Ross County Will Vote No

[ian1964 10,410]

By Paul Forsyth

Published on Sunday 14 April 2013 00:00

 

WEE club, big decision. Ross County have punched above their weight in the Premier League this season, but you wouldn’t want to be in their shoes at Hampden tomorrow.

 

As County chairman Roy MacGregor ponders what to do with a vote that could shape the immediate future of football in this country, the pressure is mounting by the minute.

 

On Friday, Hearts warned that rejection of the latest reconstruction proposals would “speed up the demise of Scottish football”. Now, as SPL clubs prepare to pass judgment on the controversial plan for leagues of 12, 12 and 18, Peter Lawwell, the Celtic chief executive, has stepped forward to lean on MacGregor. Tonight will be a sleepless one for the County chairman, who is expected to cast the decisive vote. For the plan to clear the first of two hurdles – the second is an SFL vote later in the week – it will need to be carried with an 11-1 majority. Ten clubs are thought to be in favour of the plan. Stewart Gilmour, the St Mirren chairman, has indicated that his club will oppose it.

 

If that is how it pans out, the burden of responsibility will rest almost entirely with MacGregor. He has made no secret of his reservations, shared by the club’s supporters and manager, Derek Adams, but he is also aware of a rare consensus among the clubs.

 

Lawwell argues that, had MacGregor been through what the rest of the SPL have been through these past few years, he would vote “yes”. Asked if he would be speaking to MacGregor ahead of the meeting, Lawwell said: “If that’s what it takes, yes. I know Roy is being chased by every press man in the country, every chairman or chief executive. He’s in an awful position, which is really unfortunate. He’s a great guy. He’s got a great club. He’s done a brilliant job up there and I respect his right to vote. But what I would be saying to Roy is that, with the greatest of respect, they are new to the SPL. And the other ten clubs have been round the block many, many times, been in it for long enough and been part of reconstruction and strategy talks for three years. We have the cuts and bruises. Maybe he should listen.

 

“It’s fine being new and fresh and they’ve done fantastically well, but is that going to be his position in two, three or four years’ time once he has experienced it all?

 

“Maybe in two or three years’ time, when the novelty factor has worn off and the quality has kept coming down, Roy might say ‘that was an opportunity lost’. Maybe he’s right, but ten of us don’t agree and we’ve been around for years. It’s not a threat. It’s not an ultimatum. It’s just trying to get him to understand what we know and he has no reason to know because it’s new to him.”

 

MacGregor, who agrees with many elements of the package, is concerned about the effect on season ticket sales of a 12-12-18 structure in which the top two divisions split into three tiers of eight after 22 matches. He has also said to Lawwell that his club, currently fifth in the SPL, would have ended up in the middle eight under the proposed system.

 

Lawwell argues that, in another season, the split could just as easily work in their favour. “That’s football,” says Lawwell. “You take your chances.

 

“For me, the whole purpose of this is to create more excitement, more drama and the first 22 games would do that. Therefore, your season books would be unaffected. In fact, they’d probably grow.”

 

Lawwell is keen to put in perspective the meeting at which County supporters informed the club’s board of their opposition to the plan. He said that their views should be compared with those of the 9,000 Celtic season ticket holders who did not attend their recent home match against Hibs.

 

“I think there were 130 fans at the meeting Roy held that night. With the greatest of respect, we have 9,000 fans not turning up and they’ve paid for it. That puts it into context, I think.”

 

Lawwell is frustrated that the unanimity announced after an SPL meeting in January no longer seems to exist. He says that there was no mention then of Gilmour’s problem, which is the 11-1 voting majority required to carry certain motions.

 

“The 11-1 is a red herring, a total smokescreen,” says Lawwell.

 

“This fallacy that Celtic and Rangers have used this as a block for progress is a nonsense. We have never ever voted, in my time, to block anything under 11-1.”

 

Lawwell says that the 11-1 system applies only to so-called “protected items”, such as the voting structure itself, shirt sponsorship and the number of home matches a club is obliged to have broadcast live as part of the SPL’s television contract.

 

If, for instance, Sky were to offer more money for the right to show every league match at Parkhead, a vote in favour could have a catastrophic effect on Celtic’s finances.

 

“If that was an 8-4, and Sky came along and said we’ll give [the SPL] an extra £2 million... there’s a good chance we’re going to lose it and we’re going to lose it because St Mirren are going to get another 100 grand. But what’s going to happen to our club is that everyone is going to watch it on the telly and no one is going to come here and we come crashing down.

 

“You can’t have it. Aberdeen don’t want it, Dundee United don’t want it, Hearts, Hibs, they don’t want it.

 

“It’s anti-competitive. We would go to the Office of Fair Trading and we would win it. It’s not legal. You can’t be put at such a competitive disadvantage in a collective.”

 

Under the new proposals, Celtic will be protected against a salary cap, quotas on young, homegrown players and the need to give more notice of resignation from the league. They have also argued against plans for an earlier start to the season, which would adversely affect their tour revenue.

 

In return, they are prepared to give up a considerable chunk of prize money so that it can be distributed through the league. That give and take, says Lawwell, is why the package has to be taken in its entirety, with no “cherry-picking”. “It’s taken eight months to put together and for every positive there’s a negative. If you take one out, someone will like it, but someone else won’t like it. It disturbs the equilibrium and the whole thing unravels.”

 

The proposals are not perfect, but Lawwell believes that the introduction of a single governing body, a more even distribution of wealth and an increase in the number of meaningful matches will benefit Scottish football. It is, he says, a remarkable feat of negotiation that should not go to waste. The current powerbrokers have never been so close to an agreement, which would bring much-needed stability and credibility at a time when crowds are plummeting and the SPL is losing its title sponsor.

 

“If it doesn’t happen, it stays the same and that, to me, is not palatable,” says Lawwell. “The game has been on a downward trend for the past few years. I would see no reason for that to change if we stay the same.”

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/reconstruction-lawwell-explains-importance-of-yes-1-2894351

[RANGERRAB 3,255]

If their reconstruction goes thro' it's imperative that Rangers aren't subsidising it thro' the SKY deal. CG must stick to his guns & refuse to sign the SKY deal for next season. We'll see how they like that. It's called revenge - a dish best served cold, as payback for all that's been thrown at us over the past year

[Calgacus 8]

The SKY deal doesn't need Green's signature, this was just another of his verbal mistakes. Rangers have no say on TV deals - the rights belong to the League not the individual clubs.

[bluebear54 0]

If their reconstruction goes thro' it's imperative that Rangers aren't subsidising it thro' the SKY deal. CG must stick to his guns & refuse to sign the SKY deal for next season. We'll see how they like that. It's called revenge - a dish best served cold, as payback for all that's been thrown at us over the past year

 

Much as I think that's fair, and much as I think we should try to ensure a fair deal for us - who probably provide 50% of the viewers (somebody could kindly provide the correct estimated figure) I don't think we can be seen to be playing hard ball. We would be refused a license.

What we should be doing is showing some solidarity for once, with Club, Fangroups, forums et al, and saying, look, we are not going to pay for SKY Sports or BT Sports. We are going to recommend that all RFC fans do not subscribe, and the reasons are that we are being stitched up like a kipper.

By all means, have your sponsorship, your media deal and your brave new world, but don't count on the blue pound.

Combined we are the biggest single source of revenue in Scottish football.

Combined, we could move mountains.

[bluebear54 0]

By Paul Forsyth

Published on Sunday 14 April 2013 00:00

 

WEE club, big decision. Ross County have punched above their weight in the Premier League this season, but you wouldn’t want to be in their shoes at Hampden tomorrow.

 

As County chairman Roy MacGregor ponders what to do with a vote that could shape the immediate future of football in this country, the pressure is mounting by the minute.

 

On Friday, Hearts warned that rejection of the latest reconstruction proposals would “speed up the demise of Scottish football”. Now, as SPL clubs prepare to pass judgment on the controversial plan for leagues of 12, 12 and 18, Peter Lawwell, the Celtic chief executive, has stepped forward to lean on MacGregor. Tonight will be a sleepless one for the County chairman, who is expected to cast the decisive vote. For the plan to clear the first of two hurdles – the second is an SFL vote later in the week – it will need to be carried with an 11-1 majority. Ten clubs are thought to be in favour of the plan. Stewart Gilmour, the St Mirren chairman, has indicated that his club will oppose it.

 

If that is how it pans out, the burden of responsibility will rest almost entirely with MacGregor. He has made no secret of his reservations, shared by the club’s supporters and manager, Derek Adams, but he is also aware of a rare consensus among the clubs.

 

Lawwell argues that, had MacGregor been through what the rest of the SPL have been through these past few years, he would vote “yes”. Asked if he would be speaking to MacGregor ahead of the meeting, Lawwell said: “If that’s what it takes, yes. I know Roy is being chased by every press man in the country, every chairman or chief executive. He’s in an awful position, which is really unfortunate. He’s a great guy. He’s got a great club. He’s done a brilliant job up there and I respect his right to vote. But what I would be saying to Roy is that, with the greatest of respect, they are new to the SPL. And the other ten clubs have been round the block many, many times, been in it for long enough and been part of reconstruction and strategy talks for three years. We have the cuts and bruises. Maybe he should listen.

 

“It’s fine being new and fresh and they’ve done fantastically well, but is that going to be his position in two, three or four years’ time once he has experienced it all?

 

“Maybe in two or three years’ time, when the novelty factor has worn off and the quality has kept coming down, Roy might say ‘that was an opportunity lost’. Maybe he’s right, but ten of us don’t agree and we’ve been around for years. It’s not a threat. It’s not an ultimatum. It’s just trying to get him to understand what we know and he has no reason to know because it’s new to him.”

 

MacGregor, who agrees with many elements of the package, is concerned about the effect on season ticket sales of a 12-12-18 structure in which the top two divisions split into three tiers of eight after 22 matches. He has also said to Lawwell that his club, currently fifth in the SPL, would have ended up in the middle eight under the proposed system.

 

Lawwell argues that, in another season, the split could just as easily work in their favour. “That’s football,” says Lawwell. “You take your chances.

 

“For me, the whole purpose of this is to create more excitement, more drama and the first 22 games would do that. Therefore, your season books would be unaffected. In fact, they’d probably grow.”

 

Lawwell is keen to put in perspective the meeting at which County supporters informed the club’s board of their opposition to the plan. He said that their views should be compared with those of the 9,000 Celtic season ticket holders who did not attend their recent home match against Hibs.

 

“I think there were 130 fans at the meeting Roy held that night. With the greatest of respect, we have 9,000 fans not turning up and they’ve paid for it. That puts it into context, I think.”

 

Lawwell is frustrated that the unanimity announced after an SPL meeting in January no longer seems to exist. He says that there was no mention then of Gilmour’s problem, which is the 11-1 voting majority required to carry certain motions.

 

“The 11-1 is a red herring, a total smokescreen,” says Lawwell.

 

“This fallacy that Celtic and Rangers have used this as a block for progress is a nonsense. We have never ever voted, in my time, to block anything under 11-1.”

 

Lawwell says that the 11-1 system applies only to so-called “protected items”, such as the voting structure itself, shirt sponsorship and the number of home matches a club is obliged to have broadcast live as part of the SPL’s television contract.

 

If, for instance, Sky were to offer more money for the right to show every league match at Parkhead, a vote in favour could have a catastrophic effect on Celtic’s finances.

 

“If that was an 8-4, and Sky came along and said we’ll give [the SPL] an extra £2 million... there’s a good chance we’re going to lose it and we’re going to lose it because St Mirren are going to get another 100 grand. But what’s going to happen to our club is that everyone is going to watch it on the telly and no one is going to come here and we come crashing down.

 

“You can’t have it. Aberdeen don’t want it, Dundee United don’t want it, Hearts, Hibs, they don’t want it.

 

“It’s anti-competitive. We would go to the Office of Fair Trading and we would win it. It’s not legal. You can’t be put at such a competitive disadvantage in a collective.”

 

Under the new proposals, Celtic will be protected against a salary cap, quotas on young, homegrown players and the need to give more notice of resignation from the league. They have also argued against plans for an earlier start to the season, which would adversely affect their tour revenue.

 

In return, they are prepared to give up a considerable chunk of prize money so that it can be distributed through the league. That give and take, says Lawwell, is why the package has to be taken in its entirety, with no “cherry-picking”. “It’s taken eight months to put together and for every positive there’s a negative. If you take one out, someone will like it, but someone else won’t like it. It disturbs the equilibrium and the whole thing unravels.”

 

The proposals are not perfect, but Lawwell believes that the introduction of a single governing body, a more even distribution of wealth and an increase in the number of meaningful matches will benefit Scottish football. It is, he says, a remarkable feat of negotiation that should not go to waste. The current powerbrokers have never been so close to an agreement, which would bring much-needed stability and credibility at a time when crowds are plummeting and the SPL is losing its title sponsor.

 

“If it doesn’t happen, it stays the same and that, to me, is not palatable,” says Lawwell. “The game has been on a downward trend for the past few years. I would see no reason for that to change if we stay the same.”

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/reconstruction-lawwell-explains-importance-of-yes-1-2894351

 

So, to cut to the quick, Uncle Peter's saying, "Look Roy, we're going to lose £350k out of this and you're going to earn shitloads more. Celtic are just going to lose out of this, but we're absolutely desperate to give that £350k away now. However, if you don't get on board now, we might not be in a position to offer it again, and we'd have to keep it. That would be disastrous for Scottish football, and for Celtic, 'cos we'd have £350k more each year"

[RANGERRAB 3,255]

The SKY deal doesn't need Green's signature, this was just another of his verbal mistakes. Rangers have no say on TV deals - the rights belong to the League not the individual clubs.

 

belong to which league ? the SFL ? the SPL ? REMEMBER THIS:-

 

NO RANGERS = NO SKY DEAL = FINANCIAL KO's

 

Reading what Liewell was saying this morning then it would appear him & his mob would accept either 12-12-18 OR 12-12-10-10 leaving the bottom leagues with the SFL.

Presumably if we then get put in the lower leagues(and get denied promotion then I'd hope we'd go to court of session again) then why can't SFL get their own deal which isn't linked to the SPL ? The SFL would get more & the SPL less

[ian1964 10,410]

Change or die

McLeish in plea to warring clubs

 

FOOTBALL faces an historic opportunity to create a new era in club development.

 

At a time of growing challenges, acute financial problems, a fragile fan base and a deepening sense of frustration and pessimism, radical change is needed.

 

This is a time when the greater good of the game — and its importance to Scotland — is truly recognised and where self-interest has to be carefully balanced against a backdrop of regression.

 

This is also a time for solidarity, compromise, trust and mutual respect within a game that too often reflects the opposite.

 

We also need to recognise that the fans deserve better and that those who wish to invest in our game see merit and future prosperity.

 

Three years ago, the second part of my Review of Scottish football was published.

 

Where part one focused on grassroots, the sequel revolved around governance and structures, the areas in need of the greatest change.

 

Appropriately, it was called Football’s Choice: Facing the Future.

 

This week, member clubs of the Scottish Premier League and Scottish Football League will make that choice.

 

It can only be hoped that for the sake of the game — our game — they take the bold step of securing a brighter future for a game in dire need of rejuvenation.

 

The debate on the future direction of the national game has been intense, varied and passionately argued.

 

No other area of the report has dominated as much air time, generated as many column inches or required as many high-level board meetings, fans forums or surveys.

 

We’ve approached the moment of reckoning for Scottish football.

 

The time calls for bravery, cool heads and consideration beyond the historic self-interest that has left Scottish game trailing behind the more progressive European countries, domestically and in the international arena.

 

There has been a fixation with the size of top division, which, while understandable, has skewed the debate and undermined the real need for change.

 

Since the divisive breakaway of the top 10 clubs in 1998, Scottish football’s league structure has been riven by mistrust.

 

This week provides the chance to reunite football’s broken family for the common good. A chance to put past differences aside in order to take the game forward collectively and collaboratively.

 

A single league body is simply essential for a country as small as Scotland. Bureaucracy and endless wrangling often inhibit positive thought and innovation.

 

Nobody needs reminding of the harsh economic climate.

 

Football has been a high- profile casualty, as we have seen with the recent financial troubles to have afflicted Rangers — one of the country’s great institutions — Dunfermline Athletic and, to a lesser degree, Hearts.

 

Greater financial distribution is the umbilical cord of this embryonic new model.

 

The status quo is simply incomprehensible: routine elimination from European competition at the preliminary stage with, of course, the honourable exception of Celtic; an audience gripped by little more than apathy; a national side propping up its World Cup qualifying group and sliding down the rankings at an alarming rate.

 

The evidence of the need for radical change is compelling. The introduction of play-offs would invigorate the season, adding some much-needed drama to a league that, bluntly, will be competitive in name only until Rangers are returned to the top division.

 

Above all, football exists to entertain.

 

One of the key recommendations in the Review of Scottish Football was the need for a pyramid at the base of the senior set-up.

 

For too long, clubs in the Third Division enjoyed the safety of no relegation to non-league football.

 

Not only is it a glaring competitive omission but a prohibitive measure to clubs with aspirations to join and thrive in senior football.

 

The ultimate size of the top division, as has been said before, is simply the vehicle for change.

 

The principles of restructuring will safeguard the game at a time of grim uncertainty and provide a platform for further improvement in the medium term.

 

There is no ideal or perfect solution to any problem in football or in life.

 

But what we have to do is to reflect on aspirations and ambitions, acknowledge the acute financial difficulties and decide on a practical, balanced and workable way forward.

 

We have all had our say. This week it is football’s choice to face the future.

 

I urge all members to vote for a future that is bright, vibrant, exciting and entertaining.

 

The alternative is a future not worth contemplating.

 

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/4887641/Change-or-die.html

[der Berliner 3,240]

More of the doomesday scenario scare-mongering, which will put even more pressure on Ross County. You wonder what those SPL teams will do who have been ominously silent so far.

 

I for one look forward to a day or two of mhedia meltdown and finger-pointing should the Highlanders vote No.

[Gribz 743]

What time is the vote today?

[der Berliner 3,240]

Now here comes something rather unexpected ...

 

Stop trying to ruin this - SFL chief in scathing attack

 

SFL CHIEF Jim Ballantyne has launched a vitriolic attack on officials from other clubs who he claims are scuppering league reconstruction.

 

Writing in his clubâ??s programme before the 2-1 defeat to Partick Thistle which saw his side relegated to the Second Division, the Airdrie chairman said: â??I donâ??t think Iâ??ve ever been out of love with football as much as I am right now.

 

â??It has been a hellish season and I canâ??t wait for it to end.

 

â??I am also deeply saddened at the way in which reconstruction has been played out, and in particular with certain characters who are working things with their own agenda in mind and sod everybody else.

 

â??They have their media-friendly patsies who trail out every leak theyâ??re given whether it is true or just utter tosh.

 

â??Fans have been presented with a concerted campaign by certain people dancing to a pre-determined tune and I can understand why fans donâ??t know whether they are coming or going.

 

â??The same goes for a number of clubs.

 

â??David Longmuir (the SFL chief executive), one of the hardest working and honest people I have had the pleasure to work with in football, has recently been singled out for demonisation by the usual suspects.

 

â??Why? Because he tries to give all 30 SFL clubs as much information as possible to be able to make an informed decision â?? acting the way any independent chief executive should.

 

â??Next day he is in Rangersâ?? pocket. Sometimes I really do despair.

 

â??For what it is worth there is a lot right with the proposed principles behind the changes, although it is far from perfect.

 

â??If it is to fail, it would be very sad that it might have done so as a result of a simple lack of trust. That says it all about the current state of Scottish football.â?

 

Scottish Sun