SPFL Season declaration challenged legally (ongoing discussion)

[der Berliner 3,231]

59 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

Whatever happened to Separate Entity FC's humble, charitable origins?

 

?

Yeah, a fine myth. If they kew their history though, they would know that Brother Walfried was as fine a specimen of a religious bigot that you can find and built the whole club around that. Straight from their own history books pre 2000.

Edited April 13, 2020 by der Berliner

[craig 5,195]

6 hours ago, buster. said:

14 team league 

2 rounds of games (26)

split

2 rounds of games (12)

26 + 12 = 38

 

Dundee can revoke their original intention, if negative.

IMO the issue is more why and the mechanics of how that took place.

ie. dark shennanigans from SPFL and/or other actors...and that is what I´d hope the whistleblower evidence clearly uncovers.

 

The very thought of maintaining this split is nauseating to me.  It's a pile of garbage.

 

And with 14 teams, in the split, you get a club every week with a bye week.  No big deal I suppose but not for me.

[ranger_syntax 3,755]

4 hours ago, buster. said:

Aye, you only start a war you think you´ll win.

 

I hope we have more WMD´s than Iraq and Iran.

Bit of a crap analogy.  

 

Surely you mean the SPFL.

[craig 5,195]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

Dundee can only revoke that vote because the result was not declared - because the SPFL didn't get the result they wanted. If the vote was genuinely outstanding and they didn't already know that it was a NO (no laughing at the back there) then common sense as well as the legality of the vote would dictate that no information on any of the outcomes should have released until all votes were in or the legal deadline for voting had elapsed, as per any established voting process. Basically we should all still be in the dark and potentially waiting 28 days to hear the outcome. Instead that principle was thrown out of the window and they released as many votes as they had to make it clear that one more YES vote was all that was needed while they went back to Dundee with all the pressure and sweeteners they could muster to get the outcome they wanted.

 

Absolutely we have to focus on the process and the mechanics of the vote because those have been flouted to ensure that the "right" outcome was reached by whatever means. That's where Rangers and other clubs have their strongest case and Doncaster and his cronies will find it hardest to wriggle out of it.

 

I hope the whistleblower has some really damning evidence. The way the SPFL are doubling down with every response, we are going to need it.

Also, had that vote not technically been received by the 5pm "deadline" (which conveniently became "28 days") then Dundee's vote should have been registered as an abstention.... and, funnily enough, an abstention would mean it still fails because they fail to get the 75% affirmative votes for a pass.

 

Now, if the SPFL are saying that the 5pm deadline was only advisory then every other club should also now be allowed additional time - yes, 28 days, in which to re-cast their vote should they wish to do so because, to not allow that, allows ONE member club additional time that 41 other clubs are not being given.

 

 

[ranger_syntax 3,755]

Sharing documents, by email, is stupid.

[buster. 4,808]

1 hour ago, craig said:

Also, had that vote not technically been received by the 5pm "deadline" (which conveniently became "28 days") then Dundee's vote should have been registered as an abstention.... and, funnily enough, an abstention would mean it still fails because they fail to get the 75% affirmative votes for a pass.

 

Now, if the SPFL are saying that the 5pm deadline was only advisory then every other club should also now be allowed additional time - yes, 28 days, in which to re-cast their vote should they wish to do so because, to not allow that, allows ONE member club additional time that 41 other clubs are not being given.

 

 

For most of the above, not really. Other than abstention obviously having the same affect as a No vote.

It was always 28 days but with a request for it to be submitted by Friday.

Once received, you can´t revoke a yes vote in this type of voting proceedure (see point 2 below on SPFL sheet and the same rule is part of the Companies Act of 2006).

 

 

[buster. 4,808]

2 hours ago, craig said:

The very thought of maintaining this split is nauseating to me.  It's a pile of garbage.

 

And with 14 teams, in the split, you get a club every week with a bye week.  No big deal I suppose but not for me.

Post C19 in amongst the economic carnage, Scottish football will generally be closer to garbage than it was a couple of months ago.

 

Perhaps kinder to term it getting closer to N.I. / Welsh League level with two teams that are looking for somewhere else to ply their trade.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2020 by buster.

[RANGERRAB 3,254]

Am I the only one ( & Ally McCoist too maybe) who thinks Fridays fiasco should be getting investigated by the police?

 

Can we be sure friday’s vote wasn’t rigged by certain individuals? Corporate crime ?

 

[Bill 13,717]

2 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

Am I the only one ( & Ally McCoist too maybe) who thinks Fridays fiasco should be getting investigated by the police?

 

Can we be sure friday’s vote wasn’t rigged by certain individuals? Corporate crime ?

 

It would certainly add some mustard if a formal complaint was received by the police.

[buster. 4,808]

5 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

Am I the only one ( & Ally McCoist too maybe) who thinks Fridays fiasco should be getting investigated by the police?

 

Can we be sure friday’s vote wasn’t rigged by certain individuals? Corporate crime ?

 

We´ll never have any investigation, independent or Polis with what is out there.

 

The only way that changes is if Rangers come to the table with high grade whistleblower evidence.