Scottish Football Reconstruction (Mod Note #55)

Dempsey

This topic is going to gather pace again and rather than it bouncing back and forth between the Celtic/Sevco Franchise :P threads I think its best that it gets it own thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2192271/Rangers-fas-tracked-second-tier.html

SFA chief Stewart Regan has revealed that league reconstruction is still being planned for next season — in a move which could see Rangers fast-tracked to the second tier of Scottish football a year ahead of schedule.

Regan will kick-start plans to revitalise the professional game on Thursday when a working group, featuring representatives from the SPL and SFL and headed by an independent chairman, are tasked with devising a new structure.

The exact model is yet to be determined but the starting point for discussions will be proposals for a 16-team Premier League, with two divisions below, which would give the Ibrox club a quicker route back to the top flight should they navigate their way out of the Third Division as expected.

This plan, which included play-offs and a fairer distribution of income among the leagues, was overwhelmingly rejected 25-5 by SFL clubs last month as part of Regan’s botched bid to parachute newco Rangers into the First Division.

The SFA confirmed at the time they would push on with a reform agenda, amid widespread scepticism that it would ever see the light of day. But Regan insisted on Wednesday that a new league system will ‘ideally’ be in place by the start of season 2013/14.

He said: ‘We have a meeting on Thursday and the plan is to put a working party in place to come up with reconstruction proposals that can be implemented ideally from next season.

‘The joint proposal put forward (in July) was not something the SFL wanted to take forward but reconstruction remains part of the agenda for Scottish football.

‘The (SFL rejection) was accepted because it’s a democratic process and now we move forward.

‘The SPL and the SFL will take new proposals back to their respective members and it will require a 75 per cent vote from the SFL and an 11-1 vote by the SPL to vote change through.’

Seems Stuart Regan is hell bent on disgracing himself and Scottish Football to maximise profits.

David Stoker (Livingston chairman) is already criticising him about this on twitter.

David Stoker ‏@davidstoker_lfc

Some disingenuous comments from Stewart Regan in this piece in the Daily Mail - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2192271/Rangers-fas-tracked-second-tier.html

David Stoker ‏@davidstoker_lfc

SFL clubs didn't 'reject' reconstruction at all - the issue was with putting Rangers in Div 1. On its own reconstruction plans have support.

The_Kew_Tour

4 Divisions in Scotland is retarded. Full Stop.

Hopefully that can sort out something for the good of the league and not just OF.

Dempsey

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

4 Divisions in Scotland is retarded. Full Stop.

Hopefully that can sort out something for the good of the league and not just OF.

4 Divisions for 42 teams is stupid, one up/one down is also stupid. A strong league system benefits Celtic & Rangers in the long term but the idiots in charge cant see that. They rather make Celtic & Rangers as strong as possible and ride the coattails.

16 Team SPL
10 Team SFL1
10 Team SFL2

6 clubs reverting back to amateur as there are too many clubs just hanging in there for no good reason.

No splits 1 up/1 down but with playoff places up for grabs too and one relegation spot from SFL2 down into a reconstructed setup for the non league system

Revamp how the sponsorship & TV deals are distributed, removing the extra weighting for 1st & 2nd in the SPL.

ColeTrain

This should have been done years ago. Not just because one of the big teams went to the wall. The SFA were happy to sit back and watch the split and teams playing each other 3/4 times, it never occurred to them that the league needed restructuring.

RoryMac

I agree with the idea of restructuring the league setup but if it's rushed through as it seems is the case i can't see it working.

Everything about the football setup should be up for discussion including a move to summer football(something I'm sure is a good idea)

TheBuilder

A 16 team SPL and two 12 team divisions in my opinion, that and a pyramid system to allow relegation from the bottom division.

But if Regan and Doncaster are still in charge all we'll get is a continued mess.

P.S Dempsey, drop the sevco franchise pish if you actually want a serious discussion on something.

Dempsey

TheBuilder wrote: »

P.S Dempsey, drop the sevco franchise pish if you actually want a serious discussion on something.

We were having a serious discussion, stop trying to derail the thread because you cant handle Rangers being referred to as Sevco, your old company name. You are quite welcome to not bother posting if its all too much for you.

Eirebear

Firstly, as a Rangers supporter - i hope we can discuss this without childish insults and namecalling.

As for the topic at hand.
reconstruction has been needed in Scotland for decades, the men in charge of the game - including club chairmen - have held it back in order to keep their own little piece of the pie, rather than looking at the greater good.
For the last 4 or 5 years, the clubs have changed their tune - and have realised that the game is dying on its feet.

However what has happened over the last few years, is that despite solid proposals being put forward, the SPL/SFA have somehow managed to come up with the most ridiculous ideas they can in order to keep the status quo.
The SPL Split for starters, followed by the ludicrous proposals of two seasons ago which would have made the league worse than it already is.

Then, along come Regan and Doncaster in the summer, using the reformations that we have all wanted for years and touting themselves as the saviour of Scottish football by using it to blackmail the SFL clubs.

Before anything happens - their heads must roll. How they havnt by now, i have no idea.
The SPL must be disbanded and we should be going back to 1 body running the game - Scottish football isnt big enough anymore to carry three different organisations.

After that, we can look at the structuring issues.

TheBuilder

Dempsey wrote: »

We were having a serious discussion, stop trying to derail the thread because you cant handle Rangers being referred to as Sevco, your old company name. You are quite welcome to not bother posting if its all too much for you.

I'm not trying to derail any thread, the first line of your post would be the cause of any derailment because you're childish and the first person to moan in other threads when there's something you think shouldn't be said.

But anyway, completely agree EB, for there to be three governing bodies in Scotland is messed up. Merge them all and rid us of Regan and Doncaster and get people who are actually clued up on what's needed into these positions.

Dempsey

TheBuilder wrote: »

I'm not trying to derail any thread, the first line of your post would be the cause of any derailment because you're childish and the first person to moan in other threads when there's something you think shouldn't be said.

But anyway, completely agree EB, for there to be three governing bodies in Scotland is messed up. Merge them all and rid us of Regan and Doncaster and get people who are actually clued up on what's needed into these positions.

It was going fine until you posted :pac: When did Sevco become an insult? :rolleyes: As for the bolded, lol.

I wouldnt stop at Doncaster & Regan, there are poisonous cretins in less high profile positions influencing policy that those two muppets are championing.

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

It was going fine until you posted :pac: When did Sevco become an insult? :rolleyes: As for the bolded, lol.

We're not called Sevco - if you want to have a respectful conversation - show some.

Dempsey wrote: »

I wouldnt stop at Doncaster & Regan, there are poisonous cretins in less high profile positions influencing policy that those two muppets are championing.

Doncaster and regan have to go first - there is problems beneath them, at club level and behind the scenes at Hampden, i agree - but untill those two are gone it;s impossible to weed out the others.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

We're not called Sevco - if you want to have a respectful conversation - show some.

Ye were called Sevco for longer than ye've had SFA membership, its a perfectly valid a.k.a. and hows it disrespectful again?

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

Ye were called Sevco for longer than ye've had SFA membership, its a perfectly valid a.k.a. and hows it disrespectful again?

Do you want to take this off topic? I'm more than happy to indulge you
http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/



Either that or we could have a chat about something we all care about?
I'd have thought that even you could manage that tbh.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

Do you want to take this off topic?

I'm more than happy to indulge you.
Either that or we could have a chat about something we all care about?

You've already derailed the thread with your pompous attitude towards a widely accepted term and I've already asked you not to post in the thread if you couldnt handle it.

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

You've already derailed the thread with your pompous attitude towards a widely accepted term and I've already asked you not to post in the thread if you couldnt handle it.

Widely accepted by who?
The SFL? Nope
The SPL? Nope
The SFA? Nope
The BBC? Nope

Anyone outside of fans of other clubs who want to have a dig?
Nope.

Pompous? All we ask for is for you to keep the childish jibes out of what is a very important conversation.
You couldnt even get past the first line without one though.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

Widely accepted by who?
The SFL? Nope
The SPL? Nope
The SFA? Nope
The BBC? Nope

Anyone outside of fans of other clubs who want to have a dig?
Nope.

Pompous? All we ask for is for you to keep the childish jibes out of what is a very important conversation.
You couldnt even get past the first line without one though.

Ye were called Sevco for several months by everyone, alot longer than ye were called The Rangers Football Club Ltd and far longer than ye've held a SFA membership. Maybe its time you developed a thicker skin about what actually happened during the summer because if thats all it takes for you to have a bee in your bonnet then maybe its time you stopped using the internet!

_blank_

Dempsey, you wanted to have a pop, admit that and move on.

It's ok to want to have a pop at the club you claim aren't rivals any more, but you can't stop taking pops at.

But to put in a little dig, then claim it wasn't one? That is what is taking the thread down a silly little path.

Dempsey

Des wrote: »

Dempsey, you wanted to have a pop, admit that and move on.

It's ok to want to have a pop at the club you claim aren't rivals any more, but you can't stop taking pops at.

But to put in a little dig, then claim it wasn't one? That is what is taking the thread down a silly little path.

Ah here comes Des to express his opinion when nobody asked or cares....

Calling them by their old name is having a dig? No, its not. Its calling them by their old name, the one they are known longest as. I couldnt care less for their sensitivity about the matter.

I'm not taking pops at that club so thats your entire post defunct. :rolleyes:

Madam

I don't mean to offend anyone but could someone please tell me why it seems to be only Ranger fans who want rid of Doncaster and Regan?

Coillte_Bhoy

Dempsey wrote: »

Ah here comes Des to express his opinion when nobody asked or cares....

Calling them by their old name is having a dig? No, its not. Its calling them by their old name, the one they are known longest as. I couldnt care less for their sensitivity about the matter.

I'm not taking pops at that club so thats your entire post defunct. :rolleyes:

Well you obviously care and i didnt realise one had to be 'asked' on here before giving an opinion. As t the name issue, virtually everyone in the wider football community regard them as rangers whether we as Celtic fans like it or not

Coillte_Bhoy

Madam wrote: »

I don't mean to offend anyone but could someone please tell me why it seems to be only Ranger fans who want rid of Doncaster and Regan?

I dont think you'll find too many celtic fans backing them either

Dempsey

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Well you obviously care and i didnt realise one had to be 'asked' on here before giving an opinion. As t the name issue, virtually everyone in the wider football community regard them as rangers whether we as Celtic fans like it or not

Doesnt stop me from calling them Sevco and everyone knowing who I'm talking about. I'll use their old name if I like

Madam

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

I dont think you'll find too many celtic fans backing them either

Ah, but they are a little less visceral about it;)

Are there different reasons then between clubs for wanting rid of them?

TheBuilder

Dempsey wrote: »

Doesnt stop me from calling them Sevco and everyone knowing who I'm talking about. I'll use their old name if I like

'old name', you don't half spout some pish! We are Rangers.

TheBuilder

Madam wrote: »

I don't mean to offend anyone but could someone please tell me why it seems to be only Ranger fans who want rid of Doncaster and Regan?

I think the majority are against them. My reasons are many, but their constant 'sporting integrity' nonsense they used to batter us with then for them to go about their business with tv money etc like they did is such massive double standards.

Coillte_Bhoy

Dempsey wrote: »

Doesnt stop me from calling them Sevco and everyone knowing who I'm talking about. I'll use their old name if I like

Call them what you want but it's going to lead to endless childish arguments. Anyway i cant call them the h word on here so ill call them rangers

Madam

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Call them what you want but it's going to lead to endless childish arguments. Anyway i cant call them the h word on here so ill call them rangers

Not 'The' Rangers?:rolleyes:

Madam

TheBuilder wrote: »

I think the majority are against them. My reasons are many, but their constant 'sporting integrity' nonsense they used to batter us with then for them to go about their business with tv money etc like they did is such massive double standards.

Aside from the 'sporting integrity' thing is that in the end not what they are paid to do?

TheBuilder

Madam wrote: »

Aside from the 'sporting integrity' thing is that in the end not what they are paid to do?

They're paid to act in the best interests of Scottish Football, and they clearly don't do that.

Dempsey

TheBuilder wrote: »

'old name', you don't half spout some pish! We are Rangers.

How long did Sevco own Ibrox & Murray Park without being recognised as Rangers? It was months. How long are Sevco called Rangers, 3 and a half weeks. In the old Rangers thread several of ye have been at this revisionist crap about what actually happened during the summer. You can all delude yourselves about it on a Rangers forum but it wont work here.

premierstone

When ye were called sevco, ye all referred to yourselves as Rangers how is that any different than what Dempsey is doing?? I've heard ye called a lot worse tbf.

blahfckingblah

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

Call them what you want but it's going to lead to endless childish arguments. Anyway i cant call them the h word on here so ill call them rangers

shhh we have to pretend theres no "H" word

premierstone

blahfckingblah wrote: »

shhh we have to pretend theres no "H" word

But Hearts are one of our biggest rivals now

Coillte_Bhoy

blahfckingblah wrote: »

shhh we have to pretend theres no "H" word

Some peple even think they have disappeared

_blank_

Dempsey wrote: »

How long did Sevco own Ibrox & Murray Park without being recognised as Rangers? It was months. How long are Sevco called Rangers, 3 and a half weeks. In the old Rangers thread several of ye have been at this revisionist crap about what actually happened during the summer. You can all delude yourselves about it on a Rangers forum but it wont work here.

You are doing it to get a reaction, simple as.

It's extremely childish, and ruins any chance of a proper discussion.

Look, I abhor what has gone on with Rangers, Sevco, them claiming to use the name and history - it happened with one or two clubs here in Ireland, and I fúcking hate them for it too.

But what you are doing is only designed to get a reaction, the more you deny that, or dress it up in semantics, or pretend not to be out for a bite, then you are going to continue to force threads off topic and descend into shíte.

You were the one who used the term Sevco in your initial post, got the reaction you deserved.

This thread should be about the future of Scottish Football, instead it's about you using terms you know are going to get a reaction, and you denying it.

It's pathetic behaviour, and even your fellow Celtic fans are calling you on it.

You've made Celtic fans side with Rangers fans against you.

Feel good does it?

:rolleyes:

Dempsey

The discussion was going fine until Eirebear and you started posting. Its you two that continually derail the thread. At least he has made a contribution to the thread, you havent which is not a surprise. You've a penchant for this sort of crap.

As for other Celtic supporters, they can have whatever opinion they like. I didnt know that we werent allowed to have different opinions. :rolleyes:

EDIT

The use of the term Sevco shouldnt get a childish reaction, its the old name of Charles Green's company, not a derogatory term

Coillte_Bhoy

Dempsey wrote: »

The discussion was going fine until Eirebear and you started posting. Its you two that continually derail the thread. At least he has made a contribution to the thread, you havent which is not a surprise. You've a penchant for this sort of crap.

As for other Celtic supporters, they can have whatever opinion they like. I didnt know that we werent allowed to have different opinions. :rolleyes:

Agreed, it would be pretty boring around here if each clubs fans strictly followed a 'party line'. I call it as i see it and i couldnt care less if that aligns with me one clique or another

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

The discussion was going fine until Eirebear and you started posting. Its you two that continually derail the thread. At least he has made a contribution to the thread, you havent which is not a surprise. You've a penchant for this sort of crap.

As for other Celtic supporters, they can have whatever opinion they like. I didnt know that we werent allowed to have different opinions. :rolleyes:

EDIT

The use of the term Sevco shouldnt get a childish reaction, its the old name of Charles Green's company, not a derogatory term

So disagreeing with the name you call our club is derailing the thread. You really are priceless

Eirebear

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

So disagreeing with the name you call our club is derailing the thread. You really are priceless

I'm sorry - did Dempsey allow you to post?

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

So disagreeing with the name you call our club is derailing the thread. You really are priceless

Yes, especially when they've not made any attempt to discuss the topic and probably be berating Scottish Football in a LOI thread in the near future. For others they're creating a storm in a teacup over nothing. All I can do is laugh at ye if its upsetting ye this much!

Jelle1880

Madam wrote: »

Ah, but they are a little less visceral about it;)

Are there different reasons then between clubs for wanting rid of them?

Doncaster and Regan, during this whole mess with Rangers, have done everything in their power to force other Scottish clubs to accept us into either the SPL or SFL1.

Not for the benefit of Rangers, but to continue to get the money we bring in.

Many clubs, like Clyde FC, have spoken out against these threats (because that's what they were) and blackmail.

But it goes further than that, do you remember the referee strike ?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Dempsey wrote: »

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

So disagreeing with the name you call our club is derailing the thread. You really are priceless

Yes, especially when they've not made any attempt to discuss the topic and probably be berating Scottish Football in a LOI thread in the near future. For others they're creating a storm in a teacup over nothing. All I can do is laugh at ye if its upsetting ye this much!

Really why should they discuss what you want to discuss without clearing up the difference of opinion they had over what our club is called. Now it may not suit your agenda to have people disagreeing with the sheer bloody mindedness of yourself in insisting that's what you are going to call them. They therefore have the right to stick to their guns and make points on what the club should be called
IMO this could have been an interesting thread if you had just used your brain

the realpigiron

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Really why should they discuss what you want to discuss without clearing up the difference of opinion they had over what our club is called. Now it may not suit your agenda to have people disagreeing with the sheer bloody mindedness of yourself in insisting that's what you are going to call them. They therefore have the right to stick to their guns and make points on what the club should be called
IMO this could have been an interesting thread if you had just used your brain

Why don't you engage your brain and contribute to the thread in a positive fashion yourself. Getting hung up on what some people are calling the club formerly known as Rangers is hardly contributing to the discussion.

Jelle1880

the realpigiron wrote: »

Why don't you engage your brain and contribute to the thread in a positive fashion yourself. Getting hung up on what some people are calling the club formerly known as Rangers is hardly contributing to the discussion.

It's people like you who can't help themselves that are the cause that every single thread about Scottish football ends up the same.

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Really why should they discuss what you want to discuss without clearing up the difference of opinion they had over what our club is called. Now it may not suit your agenda to have people disagreeing with the sheer bloody mindedness of yourself in insisting that's what you are going to call them. They therefore have the right to stick to their guns and make points on what the club should be called
IMO this could have been an interesting thread if you had just used your brain

Tough shít if you dont like what I call your club tbh, its not even derogatory or anything near it! Its not an good enough excuse for derailing threads out of spite imo.

TheBuilder

Dempsey wrote: »

Tough shít if you dont like what I call your club tbh, its not even derogatory or anything near it! Its not an good enough excuse for derailing threads out of spite imo.

Well tough **** if you don't like people pointing out facts, like our name being Rangers.

Stop being a total hypocrite and just admit you made a petty little dig and it's caused there to be a lack of discussion on your point.

You're a bitter, bitter man Dempsey and its really shown up the past few months, so much so your on a level with a certain other Celtic fan poster that just can't be taken seriously anymore.

the realpigiron

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It's people like you who can't help themselves that are the cause that every single thread about Scottish football ends up the same.

I disagree. I think in general some of the supporters of Rangers that you find on these threads are angry about what happened to their club, and find
themselves incapable of partaking in discussion in a positive fashion and with a bit of a sense of humour. You need to get over what happened to your club, stop acting like victims and think about what's best for the future of the game in Scotland.

I think there are opportunities opening up for real reform of football in Scotland by default of what has happened to Rangers, and that clubs like Dundee Utd and the Edinburgh clubs can grow and make themselves more competitive.

ColeTrain

Man this place can be precious sometimes.

All Dempsey did was use the old company name, no big deal. It's not like he used a malicious name. Carry on though.

Dempsey

TheBuilder wrote: »

Well tough **** if you don't like people pointing out facts, like our name being Rangers.

Stop being a total hypocrite and just admit you made a petty little dig and it's caused there to be a lack of discussion on your point.

You're a bitter, bitter man Dempsey and its really shown up the past few months, so much so your on a level with a certain other Celtic fan poster that just can't be taken seriously anymore.

I was never talking about official names, I already said as much earlier in this thread. I've been using the term Sevco in reference to Rangers assets/Rangers under Charles Green for months now.

Bitter? LOL What exactly am I suppose to be bitter about?? /gets popcorn :pac:

Eirebear

ColeTrain wrote: »

Man this place can be precious sometimes.

All Dempsey did was use the old company name, no big deal. It's not like he used a malicious name. Carry on though.

No.
What Dempsey did was have a dig and try and worm his way out of it, like a coward.

Follow the thread, both myself and The Builder mention it, but attempt to carry on the discussion.
At which point Dempsey forgets all about the thread and starts throwing his accusations about.

It's almost like a deliberate trolling session from him tbh.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

No.
What Dempsey did was have a dig and try and worm his way out of it, like a coward.

Follow the thread, both myself and The Builder mention it, but attempt to carry on the discussion.
At which point Dempsey forgets all about the thread and starts throwing his accusations about.

It's almost like a deliberate trolling session from him tbh.

I'm not worming out of anything. I've been calling ye Sevco for a long time now, its not a derogatory term. I've asked several times for an explanation of how it is derogatory/offensive but I havent gotten one other than the "we dont like it", surprise surprise!

As for going off topic, are you for real??! I'm offtopic because ye keeping beating the drum about me calling ye Sevco. Try shutting the fúck up about that, staying on topic yourselves and see how it goes!