Scottish Football League clubs split 50/50 on league reconstruction timing

[Steve1872 4]

Scottish Football League clubs remain divided over league reconstruction meaning plans are unlikely to be introduced for next season.

Representatives of SFL clubs met at Hampden for further discussions over the plans to restructure the professional leagues. The Scottish Premier League has already agreed to vote on the issue in April.

The SFL chairmen were unable to reach unanimous agreement on the proposals and are split 50/50. No vote has been scheduled but STV understands that in the next few days there will be arrangements made for a formal vote.

SFL chief executive David Longmuir said following the meeting that many clubs felt it was unrealistic to force through change in time for next season.

He said that he was hopeful that the SPL would agree to a season's delay on the the plans.

The proposals would introduce a new unified league body and a 12-12 18 league structure, in addition to engineering a redistribution of revenue throughout the 42 professional clubs.

Approval from both the SPL and the SFL would be required to put the change into effect and 75% of SFL clubs would need to vote yes. With Rangers unable to vote, this would mean 22 of the remaining 29 SFL clubs would need to back the plan.

 

http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-first/219382-sfl-clubs-split-5050-on-league-reconstruction-timing/

[GovanAllan 0]

Well that's the cat amongst the pigeons, prepare for Liewell and his pals to spit the dummy oot and start throwing the threats around.

Edited March 28, 2013 by GovanAllan

[bluebear54 0]

This sounds like fun and games.

Agreed with GA's previous post.

Scottish football has become a cesspit of threat and innuendo.

As has the Scottish football media.

So, threats through the media - or innuendo/incentive passed on by word of mouth?

Both is my bet.

Think we're all convinced that the powers that be need this go through for this year.

As I said - fun and games.

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

They cannot afford not to have us in their top division next season otherwise the big financial contributors such as SKY and whoever replaces the CB (if they can get anyone) will either reduce these contributions or walk away altogether

[GovanAllan 0]

They could always force a break away of 12/12 and invite us in.

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

They could always force a break away of 12/12 and invite us in.

 

I'd say there's a very good chance of that happening. They need us for the money.

That being the case then CG would hold all the aces..........now that would be interesting

[bluebear54 0]

They could always force a break away of 12/12 and invite us in.

 

Did I not read somewhere that's against the regulations? Is it not this regulation - and perhaps others?

 

12. NOTICE TO RESIGN MEMBERSHIP

No Member shall resign, retire or otherwise cease to be a member of the League unless it shall have given not less than two full seasons prior written notice so to do, unless with the approval of not less than two-thirds (66%) of the votes cast at a general meeting of the League.

[GovanAllan 0]

Did I not read somewhere that's against the regulations? Is it not this regulation - and perhaps others?

 

12. NOTICE TO RESIGN MEMBERSHIP

No Member shall resign, retire or otherwise cease to be a member of the League unless it shall have given not less than two full seasons prior written notice so to do, unless with the approval of not less than two-thirds (66%) of the votes cast at a general meeting of the League.

 

When did rules ever stop them.

[bluebear54 0]

When did rules ever stop them.

 

Rules never stopped them - agreed. The threat of legislation and being sued might stop the top twelve however. It wouldn't be the SPL getting sued, and it would be your Raiths and Falkirks etc.

It would be a hoot if it didn't apply to us as an associate member.

[Steve1872 4]

[h=3]SCOTTISH football was in meltdown last night — as SPL2 edged closer.[/h]On a crazy day of claim and counter-claim, SFL chief David Longmuir first insisted member clubs had been convinced to delay reconstruction for a year.

But within hours the SPL announced they intend to try to steamroller change through this summer.

That would see the controversial 12-12-18 set-up in place for the start of NEXT season.

It’s understood several First Division clubs agree with SPL sides that the time for change is now.

Timing And they fear delays could see any reconstruction deal off the table by next summer.

SunSport can reveal they made their concerns known to the SPL immediately after a five-hour SFL meeting at Hampden broke up.

SFL chief executive Longmuir had emerged from the talks to insist: “The key issue is timing. We feel we can deliver the changes, just not quite in time for next season.

“I don’t think a year is a lot to ask for to get everyone together. The clubs are fully supportive of this and sent out an important message today.”

Longmuir admitted he had held a further informal meeting with concerned First Division clubs but claimed: “I am comfortable that what I’m presenting will have their support.”

But that appears unlikely, with SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster insisting: “We’ve spent months negotiating the detail of the deal which was announced on January 8.

“There is no attempt to rush anything, but we have a window of opportunity and we will be going forward on April 15 with documents that reflect the deal that was done for implementation this summer.”

That is set to lead to chaos for the immediate future of the game.

The SPL announced yesterday they will kick off next season on August 3.

They are budgeting on having a mandate for change from their meeting a fortnight on Monday — and suspect SFL clubs won’t be able to reach an agreement on what’s best for THEIR future.

That would allow the SPL to cherry-pick clubs for a 12-team second tier league — which would see Rangers invited into the second-top division and potentially offer crisis club Dunfermline a lifeline.