bigy

The SPL 2 would only work with Rangers in it to boost the TV deal. Hopefully we'd tell them where to go.

According to BBC.

If it's a yes vote, how is the 12th place in Division 1 decided? It should be a play-off between 2nd bottom of 1st, and 2nd/3rd/4th in Div 2, but the 2nd bottom in 1st will undoubtedly stay put leaving one play-off place open.

Surely this should go to the Div 3 champions as some reward.

Our connection is through Albertz, he scum took St Pauli because of that.

The biggest risk to the SPL is not being able to milk Rangers for TV money next season. That's the only reason they now want a single body.

If sevco 5088 has never had anything to do with Rangers why the mass hysteria? It ties in with Greens claim to have shafted Whyte, given it was Sevco Scotland who bought the club.

Would Lord Nimmo-Smith rule on any appeal?

The bit that's most disconcerting is Stephen Thompson's comments:

Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson believes that there is still time to change the mind of clubs who might be against the proposal.

 

"It is not dead at all and I'm quite excited that we might be able to do something to change the game in Scotland," he told BBC Scotland. "I am quite hopeful there's going to be a lot of pressure put on lots of people this week."

So an SPL chairman can openly admit that undue pressure is going to be put on clubs/individuals to make decisions which are not necessarily in their own interest, and the newspapers ignore this!!

It looks more and more like they have something to hide!! What gets me is how Division 1 clubs can be so gullible without seeing what the financial benefits are.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22088117

 

Financial blow for Scottish football's restructure plan

By Jim Spence

 

BBC Scotland Proposed changes to Scottish football have suffered a setback after it emerged that information required for clubs to vote on the matter has not been provided.

 

Clubs in the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League are being asked to consider new leagues of 12, 12 and 18 from the present four.

 

But it is understood that the SFL has still not allowed access to documents.

 

SFL clubs are due to vote on the proposal next Friday.

 

Following a meeting between Scottish football's three governing bodies, the SFL had requested assistance from the Scottish Football Association in providing financial due diligence.

 

That is seen as vital to help clubs decide how to vote on the proposed new set-up, which would result in a merger between the two league bodies.

 

However, it is believed that, despite requests from the SFA, the SFL has still not allowed access to its financial details.

 

That information was originally expected last Wednesday.

 

The SFL vote would be scrapped should the SPL clubs fail to achieve the required 11-1 majority in their own ballot on Monday.

 

Motherwell have become the latest SPL club to say they will vote in favour of the new league structure.

 

However, St Mirren have already come out strongly against the proposal and Ross County chairman Roy McGregor has voiced his own doubts.

 

McGregor has, though, stressed that he sees some merit in the proposals and that it will be a decision for the Dingwall club's whole board at its meeting on Friday.

 

Dundee United chairman Stephen Thompson believes that there is still time to change the mind of clubs who might be against the proposal.

 

"It is not dead at all and I'm quite excited that we might be able to do something to change the game in Scotland," he told BBC Scotland.

 

"I am quite hopeful there's going to be a lot of pressure put on lots of people this week.

 

"If people think there's another option on the table, there's no other option on the table.

 

"It's this or nothing else and I think it could be many years before we get back to the table and get as many clubs in agreement about taking the game forward."

 

Thompson insisted that his club was not voting out of self interest as there were aspects of the proposal with which United are not totally happy.

 

"It's not perfect, but there's enough in it for my club to vote for it," he said.

 

"There's a huge amount at stake here. I am trying to take my club hat off and think of Scottish football.

 

"If it was purely about my own club, I wouldn't vote for this because in some respects it gives you a great chance of being relegated."

 

Thompson believes that First Division clubs, presently struggling to maintain full-time playing squads, would benefit most from the proposed redistribution of income.

 

It is believed that all but one Division One club are in favour of the proposal.

If Boca can pass some experience and learning on to Hegarty, Cole, Perry, etc and improve these guys as players then £16k is a snip.

Good news!!

Carlos Bocanegra‏@BocaBoca355m

We are headed in the right direction, gotta keep working hard until the end of the season, and get the job done here first. #vamosracing

Carlos Bocanegra‏@BocaBoca353m

cont.. After that, I am really looking forward to coming home and playing in front of the Ibrox faithful next season.

It may have been mentioned, but the Dutch also have Champions League / Europa League play offs which could help with the 'excitement' factor.

So, for example, if Scotland got 1 Champions League and 3 Europa League spots, the CL spot goes to the Champions, 1 EL goes to the Cup winners, 1 to second place, and the third goes to the winners of a play off between 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th - or the top 4 teams in the league who've not qualified if the cup winners are in those positions.

It'd keep a lot of teams interested and create some excitement at the end of the season.

Surely if the 'proposal' doesn't go through, no matter who scuppers it, then 'SPL 2' kicks in?

Why? They'd still need 11 v 1 to introduce SPL2. Why would St Mirren and the like vote for that?

Let's just hope Ross County stand firm, and/or others stand with St Mirren on this.

It's genuinely astonishing that the SPL have focussed so much attention on trying to bribe the SFL1 clubs into supporting the proposals or joining a break-away, when they can't get their own house in order. It begs the question whose views has Doncaster been representing in recent weeks.

If this reconstruction does go through I can't see the SFL simply handing over the 18 club league to the SPL without a fight.

And I can't see CG being happy about us continuing to subsidise the SPL via the SKY deal and whatever else.

There's a lot still to happen yet IMO

I agree, but reconstruction will only happen if the SPL and SFL bothe agree - in which case there's a single league body covering all the leagues and our games come into that whether we like it or not.

The SPL 2 won't happen as clubs need to give a notice period, so it's all or nothing the way I see it.

No it wobt, but no reconstruction means status quo as SFL clubs need to give notice.

Sky will renegotiate either way, but without us the deal will be even worse.

Reconstruction means one league body and milking Rangers. Otherwiae nothing changes.

Maybe, but SFL clubs need to give 3 years notice so cant see it happening.

It will help as under a single league body they can sell our games and we won't have a say. I think Sky may still try to renegotiate, but no reconstruction means no Rangers games within the current agreement and the SFL/Ranges can make our own deal.

The TV viewing figures are less than a third of what SKy had for games involving us and Celtic, and they've lost 4 old firm games which dre in over ten times what the replacement matches have.

Sky's advertising revenue will have plummeted, and they'll have no choice but to renegotiate.

According to Radio Scotland St Mirren and Ross. County have consulted fans and will vote against it, so the proposals can't go through. Yet again the SPL have been too busy trying to bully and blackmail SFL clubs and haven't sorted their own house.

Think Thompson (Utd) and Miller (Sheep) have been on greeting about it. Suggests to me the much rumoured Sky release/renegotiation clause might be about to get enacted.

The tapes don't sound good for Green, however if Whyte is involved why on earth would he break cover knowing the reaction and damage it would do to 'his frontman'?

I'd come to a deal with them. Tell them if they pay our prize money from last year plus interest they can deduct the legal costs and £250k fine from it. Otherwise gtf.

So just so I get this right, people think that the CEO of BT Plc is going to influence the CEO (Daniel Marks) and CE (Marc Watson)of BT Vision (UK) Ltd into paying an inflated price for the SPL contract because of his role as a non-Exec on Celtic's board? And you think that the shareholders and board members of BT Vision (UK) Ltd are going to allow that?

As far as I can see Ian Livingston has no role in BT VIsion (UK) Ltd.

Do you know who the head honcho at BT is?

The Chief Executive of BT Vision is Marc Watson. Ian Livingston (a non exec at Celtic) is CEO of BT.

i think to suggest that a subsidiary of BT can be co-erced into wasting shareholders money because of their CEOs non exec role at the piggery is a bit paranoid. If he does then he could easily end up in court.

The ESPN TV deal has a release/renegotiation clause, so regardless of BT Vision taking over or not, they are free to renegotiate.