The Moonster

There's 8 pages of folk saying why they think null and void is the best option. The season isn't done, so calling a champion is premature. Having said that, I'm so unbelievably bored of Raith fans saying "how is this fair?!" that I'm inclined to just give you the fucking thing.

I was cringing enough last night reading his answers, couldn't believe my eyes that we were throwing more out there today.

The Q&A with Murdo is painful and hilarious in equal measure.

Scottish Rugby don't seem to have a problem with sponsors looking for money back, they've just voided the season. I think folk are throwing up reasons that don't exist here.

I could be wrong on this, but there's nothing stopping the SPFL (other than the backlash they'd receive) putting forward whoever they want for European competitions. It's just that we normally give them to the teams who finish highest in the league (or win the cup in the old days). I'm not sure UEFA give a shit who represents us. The prize money thing is definitely another curveball, spot on has a point above that teams will argue if they can give prize money for positions they can give other rewards for positions too. It's going to require compromise, perhaps a percentage of the prize money dished out on current positions rather than the full whack, anything left over then added to next seasons pot.

Aye, sorry was just pissing around out of boredom. I don't know the answer, but if they were to say no money would be dished out this season as the season is void then I'd expect the prize money pot for next season to be considerably larger. Clubs need money now though so I expect clubs to request prize money based on current positions.

SPFL to change it all into pound coins and release them down the steps of Hampden like a huge game of scramble and the chairman of each club gets to keep as much as they can fit in their bunnet. I see no reason to involve the law.

I'd say the fact that we're arguing over the wording shows that the rule isn't "clear" in regards to our current situation. I also think the fact that all clubs seem locked in discussions about how to move forward suggests it isn't just as simple as declaring champions as is, or they'd have said that was the plan of action if games can't be completed.

It's not clear at all. This season is clearly set out with the first fixture in August and the last fixture in May, we haven't reached the last fixture therefore the season is not complete and a champion can't be crowned. There's nothing there that mentions an incomplete season.

A year of no European football sounds fine to me.

Just occured to me that Jamie Ewings is due a testimonial next season (whenever that is). Joined us in 2011.

The antibody test might change things. If we can test to see if folk have had it and now have immunity, you might find that FAs try and get some controlled games behind closed doors once teams have been thoroughly tested. I would agree it's unlikely we have open matches before August though.

I think you'd potentially lose a lot if folk had anything else to do at weekends just now, that might show some that they wouldn't really miss the football. But now I think folk are stuck with f**k all and it makes the desire for football to restart bigger. Coupled with the fact that fundraisers around the country are doing quite well and people are now more open to reconstruction I think there's a real desire to see it come back stronger, even if I don't really agree with reconstruction because of this.

Nope.

What rule clearly states this?