Jump to content
The Dark Blues Dundee FC's foremost fans forum and fansite. Created by Dees for Dees. Get involved

Reverend Lovejoy

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Reverend Lovejoy

  1. You can't just change your vote as and when it suits. Dundee's vote hadn't been counted and the SPFL made that public, in a vote you are entitled to resubmit under these circumstances. The SPFL need to come clean on the timeline of events though to prove there was no wrongdoing.
  2. I'd be disappointed and a bit embarrassed if that's what Nelms was pushing for.
  3. I think you're right mate, the Tully will be grasping at straws just like everyone else. Tam the Bam and Ginger Jim like to think they know what's going on. (Not even sure if they're still involved at DCT as I haven't bought their stuff for donkeys years).
  4. Andy can be a pain in the a**e at times (can't we all) but he's a good guy at heart. For those who've never met him there's countless tales of him putting others first before himself, I only wish there were more like him. One of a kind is oor Andy.
  5. If Nelms does something for the greater good of Scottish Football then I've no problem with him being rewarded in some way, whatever that me be. If he's done something wrong, and there's no proof of that yet, then he deserves the flack that'll be coming his way. Lots of if's, buts and maybe's though, maybe best to sit back and wait and see what transpires before we decide to cast judgement I guess.
  6. I'm sure Gardiner said that he received the messages from Eric Drysdale via WhatsApp on his radio chat at the weekend.
  7. I'd imagine that if compensation is agreed for the loss of a play-off place then everyone who can lay claim to being in a play-off place or being within touching distance of one would be entitled to compensation too. If we come out of this as good guys then I personally wouldn't be looking any potential gift horses in the mouth though. If John Nelms got offered a seat on the SPFL board for example would that be something that he had to turn down or could he use any of his new clout to bring about greater change without being accused of being underhand?. There's all manner of different things that can come out of this that we shouldn't just dismiss for fear of others taking the moral high ground.
  8. Again I think you're reading more into my comments than is actually there mate. I just don't see that Dundee Football Club are under any obligations to use their vote to improve other clubs positions when it doesn't directly have any real benefit for us. Our custodian's at the helm have a duty of care to do what's right for Dundee football club first and foremost, I'm not suggesting that we try to underhandedly gain something that nobody else is getting though. 14 clubs in the Premiership is good but there's got to be financial compensation for those left in and around the play-off places too. Building relationships with other clubs isn't necessarily a bad thing.
  9. I think you've maybe taken the last bit of my post too literally BB. What I meant was basically it's all well and good putting ourselves out on a limb and attempting to encourage reconstruction (if that's what we're doing) but there's got to be a wee bit in it for us too. 14 teams will directly benefit other teams first and foremost and only really be of benefit to us if we can capitalise on the ommission of Hearts, Utd & ICT from the Championship, there's got to be a wee bit more than that in it for us. The loan players bit was tongue in cheek to an extent but if we enhance our relationship with the likes of Celtic through the integrity of our dealings in all this and that leads to the temporary transfer of players for no recompense then I think we'd be foolish to dismiss that out of hand.
  10. .... because everyone knows that financially they're almost on their knees?. Gardiner admitted as much on Saturday.
  11. From journalist Moira Gordon- Comment: The SPFL’s absence of care and disregard for democracy has been alarming League made Dundee a scapegoat when it decided to publish the results before all the votes were in. When the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg revealed that postal votes painted a grim picture for Labour during the most recent general election, she prompted the Electoral Commission to release a statement which warned that “it may be an offence to communicate any information obtained at postal vote opening sessions, including about votes cast, before a poll has closed”. They
appealed to anyone with knowledge of any insider trading in advance of voting to report it to the police. Serious stuff, but it shows how strong the desire remains to protect democracy in this country. The SPFL apparently have no such qualms.Just 48 hours after a 120-page document on their resolution to end the Championship, League One and League Two seasons and divvy up the prize fund had been doled out to member clubs, the runaround lights started flashing and, still in semi-darkness, metaphorically speaking, those involved were asked to pick their spot; either for or against, The request was that, if possible, votes should be cast before 5pm on Friday. Given the urgency of clubs’ financial position, there was an attempt to get the voting slips in by then. But company law means that those involved actually had 28 days to arrive at their conclusion. With that in mind, it would seem ridiculous that anything but a full quota of votes, or a definitive victory one way or the other would be signalled prematurely. Scottish football, though, has a fabulously-predictable propensity for the ridiculous.The SPFL – a body not known for its swift thought or actions or an insatiable desire to propel its business into the public domain – released a statement before 6pm on Friday to say that it had already held a board meeting to consider the responses to the resolution and went on to reveal that, having received a significant percentage of the votes required in the Premiership and Leagues One and Two, there was still one Championship side who could veto the proposal. Stating the vote was poised at 7-2 in favour, it was clear that one club now held all the power.It was also clear, in that minute, that the body which is supposed to serve the clubs and look out for the good of the Scottish leagues had failed in it’s duty. Straying from its secret squirrel modus operandi, it was chucking yet another club under the bus. Put aside the SPFL’s desire to push through a resolution that sees it fail clubs who will be unfairly relegated, when their points tallies, games in hand and scheduled fixtures would still offer each and every one of them the opportunity to escape. Forget that others will be denied promotion via play-offs and the pyramid system and that the consequences for these clubs of such an inequitable solution could be dire. Also,for a second (and only a second), park the fact that it was effectively placing a gun to the head of cash-strapped clubs by entwining the premature conclusion of the league season with prize-fund payouts, when, as a members’ organisation, few believe that a rule change would not allow for the latter to be extricated from the former, giving it time to find a fairer solution to the current crisis. But, regardless of your views on the resolution, it is the handling of the process that has been, at best, irresponsible, at worst utterly Machiavellian.Why else would the SPFL release the voting numbers before the polls were closed? Why else would it then go to ground, only reappearing briefly to hit back when the actions of chief executive Neil Doncaster and legal adviser Rod McKenzie, pictured inset, were called into question yesterday?. Quick to defend themselves, they happily hung others out to dry by revealing that one club now has all the power. It invited a backlash, with the Twitterati originally and, as it turns out, unfairly hitting out at Inverness Caledonian Thistle, who have come out of this mess as honourably as anyone. But the real identity of club “X” eventually got out and the entire football community turned its sights on Dundee. With their anonymity stolen from them and everyone now watching which way they finally sway, Dundee have been set up as the scapegoats. Let’s be honest, given the promises made and their subsequent admission that self-interest saw them stall their vote once they realised their bargaining power, the image of the Dens Park side as a cloaked, cackling, moustache-twiddling baddie may be unavoidable now. But, the truth is, like every other club, they have the right to jump either way. But, thanks to the SPFL’s absence of care and disregard for democracy, the public have now seen the voting slip, signed by managing director John Nelms, and they have heard the tale about it being submitted by secretary Eric Drysdale only to discover that the SPFL had somehow not received it. If, after a weekend listening to inducements, Dundee stick to their guns, those who have wasted time wooing them are not going to be happy. But if they change their mind they will be cast as backstabbers and, while they will get their share of the prize fund, the club will have a reputation worth little. This is a test of their character and how highly people can value their word. And when this is all over, they will only have the SPFL to thank if their relationships with others is strained. Did the SPFL reveal the voting numbers knowing that a bit of digging would quickly expose Dundee and leave them in this tricky spot? Did they accede to pressure from key players in the Scottish game to effectively out the team whose vote so conveniently wasn’t cast, despite being submitted? Or were they just careless?. Whatever the case, should Dundee now change their mind, the outcome cannot be considered just.There is a reason polling stations synchronise opening times, a reason why postal votes are not counted until the last booth is shut. The SPFL didn’t just expose Dundee on Friday, they undermined democracy and cast doubt on the credibility of the result. For that, they deserve all the criticism coming their way.
  12. No need to apologise BC, I think we're both right and wrong at the same time.😁
  13. I'd argue that our loan dealings with Celtic are due to finances rather than a lack of available talent at Celtic. There's no doubt there's good fringe players who Celtic would loan out but I'd guess the percentage of their wage that they would be looking for would be too rich for us. There's been a large list of players who made a very good career for themselves after starting out at Celtic, some of them have ended up here.
  14. I'm sure I read that the proposals we're currently voting on dont automatically relegate Hearts but I suppose, by default, they'd have to be demoted without reconstruction.
  15. They're not though, the current proposal doesn't relegate Hearts. Partick & Stranraer are the clubs who'd be relegated.
  16. Going by the rumour posted on here then Celtic, through their CEO, have attempted to influence which way we vote. Bar the stick coming our way we're in a good position, I just hope we use our power for the greater good rather than just for personal gain. I'd settle for a bigger Premiership and financial compo for those missing out on play-offs..........free Celtic players shouldn't be sneezed at either though.😁
  17. It's within the SPFL's own rules that clubs can apply for a loan so I can't why that 'loan' can't be an advance of their prize money. There's ways around this but maybe dishing out dosh now doesn't suit their agenda.
  18. Dundee's vote was submitted but (allegedly) didn't arrive so was never counted. When Dundee got wind that their vote may be the casting vote they contacted the SPFL to request that their vote remained uncast which they are perfectly entitled to do without breaking any rules. The SPFL then received Dundee's voting form later that evening.
  19. I'd suggest either Gardiner is the whistleblower or Rangers man on the SPFL board.
  20. You're timeline of events is out according to Gardiner and McLennan's version of events.
  21. I really can't get my head around Lawwell's involvement. I appreciate that Celtic are a big club within Scottish Football but they have a vested interest in this resolution being pushed through, really Lawwell should not be part of any discussions as he plays no part on the SPFL board, or the SFA's for that matter. Only those charged with finding a solution (the SPFL board) should've been talking on Friday night.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.