Falkirk Statement

Regardless if these clubs "are getting what they deserve", or not, is it not a good thing they are calling out the governing body? Surely we still want change and the more clubs who are expressing their grievances against those in charge the better?
 
Harrogate Bluenose said:
SPFL are a Dangerous Animal right now.

Doncaster and all back room staff (mentally challenged sympathisers)
- Alloa on board - 2nd bottom of Table 3 points from bottom
- Brechin on board - Bottom with 4 points and a sure thing to go out the leagues
- Hamilton on board - 2nd bottom and 1 point from bottom
- Celtic - need I say
- St Johnstone - 3 points from bottom.
Click to expand...
I hadn’t realised this .

We will need to keep an eye on them .
 
HamiltonBear said:
It is all starting to look like organised shifting towards ending the season. Start with the lower leagues and then use that as justification to do the same in the top league.

If the stat I read here, that Julie Anne is the only player in Scotland who has Covid there is no way that the leagues should have been suspended.

Also, have the Premiership clubs been allocated the lion's share of the gvt bail out? I didn't realise that.
Click to expand...
Prem got nothing,
loans if wanted
 
Falkirk voted with us back in April.

Of all the clubs shafted by the corrupt vote to end the season, Falkirk have probably suffered the most.

They were 1 point behind, still had to play Raith at home and were firm favourites to win their league. Instead they are now stuck in a league that has been postponed whilst trying to keep the club operating on a full-time basis.

They may not have put up a massive fight against the SPFL once the decision was made, but they are one of the few that at least spoke out.
 
A statement full of nothingness imo.

If you're gonna make a statement make sure you mention the people clubs or organisations that are annoying you and specifically why.

To many generalisations in their. More questions than answers.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
It’s the SPFL, the top league, that’s our biggest concern.

The scum, Hamilton, RC & Motherwell would stop the 75%.

On a vote of no confidence @Valley Bluenose will know, as that may only need 50% plus ?
Click to expand...
I thought I'd put all that Articles of Association stuff behind me last year LOL.:)

I'm not sure what category of Resolution a Vote of No Confidence would come under. An Ordinary Resolution requires 75% support and a Qualified Resolution 90% support.

Harrogate Bluenose said:
@Valley Bluenose

What kind of voting numbers is required to remove a CEO in the SPFL?

I know that the president can call this but that useless imbecile is on Celtics payroll.
Click to expand...

I thought you might know mate.

If anybody wants to pore over the Articles here's the link:

Articles of Association (spfl.co.uk)
 
Wilkinsvolley said:
Change is required and more are seeing it. It’s only a matter of time now before we get a clear out so we can have people in place to better the game for all rather than ruin it to help one club.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more we need genuine fair minded football people in there and far too many have too much vested interest to see the bigger picture. The likes of Doncaster shouldn't be anywhere near Hampden and his position is untenable,he shouldn't be in charge of the junior game,never mind the professional game and until they're removed we'll continue to be a laughing stock in the football world. His position is totally compromised and the mere fact he's still not commented on Dubai says a lot.
 
I said on another thread Rangers need more friends and there friends if they are to request a vote of no confidence against the corrupt scum bastards and win this time, if they can’t get the support you can’t oust the kunts.
 
Geerfc19 said:
A statement full of nothingness imo.

If you're gonna make a statement make sure you mention the people clubs or organisations that are annoying you and specifically why.

To many generalisations in their. More questions than answers.
Click to expand...

They made their views clear by saying Change is needed though

An isolated statement by one team doesn’t hold much weight right enough
 
AndyWebsterLoyal said:
No sympathy for any of them. Reap what you sow.
Click to expand...
Onslow52 said:
All were invited to contribute and help make change no longer than a few months ago, they decided not to, hell mend them.
Click to expand...
Frank Burnside said:
All these clubs are getting exactly what they deserve. They had the opportunity to back our demand for an investigation into the governing bodies but they didn't have the balls for a fight.

So, as John Rambo once said, "Fu(k 'em"
Click to expand...
Now it's been a while since I had to think who backed us. But would it not be best to check before posting this? Egg on your face now that everyone points out they backed us, nice one lads.
 
Harrogate Bluenose said:
@Valley Bluenose

What kind of voting numbers is required to remove a CEO in the SPFL?

I know that the president can call this but that useless imbecile is on Celtics payroll.
Click to expand...

Found it I think. Page 24. Though this relates to other Directors removing the CEO etc. Still trying to find how member clubs vote them out.

89. The Chairman, Non-Executive Director and Chief Executive shall be appointed to each of their respective offices and as Directors by and may be removed from each such office, and any Director or Alternate Director may be removed from any employment by the Company and/or by any of its subsidiary companies and/or, as a director, of any subsidiary company of the Company, in each case, by a simple majority vote of the Directors and, if acting for an absent L1&L2 Director, the Alternate Director.
 
We have to get more clubs onside against these corrupt cnuts otherwise we are pissin against the wind.
.As a club and fanbase we need more onside.
Clubs were held with a smoking gun to their head ,with total disregard for their wellbeing.
 
Calvinist said:
Falkirk ,Hearts , Stranraer , Inverness , Aberdeen, Livingston, Partick Thistle and Stenhousemuir all voted with us . Thistle hearts and Stranraer tried the legal route , Inverness were utterly scathing of the SPFL .

Aberdeen indicated the spfl were trying to bribe clubs .

clubs like Hamilton , Motherwell , Alloa , Ross county , Brechin and Hibs were all too eager to support Celtic/spfl
Click to expand...
Grigo Yossarian said:
It’s the SPFL, the top league, that’s our biggest concern.

The scum, Hamilton, RC & Motherwell would stop the 75%.

On a vote of no confidence @Valley Bluenose will know, as that may only need 50% plus ?
Click to expand...
Nobody should assume the likes of Hamilton are now somehow in a pro-Celtic, anti-Rangers caucus.

Hamilton voted to keep the club in the top flight; anything else was collateral damage. I didn’t agree with that vote, but it was cast in pure self-interest.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Found it I think. Page 24. Though this relates to other Directors removing the CEO etc. Still trying to find how member clubs vote them out.

89. The Chairman, Non-Executive Director and Chief Executive shall be appointed to each of their respective offices and as Directors by and may be removed from each such office, and any Director or Alternate Director may be removed from any employment by the Company and/or by any of its subsidiary companies and/or, as a director, of any subsidiary company of the Company, in each case, by a simple majority vote of the Directors and, if acting for an absent L1&L2 Director, the Alternate Director.
Click to expand...

does that require 51% of the vote? if so it should be called
 
TynesideTrueBlue said:
I said on another thread Rangers need more friends and there friends if they are to request a vote of no confidence against the corrupt scum bastards and win this time, if they can’t get the support you can’t oust the kunts.
Click to expand...
It's a pity Rangers couldn't really round the support of other Clubs kinda on the quiet to change support to enforce change.
 
academical said:
Nobody should assume the likes of Hamilton are now somehow in a pro-Celtic, anti-Rangers caucus.

Hamilton voted to keep the club in the top flight; anything else was collateral damage. I didn’t agree with that vote, but it was cast in pure self-interest.
Click to expand...

Hamilton like Motherwell and Killie were always one of the good guys. But am I not right in saying their directors boards are now infested?
 
fergie1959 said:
To those saying Falkirk supported Rangers.
Raith Rovers will oppose Charles Green's "newco" Rangers being admitted to the Scottish First Division.

And their league rivals Falkirk have said Rangers playing in Division One would be unfair "under current rules".
Rangers are seeking a league to play in now that it appears certain their bid to play in the Scottish Premier League will be rejected on 4 July.

The Scottish Football League board met on Tuesday to discuss proposals, including Rangers' entry to its set-up.

A merger between the SFL and Scottish Premier League, a one-off payment from the SPL and a promotion play-off from the First Division are on the agenda.
Click to expand...

They were both right in that stance at the time, IMO.

What still rankles with me is the way it was twisted by a compliant media, in 2012, that us going into the then 1st division was our idea. It was the all the SPL's idea. They wanted us in 1st division, with the hope that we'd bounce straight back up, with a multi-window/season transfer ban, to protect their TV money. They wanted us as mid-table fodder, for the next few seasons, unable to buy players. They shat it when the SFL did the right thing and put us into the 3rd. The SFL at that point had the ace in the pack, for at least 3 years, when it came to TV rights. There was then the hurried league reconstruction, to come all under the one SPFL banner, only to get their mitts on the TV money.

We were then on TV, almost every second weekend, but only got paid the same pittance share as the other 3rd division teams were paid.
 
academical said:
Nobody should assume the likes of Hamilton are now somehow in a pro-Celtic, anti-Rangers caucus.

Hamilton voted to keep the club in the top flight; anything else was collateral damage. I didn’t agree with that vote, but it was cast in pure self-interest.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the issue with the make up of the SPFL; it’s all about self-preservation and everyone looks after their own personal interests

An organisation running a league should be completely impartial
 
Death to them all, although I did pity Thistles plight this time round and valued their input and the others this summer in backing us but death to them all it is
 
academical said:
Nobody should assume the likes of Hamilton are now somehow in a pro-Celtic, anti-Rangers caucus.

Hamilton voted to keep the club in the top flight; anything else was collateral damage. I didn’t agree with that vote, but it was cast in pure self-interest.
Click to expand...

I understand that Academical & I’m not suggesting the club is pro Celtic, however your man at the SPFL ( Les Gray I think ) was very vocal & put his head out there against change, if not necessarily against Rangers.

I’m pretty sure he backed up the integrity of Doncaster in one of his statements, so I suppose it shows he has a sense of humour LOL.

This season you are still close to danger & I can’t see any reason why Hamilton would change their, albeit self protecting, position.
 
Cobbler Bob said:
They were both right in that stance at the time, IMO.

What still rankles with me is the way it was twisted by a compliant media, in 2012, that us going into the then 1st division was our idea. It was the all the SPL's idea. They wanted us in 1st division, with the hope that we'd bounce straight back up, with a multi-window/season transfer ban, to protect their TV money. They wanted us as mid-table fodder, for the next few seasons, unable to buy players. They shat it when the SFL did the right thing and put us into the 3rd. The SFL at that point had the ace in the pack, for at least 3 years, when it came to TV rights. There was then the hurried league reconstruction, to come all under the one SPFL banner, only to get their mitts on the TV money.

We were then on TV, almost every second weekend, but only got paid the same pittance share as the other 3rd division teams were paid.
Click to expand...

My point was they are no friends of Rangers. Aimed towards people saying they are on our side. They are not, so hell mend them.
 
supersonic said:
Now it's been a while since I had to think who backed us. But would it not be best to check before posting this? Egg on your face now that everyone points out they backed us, nice one lads.
Click to expand...
Nah, I'd rather throw out wild accusations & insults. Makes me feel like a big man.
 
Obviously many clubs are going to struggle under this league set-up and with the clowns that we have in charge.
COVID is just exposing it more clearly than before, but it has always been there, even as many clubs for a variety of reasons aided and abetted it, whilst one particular club counselled and procured it.
It is hard to feel much sympathy for the majority of clubs.
However, we have to put this behind us, and we have to be willing to find allies in order to force change.
The game in Scotland will die without wholesale change.

I made a joke of advocating a dream team of Barry Hearn and Simon Jordan to run our game, but in truth, it wasn't really much of a joke, because in all seriousness this is the sort of people that we need.
It is time to get the blazers and Tim placemen to fck and bring in serious business people who know how to sell sport and how to bring in much-needed investment.
 
Last edited:
Harrogate Bluenose said:
does that require 51% of the vote? if so it should be called
Click to expand...
Looking a bit further, only very quickly though, to be elected to the Board you appear to need 66% support from member clubs in order to fill a vacant slot. Page 29:

99.2. voting by the Members entitled to vote in making the relevant appointment or appointments, shall take place in rounds or, as described in Article 99.6, ‘in turn’ until all of the vacancies available to be filled by such Members have been filled or there are no remaining candidates who have not already been appointed or excluded in the appointment procedure, to be appointed to the remaining vacancies;

99.3. a candidate shall be appointed as Director or Alternate Director in the event that he or she receives, in any round or ‘turn’ of voting, votes totalling 66% or more of the total number of Members entitled to vote in making the relevant appointment or appointments;
 
I fear change will be a long drawn out process.

Falkirk, Thistle, Hearts etc. supported us as they had most to lose.

They were looking after their best interests and who can blame them?

Substitute those clubs for St. Mirren, QOTS, and Airdrie and most likely those votes would be moved around.

Vested interests and all that.

And the SPFL and SFA know it.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Found it I think. Page 24. Though this relates to other Directors removing the CEO etc. Still trying to find how member clubs vote them out.

89. The Chairman, Non-Executive Director and Chief Executive shall be appointed to each of their respective offices and as Directors by and may be removed from each such office, and any Director or Alternate Director may be removed from any employment by the Company and/or by any of its subsidiary companies and/or, as a director, of any subsidiary company of the Company, in each case, by a simple majority vote of the Directors and, if acting for an absent L1&L2 Director, the Alternate Director.
Click to expand...

Thanks & apologies mate. So it’s 50% plus then.
 
We’ve had a decade of people being desperate for statements then moaning that every single one doesn’t say enough, isn’t hard hitting enough etc etc. Has it not occurred yet that they’re expecting too much from a statement? We were always going to have to do this the hard way. People have been installed in every position of power, a statement was never removing them. I said years ago we’d have to build relationships and the confidence of other clubs. We were never going to do it by sitting in the corner telling people to feck off.
 
As mentioned above, it would probably be best if any resolution to oust the SPFL board came from someone other than Rangers as it would likely gain more support. It would probably be best to come from a Falkirk or Partick Thistle to take away the bias against big bad Rangers.

What we should probably do, and for all we know may be doing, is assist them in the background to ensure the best chance of success but before any resolution goes forward we need to be sure that it has enough support to oust Peters poodles, as I think we will only get one more chance at this for at least a couple of years.
 
academical said:
Nobody should assume the likes of Hamilton are now somehow in a pro-Celtic, anti-Rangers caucus.

Hamilton voted to keep the club in the top flight; anything else was collateral damage. I didn’t agree with that vote, but it was cast in pure self-interest.
Click to expand...

Hamilton voted the way every single other club would have done in their position.

As someone on another thread posted, swap the position round ie Rangers top, Celtic second and their votes would be reversed.

The job of the executive team is to find consensus and harmony which helps improve the overall health of the league as a whole.

This is almost impossible when self preservation is the order of the day and one club has too much influence.
 
jackstar said:
It's a pity Rangers couldn't really round the support of other Clubs kinda on the quiet to change support to enforce change.
Click to expand...
I’d like to think the lower league clubs have woken up to the corrupt bastards running Scottish Football, but remember the corruption to end last season and they still backed the corrupt bastards on the vote of no confidence.
 
Grigo Yossarian said:
Thanks & apologies mate. So it’s 50% plus then.
Click to expand...
The post you quoted relates to the SPFL Directors removing the CEO etc. That looks like a simple majority vote by Directors. However, they are all 'bessie mates' so that's not happening.

Post #139 relates to how Directors are appointed to the SPFL Board to fill vacancies, and that seems to require a 66% vote of support from member clubs.

I can't find anything on voting a Director out though. However, they do all come up for re-election every year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top