Those SPL resolutions

[Caversham Green]

Sorry to start another thread on this, but I've been trying to point out on other threads that the resolutions issued are eight individual points, not a single package so the clubs could vote some through and reject others. The general feeling is that all should be rejected, but I would argue that that is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Here's my take on how I would like the vote to go for each resolution:


Resolution 1 proposes an increase in the sporting sanction (points deduction) on any Club which suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event from 10 points to the greater of 15 pointsand 1/3 of the Club’s SPL points in the preceding season.


Without a doubt I think this should be a YES vote - nothing more to say. (Majority required 8:4)


Resolution 2A proposes further sporting sanctions in the event that any Club undergoes an Insolvency Transfer Event (i.e. transfers its share in the SPL to a new company where this occurs because of the insolvency of the transferor) of 10 points in each of two consecutive seasons from the Insolvency Transfer Event.


My problem with this is that it seems to introduce a new concept of an Insolvency Transfer Event and enshrines it in the SPL rules. The idea that a completely new club should ever be given preference over the 30 long-established SFL clubs is simply wrong IMO. Vote - NO. (8:4)


Resolution 2B proposes revisions to the fee payment arrangements i.e. SPL fees to any Club which has undergone an Insolvency Transfer Event will be reduced by 75% in each of three consecutive seasons from the Insolvency Transfer Event.



This recognises the concept of 2A - if 2A fails 2B cannot carry (2B or not 2B if you like). If 2A is passed then this gets a YES from me. (11:1)


Resolution 3 proposes extending sporting sanctions where an Insolvency Event is suffered by a Group Undertaking of a Member Club of the SPL (Group Undertaking is defined in Section 1161(5) of the Companies Act 2006).



I assume this means punishment where it's the holding company that goes bust - e.g. UBIG and HoMFC. Definite YES from me. (8:4)


Resolution 4 proposes updates and extensions to the definition of Insolvency Event in the SPL Rules.


I assume this is just clarifying what constitutes an Insolvency Event - there's not enough detail here to make a decision, but I would be inclined to say YES unless there's anything controversial hidden in it. (8:4)


Resolution 5 proposes updates and extensions to the definition of Insolvency Event in the SPL Articles and clarifies the process in the event that a Member which is the subject of an Insolvency Event is required to transfer its share in the Company.



Again, not enough detail, but this is the difficult one for me. There's an implication that it adopts the concept of 2A and 2B, but on the face of it it's just an alteration of procedure. If it does recognise 2A and 2B then it's a NO, if it's just a procedure alteration, then it depend on the details, which I haven't seen - ABSTAIN. (For reasons I don't understand this requires an 11:1 majority, and that makes me suspicious).


Resolution 6 proposes a specific requirement in the SPL Rules that Clubs must pay their Players in terms of their Contracts of Service on due dates and places a duty on any Club to report any failure to pay its Players in a timely manner to the SPL. Failure to pay Players and / or to notify such failure to the SPL would be a breach of SPL Rules.


Absolutely nothing wrong with this - YES (8:4).


Resolution 7 proposes a requirement in the SPL Rules that Clubs report to the SPL any failure to make payments to HMRC in respect of PAYE and NIC (a Default Event). Any Club suffering such a Default Event will be subject to a Player Registration Embargo. Any failure to report a Default Event shall be a breach of the SPL Rules.



As with 6 - YES (8:4)

So that's 4 Yes (and I would be bloody angry if Hibs voted No on these), 3 conditional and only one No, but that No feels like the basis of the whole issue. As always the devil is in the detail.

[Bristolhibby]

Good post.

2 is the crucial one.

However very important that 6 is signed up to.

J

[Ozyhibby]

That's a good summary of the situation. It's clear that 2a is the most important one as far as fair play goes. All the rest appear to have either some merit or are technical changes. It's 2a that needs at least 5 clubs to have the guts to say no to. Hopefully ours is one of them.

[Andy74]

Sorry to start another thread on this, but I've been trying to point out on other threads that the resolutions issued are eight individual points, not a single package so the clubs could vote some through and reject others. The general feeling is that all should be rejected, but I would argue that that is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Here's my take on how I would like the vote to go for each resolution:



Without a doubt I think this should be a YES vote - nothing more to say. (Majority required 8:4)



My problem with this is that it seems to introduce a new concept of an Insolvency Transfer Event and enshrines it in the SPL rules. The idea that a completely new club should ever be given preference over the 30 long-established SFL clubs is simply wrong IMO. Vote - NO. (8:4)



This recognises the concept of 2A - if 2A fails 2B cannot carry (2B or not 2B if you like). If 2A is passed then this gets a YES from me. (11:1)



I assume this means punishment where it's the holding company that goes bust - e.g. UBIG and HoMFC. Definite YES from me. (8:4)


I assume this is just clarifying what constitutes an Insolvency Event - there's not enough detail here to make a decision, but I would be inclined to say YES unless there's anything controversial hidden in it. (8:4)


Again, not enough detail, but this is the difficult one for me. There's an implication that it adopts the concept of 2A and 2B, but on the face of it it's just an alteration of procedure. If it does recognise 2A and 2B then it's a NO, if it's just a procedure alteration, then it depend on the details, which I haven't seen - ABSTAIN. (For reasons I don't understand this requires an 11:1 majority, and that makes me suspicious).



Absolutely nothing wrong with this - YES (8:4).



As with 6 - YES (8:4)

So that's 4 Yes (and I would be bloody angry if Hibs voted No on these), 3 conditional and only one No, but that No feels like the basis of the whole issue. As always the devil is in the detail.






I still think you are misreading 2a. Sure it recognises an insolvency event but I beleive that is so a sanction can be applied.

Look at the current scenario, the transfer of a share of a club that goes tits up can be transferred to anyone, inclding a newco of that same club. In that event there is nothing that stops them coming in scot free, if the transfer is voted in.

Now they are putting together that link so that a newco cannot just claim to be free from the previous club and ensuring there is a sanction.

What it doesn't do is say that a cclub that goes bust can get straight back in because they have recognised the definition of an insolvency event.

For me 2a is vital to esnure that clubs don't just start again scot free.

[Caversham Green]

I still think you are misreading 2a. Sure it recognises an insolvency event but I beleive that is so a sanction can be applied.

Look at the current scenario, the transfer of a share of a club that goes tits up can be transferred to anyone, inclding a newco of that same club. In that event there is nothing that stops them coming in scot free, if the transfer is voted in.

Now they are putting together that link so that a newco cannot just claim to be free from the previous club and ensuring there is a sanction.

What it doesn't do is say that a cclub that goes bust can get straight back in because they have recognised the definition of an insolvency event.

For me 2a is vital to esnure that clubs don't just start again scot free.

It's not that I'm misreading it Andy (at least I don't think I am) it's the fact that it give legislative recognition to the idea that a Newco can be given precedence over other SFL clubs. I agree that it is indirectly possible for this to happen under the existing rules on an 11:1 vote but this would specifically allow the procedure. Both should be anathema in my view and if any resolution is to be passed it should be to make this impossible. I'm also suspicious that hidden in the details of some of the other resolutions is a detail that makes it easier to achieve, but that could well be a prejudice based on my own opinion of those running the SPL.

[JeMeSouviens]

It's not that I'm misreading it Andy (at least I don't think I am) it's the fact that it give legislative recognition to the idea that a Newco can be given precedence over other SFL clubs. I agree that it is indirectly possible for this to happen under the existing rules on an 11:1 vote but this would specifically allow the procedure. Both should be anathema in my view and if any resolution is to be passed it should be to make this impossible. I'm also suspicious that hidden in the details of some of the other resolutions is a detail that makes it easier to achieve, but that could well be a prejudice based on my own opinion of those running the SPL.

I totally agree. The best way to deal with a loophole is surely to securely close it off, not legitimise it and add some softish penalty.

I'd love to see the full detail of Resolution 5.

[PatHead]

On the whole I agree with the majority of the conditions. I do, however, have a problem with having the situation so black and white.

Lets take a scenario such as Rangers go into liquidation and bump Hearts, Dunfermline and Dundee Utd for any monies due. This in turn causes one or more of the clubs to in turn go into administration/liquidation. (In theory this could also cause a snowball effect and another club,say Kilmarnock, could get dragged into it.)Why should they suffer the same penalties as Rangers when Rangers are the proximate cause of all the problems?

For this reason I feel each case should be judged on its merits with maximum penalties or a seperate condition whereby the club instigating the problems should be liable to additional charges which would have to be prescribed.

In simple cases of liquidation through simple bad management I feel the pheonix club have to apply for re-election to the league with a very high percentage of clubs in favour (8-4) as we can't just pick and choose when the corrupt 1-1 voting should apply.

[Sergio sledge]

Sorry to start another thread on this, but I've been trying to point out on other threads that the resolutions issued are eight individual points, not a single package so the clubs could vote some through and reject others. The general feeling is that all should be rejected, but I would argue that that is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

.......

So that's 4 Yes (and I would be bloody angry if Hibs voted No on these), 3 conditional and only one No, but that No feels like the basis of the whole issue. As always the devil is in the detail.

The points you make regarding resolution 2A and 2B are interesting, but the transfer of SPL share route already exists, theoretically any club in the SPL could transfer their share to any other club (be it a newco or otherwise) and this would have to be approved by a vote of the other member clubs and the SPL board once the vote among the other clubs was passed. What 2A and 2B is trying to do is to introduce a further level into the share transfer so that if any club decides that they can file for insolvency and start a newco to clear their debts then there is a way for the SPL (providing their share transfer is approved) to legally place sanctions on the new club. I don't think this is defining a new concept, rather adding more detail to an existing concept.

I tend to agree with the gist of what you are saying though, I don't think this concept should exist at all. Any transfer of shares should only be to the next best club in the SFL provided they pass the SPL entry criteria. There is no way that any club should be able to nominate (or sell) their SPL share to another club. Entry to the SPL should be on merit alone, so if a club goes bust then there are two promotions that season (or no relegation and one promotion) rather than the club that is going bust nominating a new team to enter.

The key resolution for me is:


Resolution 5 proposes updates and extensions to the definition of Insolvency Event in the SPL Articles and clarifies the process in the event that a Member which is the subject of an Insolvency Event is required to transfer its share in the Company.

Considering that the process of transfer of shares exists, it seems to me that this is the SPL trying to rescue a situation where they issued false information on the process of voting in a new club. Doncaster IMHO is trying to change the process to only be the vote of the 6 man SPL board because he knows that if only they vote there is more chance of a newco Rangers getting back into the SPL. If it is up to the clubs I'm fairly certain more than one club would vote against the newco getting into the SPL. As you say, more detail on this resolution is required and I'd assume the clubs have this detail. It would be nice if the SPL published this so that the fans could see what their clubs are going to be voting on.

[Caversham Green]

On the whole I agree with the majority of the conditions. I do, however, have a problem with having the situation so black and white.

Lets take a scenario such as Rangers go into liquidation and bump Hearts, Dunfermline and Dundee Utd for any monies due. This in turn causes one or more of the clubs to in turn go into administration/liquidation. (In theory this could also cause a snowball effect and another club,say Kilmarnock, could get dragged into it.)Why should they suffer the same penalties as Rangers when Rangers are the proximate cause of all the problems?

For this reason I feel each case should be judged on its merits with maximum penalties or a seperate condition whereby the club instigating the problems should be liable to additional charges which would have to be prescribed.

In simple cases of liquidation through simple bad management I feel the pheonix club have to apply for re-election to the league with a very high percentage of clubs in favour (8-4) as we can't just pick and choose when the corrupt 1-1 voting should apply.

Very good points - maybe there should be an appeal process with the possibility of reduced sanctions where there are mitigating factors - these sanctions could destroy a previously well-run club by relegating them and starting a downward spiral.

On your point about the phoenix club, I would argue that re-election should simply not be possible, but if it is and there's a voting procedure, the 11-1 majority would effectively be a unanimous vote since the twelfth club is the one applying for re-election and should not have a vote - i.e. it should need 11 votes to pass rather than a percentage majority - that seems right to me.

[Caversham Green]

The points you make regarding resolution 2A and 2B are interesting, but the transfer of SPL share route already exists, theoretically any club in the SPL could transfer their share to any other club (be it a newco or otherwise) and this would have to be approved by a vote of the other member clubs and the SPL board once the vote among the other clubs was passed. What 2A and 2B is trying to do is to introduce a further level into the share transfer so that if any club decides that they can file for insolvency and start a newco to clear their debts then there is a way for the SPL (providing their share transfer is approved) to legally place sanctions on the new club. I don't think this is defining a new concept, rather adding more detail to an existing concept.

I tend to agree with the gist of what you are saying though, I don't think this concept should exist at all. Any transfer of shares should only be to the next best club in the SFL provided they pass the SPL entry criteria. There is no way that any club should be able to nominate (or sell) their SPL share to another club. Entry to the SPL should be on merit alone, so if a club goes bust then there are two promotions that season (or no relegation and one promotion) rather than the club that is going bust nominating a new team to enter.

The key resolution for me is:



Considering that the process of transfer of shares exists, it seems to me that this is the SPL trying to rescue a situation where they issued false information on the process of voting in a new club. Doncaster IMHO is trying to change the process to only be the vote of the 6 man SPL board because he knows that if only they vote there is more chance of a newco Rangers getting back into the SPL. If it is up to the clubs I'm fairly certain more than one club would vote against the newco getting into the SPL. As you say, more detail on this resolution is required and I'd assume the clubs have this detail. It would be nice if the SPL published this so that the fans could see what their clubs are going to be voting on.

My feeling is that the clause about transferring shares wasn't intended for the circumstances we're now seeing, but it can be used as a loophole. My problem with 2A and 2B is that they legitimise the whole process rather than closing that loophole.

[Ozyhibby]

Assuming that 5 clubs can't be found willing to block 2a is it possible that a compromise exists where there penalties are increased? Say a 20 point penalty over 5 years and no SPL money for 5 years? I'd be more inclined to back it with this kind of penalty?

[Andy74]

Very good points - maybe there should be an appeal process with the possibility of reduced sanctions where there are mitigating factors - these sanctions could destroy a previously well-run club by relegating them and starting a downward spiral.

On your point about the phoenix club, I would argue that re-election should simply not be possible, but if it is and there's a voting procedure, the 11-1 majority would effectively be a unanimous vote since the twelfth club is the one applying for re-election and should not have a vote - i.e. it should need 11 votes to pass rather than a percentage majority - that seems right to me.

You can't make re-election impossible. It's a membership, that's the whole point of the league. The Phoenix compnay is a new one, it would be difficult to say they cannot apply along with others. 2a, however, would now allow for a link to be made if people attempt this.

It does not offer any automatic transfer or re-election.

Anyway, I've no wish to get any more involved if people still wish to get excited about this on whatever basis they want to attribute to it. :greengrin

[Caversham Green]

You can't make re-election impossible. It's a membership, that's the whole point of the league. The Phoenix compnay is a new one, it would be difficult to say they cannot apply along with others. 2a, however, would now allow for a link to be made if people attempt this.

It does not offer any automatic transfer or re-election.

Anyway, I've no wish to get any more involved if people still wish to get excited about this on whatever basis they want to attribute to it. :greengrin

You can make re-election impossible simply by stating that the candidate club must be an established football club. Indeed it could be argued that very first criterion for membership already does that:

Rule A2.1 states



The League shall consist of 12 leading association football clubs in Scotland.

Newhun plc could not be described as a leading association football club since it has never operated as a football club before...

[down-the-slope]

Cav..firstly thanks for thread :aok:
was going to post something in this regard myself as I felt a lot of the knee jerk reactions on other threads about this were missing a lot of the points and a fair amount of the potential good bits / intentions by a lot of clubs / chairmen for change and better degree of 'fairness'

While I accept that its not all good and will be a fight I feel the fact the other clubs have been pro-active and not (yet) bent over is great.

My biggest concern is that we have a situation were articles of association have different voting for different issues (some rules are more important than others :rolleyes:) That needs changing!!. At the moment 8-4 could pass the concept and process of NewCo just merrily taking share from liquidated club (2a).(where I feel each instance should be voted on its merits / de-merits) while proposed sanctions (2b) for such transfer could be blocked via 11-1 :rolleyes:

Relegation IS the biggest threat to any of the 'shareholders' it seems that any changes are trying to prevent transgressors either being punted out of having penalties large enough to make relegation likely and so preseving 'share'.......take this to the natural conclusion and you may as well have a franchise system...Sorry Ross we have one from North of nowhere already so your no getting in...Up ya come Dundee (yea yea we know there is Dumpdee United...but its a bigger population area...(in otherwords we will pick whom we...the OF like)

[Caversham Green]

Cav..firstly thanks for thread :aok:
was going to post something in this regard myself as I felt a lot of the knee jerk reactions on other threads about this were missing a lot of the points and a fair amount of the potential good bits / intentions by a lot of clubs / chairmen for change and better degree of 'fairness'

While I accept that its not all good and will be a fight I feel the fact the other clubs have been pro-active and not (yet) bent over is great.

My biggest concern is that we have a situation were articles of association have different voting for different issues (some rules are more important than others :rolleyes:) That needs changing!!. At the moment 8-4 could pass the concept and process of NewCo just merrily taking share from liquidated club (2a).(where I feel each instance should be voted on its merits / de-merits) while proposed sanctions (2b) for such transfer could be blocked via 11-1 :rolleyes:

Relegation IS the biggest threat to any of the 'shareholders' it seems that any changes are trying to prevent transgressors either being punted out of having penalties large enough to make relegation likely and so preseving 'share'.......take this to the natural conclusion and you may as well have a franchise system...Sorry Ross we have one from North of nowhere already so your no getting in...Up ya come Dundee (yea yea we know there is Dumpdee United...but its a bigger population area...(in otherwords we will pick whom we...the OF like)

I think some rules are more important than others though - general company law considers likewise with some resolutions requiring a simple majority while others require a 75%. What I don't understand is why the SPL doesn't follow these two examples rather than 8:4 or 11:1. The latter is particularly ridiculous when applied to the distribution of income - I would argue that that should need no more than a simple majority to pass. I could see a reason for a unanimous or 11:1 majority where the change is constitutional - e.g. a significant departure from the articles or dissolution of the SPL but operational decisions should be easier to pass.

The promotion/relegation issue is covered by the rules and is automatic - the existing members agree to it by signing up to the rules so they can't pick and choose who gets promoted so long as the promoted club meets the membership criteria. Where a vote would be needed (and here I can see a case for 11:1) is where they want to transgress the existing rules by inviting another club to join. The current set-up seems erse-aboot-face to me.