all just be "rumours" from various internet bampots.
There are various rumours that Aberdeen are in debt up to £16m to the banks. These same rumours were saying that the SPL had a sponsor lined up on condition that this reconstruction deal went through and also involvement of Sky on the TV deal.
Given how defensive Neil Doncaster and the clubs have been about confidentiality many are now suggesting that this lines up with the rumour that Sky have the option to drop the current deal if they don't have Rangers' TV rights negotiated over the league membership. With BT being the SPL's only hope if they do it might work out even less than currently on offer if Charles Green continues to refuse to deal with the SPL.
With the SPL in court over pub TV rights to the tune of £2m+ and next year's SFL payment of £2m+ it all begins to add up that SPL finances could be in a real mess over the summer.
Of course, these could all just be "rumours" from various internet bampots.
I've also seen it said that the SPL have only paid out 50% of money due to member clubs sofar. And There is Still the case of where Rangers money from last season is as I'm sure BDO will be wanting that. SPL going into administration? Now that would be funny.
There are various rumours that Aberdeen are in debt up to £16m to the banks. These same rumours were saying that the SPL had a sponsor lined up on condition that this reconstruction deal went through and also involvement of Sky on the TV deal.
Given how defensive Neil Doncaster and the clubs have been about confidentiality many are now suggesting that this lines up with the rumour that Sky have the option to drop the current deal if they don't have Rangers' TV rights negotiated over the league membership. With BT being the SPL's only hope if they do it might work out even less than currently on offer if Charles Green continues to refuse to deal with the SPL.
With the SPL in court over pub TV rights to the tune of £2m+ and next year's SFL payment of £2m+ it all begins to add up that SPL finances could be in a real mess over the summer.
Of course, these could all just be "rumours" from various internet bampots.
There is another option with regards the TV deal though, SPL TV. It is perhaps the most difficult option, but potentially the most lucrative as well. It works in the Netherlands afaik. Personally, I'd much rather pay £10 - £20 a month to stream every live Aberdeen game (specifically the away games). However, to impose this change would require real leadership, and that is something that simply doesn't exist at the top levels of Scottish football.
As for Aberdeen's debt, Milne has been guarantor (and was the creator of it for that matter) of that for years, and I see no reason for that to change. He's (after a cursory glance at wikipedia) by some distance the richest chairman in Scottish football. Despite his (correct) insistence that the club be capable of supporting itself, he won't let it go under. Wouldn't be entirely against letting it go into administration though, to try to weasel out of our debts like a number of other Scottish clubs have done. We only really owe the bank anyway, so no moral objections to screwing them over.
Also, the stadium move isn't dead. It's stuck in the mud due to belligerence on both sides, and an unhelpful (to be polite) council. The stadium move was generally regarded to be a major route to clearing the clubs debts.
I doubt many of the clubs' chairmen would be that forward thinking for long term plans. I'd go further with internet broadcasting as well as traditional subscription. Too many are only interested in short term gains to keep the clubs running though.
What happens if Milne ever has a change of heart at Aberdeen, forced out or through illness? We've already had numerous examples of it happening to clubs in Scotland.
Would like to see that happen but don't know the circumstances with the various issues they have with that deal. I would've expected the council to be happy to see the investment?
Quite agree.
I think Milne taking a change of heart is unlikely. Illness probably wouldn't be a problem, as it wouldn't force him to sell his shares. He could pay off Aberdeen's debts, give us enough to buy Messi and still leave a more than considerable inheritance for his family.
It's all very convoluted, who knows who's telling the truth. The way I understand it, it basically boils down to a thin strip of council owned land. The stadium site was supposed to be dual purpose, with a small stadium called Calder Park for Cove Rangers, training facilities and the main arena. The previous SNP council agreed to let the club take the land for Calder Park at a reduced price, paid for by Cove selling the land for their current ground, although part of the access to the main site will lie on this ground.
So Labour get the council chair in the election, and immediately withdraw the offer to sell the land, citing the reduced price. Though the cynic in me thinks that they're more interested in a game of one-upmanship with the SNP, than securing a little extra money for the land. Anywway, the main site hinges on this access apparently, and Milne has refused to fork out the extra dough. So now they are looking at relocating to the 'Shire', who are far more benevolent towards the club apparently. They also live in little holes in the ground.
If it improves the deadly silence (bar the odd "FOR **** SAKE LANGFIELD!"), then I'm all for it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 2,716
- Location
- Glasgow
This post is nonsense frankly.
Firstly the vote, 11-1 has never had to be used by Celtic before... ever! Also if you take the time to look up the restricted conditions you can see what they are, one of them is entitlement to home gate. Celtic, like any other business, are never going to give the other clubs the right to vote on how that is used - in fact it would be anti-competitive, the clubs might as well be owned by the SFA and a draft for players brought in as well. Why on Earth do you think St Mirren (or any other club) should be entitled to money that fans are paying to watch Celtic at Celtic Park?
And what death-grip is Scottish football being held in by Celtic? That sounds like an over-used cliche lacking substance... the opposite of what you suppose is in fact a FACT... Celtic willingly gave up prize money in a deal done earlier this year - presumable in order to strengthen the league and football overall. Do you not expect the league winners to receive more prize money than the lower positions?
It's never had to be used before by implication. The structuring of the wealth distribution in the SPL has, since its inception, been purely to service the old firm (I can provide figures if necessary). When we understand the nature of the 11-1 vote we understand why. This voting structure was designed to give the 'old firm' a veto on any matters that they disapproved of. In that context, why would a matter - such as the redistribution of wealth - ever be voted on? It is plainly obvious that this would have been nullified instantly by said Glasgow clubs.
As you say, there are currently eight measures which require an 11-1 vote in order 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
In my opinion, all of the above should be decided upon by a fairer voting system (be that 9-3, 8-4 etc) with the exception of 'Retaining home gate receipts', which frankly, should never actually be an issue. Thus, your point is null.
Firstly, I did not mention any 'death-grip' by Celtic, I talked purely about the 'old firm'. As that is no longer an issue, the point is less pertinent. In fact, there is absolutely nothing stopping the other eleven clubs voting to restructure the wealth distribution at this moment in time, as the 'old firm' veto no longer applies. I have absolutely no idea why they have not done so.
With regards to Celtic's voluntary secession of some of the prize money distribution; you will find that the percentage reduction in prize money for first place in the SPL is substantially less than the reduction of that of second place. In fact, if I recall correctly, the gap between second and first is now greater than the previous gap between third and second. Again, I will try to provide figures if necessary.
There are various rumours that Aberdeen are in debt up to £16m to the banks. These same rumours were saying that the SPL had a sponsor lined up on condition that this reconstruction deal went through and also involvement of Sky on the TV deal.
Given how defensive Neil Doncaster and the clubs have been about confidentiality many are now suggesting that this lines up with the rumour that Sky have the option to drop the current deal if they don't have Rangers' TV rights negotiated over the league membership. With BT being the SPL's only hope if they do it might work out even less than currently on offer if Charles Green continues to refuse to deal with the SPL.
With the SPL in court over pub TV rights to the tune of £2m+ and next year's SFL payment of £2m+ it all begins to add up that SPL finances could be in a real mess over the summer.
Of course, these could all just be "rumours" from various internet bampots.
Charles Green will have nothing to do with anything seeing as he's walking away