Jump to content

bazil85

Protest After Kilmarnock Game If Lennon Isn't Already Gone?

Recommended Posts

Well done Oaky for standing strong. It must have been a harrowing experience. FFS

Nope but it was very satisfying to be able to look the fearties in the eye and laugh at their armageddon knicker wetting.

You know - those people who would sell their grannies to clutch at the safety of Rangers dirty money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Oaky for standing strong. It must have been a harrowing experience. FFS

That's a poor response.

There was absolutely no substance in your post, and Oaksoft has simply told it like it was.

Some of us never bought the Armageddon pish, and it seems that this has been more than vindicated, so your original point was spurious at best.

Anyway, we are veering off topic....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a poor response.

There was absolutely no substance in your post, and Oaksoft has simply told it like it was.

Some of us never bought the Armageddon pish, and it seems that this has been more than vindicated, so your original point was spurious at best.

Anyway, we are veering off topic....

Some of us did buy into the armageddon pish for one good reason. We were looking across a boardroom table while SG asked us if we would be prepared to take a soft stance on Rangers if it meant people at our club keeping their jobs instead of losing them.

Faced with the thought of people like Norrie, Kath, Audrey and others being laid off, I was prepared to buy into the armageddon scenario.

Lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us did buy into the armageddon pish for one good reason. We were looking across a boardroom table while SG asked us if we would be prepared to take a soft stance on Rangers if it meant people at our club keeping their jobs instead of losing them.

Faced with the thought of people like Norrie, Kath, Audrey and others being laid off, I was prepared to buy into the armageddon scenario.

Lies.

I'm certainly not looking to take a self-congratulatory stance on this issue.

I opted not to buy into what most others did at the time, on the basis of taking the claims of SG and the other directors in good faith. That was my personal call, and others were entitled to form their own view also.

I won't, however, accept any suggestion that I was willing to see the club go into adminstration on the basis of some misplaced principle or irrational dislike of Sevco on my part. That is errant, and divisive twaddle. I simply wasn't hearing any compelling argument to back up the armageddon line.

A sense of vindication isn't the same as a 'told you so' attitude (I appreciate that you're not suggesting it is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us did buy into the armageddon pish for one good reason. We were looking across a boardroom table while SG asked us if we would be prepared to take a soft stance on Rangers if it meant people at our club keeping their jobs instead of losing them.

Faced with the thought of people like Norrie, Kath, Audrey and others being laid off, I was prepared to buy into the armageddon scenario.

Lies.

Drew and I were the two at the meeting who said we wouldn't be back if Rangers were allowed to stay in the SPL. The rest, on a show of hands, voted that they would accept the club voting to save Rangers out of necessity. I didn't go into the stadium afterwards but the reports at the time suggested that the fans who were there that night did the same.

I can't claim though that I didn't buy into the "Armageddon pish". I did, I certainly thought there was a distinct possibility that several Scottish clubs could go into administration as a result and I certainly bought into the notion that there would be a need to cut back on staff. However the view I took was that if Scottish Football couldn't judge the Rangers situation with an even hand as to how Gretna and Airdrieonians had been dealt with, because of the money involved, then senior professional football in Scotland was dead anyway. So I guess I did do so on some "misplaced principle". Only I don't think it was misplaced in the slightest.

There were lies both on the night and in the immediate aftermath. I can forgive GIlmour, Campbell and McAusland for repeating the report from the SPL's accountants - the same ones who Gilmour said couldn't foresee Rangers going bust despite being in administration and despite being in full knowledge of the Ticketus deal and the then pending tax case. What I find much harder to forgive is the plea's from Stewart Gilmour for fans to leave SFL Chairmen to make up their own minds - whilst he lobbied them to vote to put Rangers into the Second tier - and then slated them for not voting his way after it was revealed that the SFL Chairmen weren't going to be bullied.

Edited by Stuart Dickson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drew and I were the two at the meeting who said we wouldn't be back if Rangers were allowed to stay in the SPL. The rest, on a show of hands, voted that they would accept the club voting to save Rangers out of necessity. I didn't go into the stadium afterwards but the reports at the time suggested that the fans who were there that night did the same.

I can't claim though that I didn't buy into the "Armageddon pish". I did, I certainly thought there was a distinct possibility that several Scottish clubs could go into administration as a result and I certainly bought into the notion that there would be a need to cut back on staff. However the view I took was that if Scottish Football couldn't judge the Rangers situation with an even hand as to how Gretna and Airdrieonians had been dealt with, because of the money involved, then senior professional football in Scotland was dead anyway. So I guess I did do so on some "misplaced principle". Only I don't think it was misplaced in the slightest.

There were lies both on the night and in the immediate aftermath. I can forgive GIlmour, Campbell and McAusland for repeating the report from the SPL's accountants - the same ones who Gilmour said couldn't foresee Rangers going bust despite being in administration and despite being in full knowledge of the Ticketus deal and the then pending tax case. What I find much harder to forgive is the plea's from Stewart Gilmour for fans to leave SFL Chairmen to make up their own minds - whilst he lobbied them to vote to put Rangers into the Second tier - and then slated them for not voting his way after it was revealed that the SFL Chairmen weren't going to be bullied.

In fairness, I was never 100% confident that the doomsday scenario was completely devoid of substance. I didn't have a crystal ball, so woudn't have been quite that arrogant as to suggest I knew for sure one way or t'other.

I was always very sceptical (at best) about the extent of the claims, and, like you, felt extremely uncomfortable with the options on the table regardless. On balance, it just didn't stack up, but maybe it was easy for me to not accept the BoD's line, as I wouldn't be the one laying off staff if they were right.

I don't think they (the BoD) argued their position with a great deal of conviction, to be honest. This was a further reason as to why I didn't really buy it.

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every person in the boardroom and stadium that night took a view on matters based on the things they heard. Not one person was right, wrong, better or worse than anyone else - which is a point Drew and StuDick make, and they are correct.

I went in wanting to see Rangers fcuked over a barrel, but reluctantly changed my view purely on the prospect of good people within our club being the ones to pay the price of the massive reduction in income our club would face.

I still don't know how much of the armagddon shite was being given to us by SG, or how much of it was being passed on to us by SG who had been told it by Doncaster and Co at SPL Central Office.

Either way, none of them came away with any credit at the end of it all. Will be interestng to see how they handle 'Administration event 2, this time it's serious', should it happen again this week as predicted in some quarters.

I think I can smell some bullshit wafting our way already.

Edited by pozbaird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drew and I were the two at the meeting who said we wouldn't be back if Rangers were allowed to stay in the SPL. The rest, on a show of hands, voted that they would accept the club voting to save Rangers out of necessity. I didn't go into the stadium afterwards but the reports at the time suggested that the fans who were there that night did the same.

I can't claim though that I didn't buy into the "Armageddon pish". I did, I certainly thought there was a distinct possibility that several Scottish clubs could go into administration as a result and I certainly bought into the notion that there would be a need to cut back on staff. However the view I took was that if Scottish Football couldn't judge the Rangers situation with an even hand as to how Gretna and Airdrieonians had been dealt with, because of the money involved, then senior professional football in Scotland was dead anyway. So I guess I did do so on some "misplaced principle". Only I don't think it was misplaced in the slightest.

There were lies both on the night and in the immediate aftermath. I can forgive GIlmour, Campbell and McAusland for repeating the report from the SPL's accountants - the same ones who Gilmour said couldn't foresee Rangers going bust despite being in administration and despite being in full knowledge of the Ticketus deal and the then pending tax case. What I find much harder to forgive is the plea's from Stewart Gilmour for fans to leave SFL Chairmen to make up their own minds - whilst he lobbied them to vote to put Rangers into the Second tier - and then slated them for not voting his way after it was revealed that the SFL Chairmen weren't going to be bullied.

I was at both meetings. My memory is not that good, but I was sure that the majority in the stadium "voted" against Rangers getting a fast-path into the SPL despite the Consortium making the case "that administration for Saints was potentially weeks away and jobs were on the line....".

There is no doubt that our club operates to a very tight budget and in some recent seasons one or more of the directors has had to make an interest free loan to subsidise the running of the club near the end of the season as it often takes time for prize money or sponsorships to hit the bank.

IIRC REA made a 6 figure loan while at the club to ensure that wages and bills were met.

For that to happen our wages-turnover ratio must be way too high and Saints need to be looking to build up a financial safety net to allow for a relegation or some other significant event where a TV deal is lost.

As it turned out did the St Mirren BoD not vote against the proposal to fast-track Rangers to the SPL and then let the SFL decide the best course of action? Were Killie the team that abstained?

As for the Boardroom debate - I think many of us were surprised that StuDick was invited in to that meeting and most of us were probably disappointed that there was not a more heated debate between StuDick and SGG.

Many of us have lost complete faith in the heads of the SPL and SFA through this debacle. They fed lies. They tried to deceive fans and club owners. They tried to break fundamental rules of the game. They should no longer be in power. Sadly most of them still are - on vast salaries and pensions that the majority of supporters could only dream of.

I don't think any club chairman and boards in the top league have learned any lessons from this event. If the top league were to lose TV deals which is not beyond the bounds of possibility then many of these clubs will struggle to pay the salaries currently on offer.

The latest PWC report (24th - season 2011-12) can be found here - http://www.scribd.com/doc/196938395/PWC-SPL-Annual-Report-2011-12

Here is a table from that report that clearly shows that St Mirren have over both years (2011 & 2012) the lowest turnover in the league (that includes ICT and St Johnstone), but one of the highest wage-turnover ratios. Only Utd and Hearts had a higher ratio.

post-8660-0-79199100-1393956666_thumb.pn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember the emotional discussion about voting for staff to lose their jobs.

Under those circumstances remaining firm in opposition to the plans had to be about more than simply hating Rangers.

It had to be about facts and either instinct or trust where facts were absent.

Poz talks about trust being the deciding factor in the absence of facts which is fair enough.

I'm not about to call Gilmour a liar over the affair but something didn't feel right about it.

The deciding factor for me was the lack of financial evidence from Gilmour.

I strongly suspected that he actually had no idea what the SPL figures were because they weren't handng them out.

The SPL figures were in the hands of people like Doncaster and Lawell - neither of whom I trust to look after our clubs.

I felt (no conspiracy theories) that Lawell absolutely didn't want to see Rangers disappear and we've subseqently seen why if you look at their home crowds.

All in all I felt that Gilmour made a judgment error trusting guys like this and I'm pretty sure that under normal circumstances he'd have told them to piss of like most of the rest of us.

That is the reason I stayed firmly opposed to the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, I am not saying SG deliberately lied to supporters. I do not know however (as I said in a follow-up post) how much of the doomsday scenario actually came from him, or how much came from the wallopers at the very top of our game who may have fed guys like SG lies and mis-information.

I stand by using the word 'lies' though. Armageddon talk patently was lies - designed to bully and scare ordinary fans who wanted to see Rangers pay for their blatant cheating into softening their attitude to giving them an easy ride and keep them in the top flight.

Edited by pozbaird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, I am not saying SG deliberately lied to supporters. I do not know however (as I said in a follow-up post) how much of the doomsday scenario actually came from him, or how much came from the wallopers at the very top of our game who may have fed guys like SG lies and mis-information.

I stand by using the word 'lies' though. Armageddon talk patently was lies - designed to bully and scare ordinary fans who wanted to see Rangers pay for their blatant cheating into softening their attitude to giving them an easy ride and keep them in the top flight.

Sadly, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the SPL chairmen were only too happy to accept Doncaster's lies and spin. If not, why didn't he get bagged when they had the opportunity. That there wasn't a vote of no confidence or some other form of decisive action to rid our game of that shyster following the Armageddon fiasco is on their watch.

Edit - I should perhaps be clear that I have no reason to suspect that the chairmen of the other clubs weren't acting in what they believed to be the best interests of their respective clubs, but the fact that Doncaster remains in the position he has is inexplicable to me after everything that happened. I'd love to hear one of them to explain the justification for this.

Edited by Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the SPL chairmen were only too happy to accept Doncaster's lies and spin. If not, why didn't he get bagged when they had the opportunity. That there wasn't a vote of no confidence or some other form of decisive action to rid our game of that shyster following the Armageddon fiasco is on their watch.

Edit - I should perhaps be clear that I have no reason to suspect that the chairmen of the other clubs weren't acting in what they believed to be the best interests of their respective clubs, but the fact that Doncaster remains in the position he has is inexplicable to me after everything that happened. I'd love to hear one of them to explain the justification for this.

I think it was someone on P&B who posted the following.... Neil Doncaster's job interview for the SPFL gig:

Chairmen: 'So, Neil, tell us why you're the best man for the job'.

Doncaster: 'I'm not Stewart Regan'.

Chairmen: 'Fair enough, you can start on Monday'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...