Jump to content

Season over


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Marshmallo said:

You can guaran-damn-tee he would be saying the opposite if Blackburn were in Dunipace's position.

Similar to when he wanted non-licensed clubs barred from the big Scottish Cup the second Blackburn got their license.

Did you run our of red dots Mallow?  I think your reputation on the Heads Gone thread has hit an all time low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can guaran-damn-tee he would be saying the opposite if Blackburn were in Dunipace's position.
Similar to when he wanted non-licensed clubs barred from the big Scottish Cup the second Blackburn got their license.
Maybe, but to be fair I'm not arguing for Dunipace (though obviously have a vested interest) I'm arguing for fairness.

I'd rather see Tynecastle go up alone to a restructured Premier, because they have earned it and were clearly going to achieve it, and ignore PPG altogether, for Promotion and Relegation.

It's shite for us and the other 5 teams in the hunt, but it treats us all (and those in the relegation spots) evenly, rewarding the only team who has truly "earned" anything so far this season, Tynecastle.

My issue isn't we won't go up, it's that PPG in a conference setup, where clubs have all played different fixtures, clubs will all play different fixtures and not everyone has even played everyone they have to once yet is inherently unfair. Teams will benefit based on luck (of fixturing, of games off, of when the shutdown happened) not on achievement.

I'm not an advocate of null and void, because that would only punish the one team who have achieved anything for sure this season: Tynecastle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And also I agree with this [emoji106]
So let's not punish higher league clubs by relegating them using a formula, but use the same formula to promote clubs from the lower division which then disadvantages other clubs in the lower division who were situated in promotion places, by virtue, punishing them through no fault of their own?

(When every club was two thirds of the way through the season)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, G4Mac said:

I'm not looking to have anyone relgated, you know that given my previous posts on the matter, I have said from the get go, backed by you on numerous occasions the only fair outcome is null and void and i still do. So please let's not do that.

What I am saying is that applying a process should count across the board, for every circumstance, not just the ones we think fit best.

Promoting and not relegating using the same formula is flawed and open to challenge. Hence my historical support and current support of null and void.

Null and void punishes everyone though, inc Tynecastle who you admit should go up, nobody would go up inc Bo'ness.

At least what the EoS propose promotes 2 or 3 teams, and provides a Champion to go upto the LL if that opportunity is there, that has to be a good thing surely.

The EoS proposal, or null & void, makes no difference to me personally as it sees my club still in the Premier.  However I'd rather see as many clubs benefit as possible with the minimum of upheaval. 

I'd also back scrapping Conferences next season and going to First/Second, but then that disadvantages clubs who have applied (and those who just miss out and find themselves down a tier), so it won't be a goer.

No easy answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

Maybe, but to be fair I'm not arguing for Dunipace (though obviously have a vested interest) I'm arguing for fairness.

Absolutely and I think you're making great points as someone who clearly cares about the game as a whole. I was more pointing out why the artist formerly known as Burnieman is losing the place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Marshmallo said:

Absolutely and I think you're making great points as someone who clearly cares about the game as a whole. I was more pointing out why the artist formerly known as Burnieman is losing the place.

I'm not losing any place, I'm happy with the proposal as offered by the EoS who care about the game as a whole. 

You on the other hand are a slightly unhinged freak who hangs around here like a bad smell red dotting people to bring meaning to your sad little life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Null and void punishes everyone though, inc Tynecastle who you admit should go up, nobody would go up inc Bo'ness.
At least what the EoS propose promotes 2 or 3 teams, and provides a Champion to go upto the LL if that opportunity is there, that has to be a good thing surely.
The EoS proposal, or null & void, makes no difference to me personally as it sees my club still in the Premier.  However I'd rather see as many clubs benefit as possible with the minimum of upheaval. 
I'd also back scrapping Conferences next season and going to First/Second, but then that disadvantages clubs who have applied (and those who just miss out and find themselves down a tier), so it won't be a goer.
No easy answer.
I haven't said about tynecastle, or Bo'ness, to my knowledge anyway.

I have always said null and void. Although in taking stalk of the scenario you said i agree that promoting the top club is great and ensures the highest placed club with the best ppg total isn't disadvantaged. Brilliant, do that.

That ensures a level of fairness (whilst being poor for the other title chasers granted, but they are all treated equally in that scenario) however, promoting any other clubs in other positions across two conferences, unfairly punishes other clubs who were guaranteed to be in the mix for the last third of a season. (The very same unfair punishment that people suggest shouldnt be applied to clubs in relegation places from the league above.)

The current process doesn't account for the imbalance in fixtures or home/away games, run in, who had to play who.

Whilst I agree it isnt an easily fixable scenario, you should either seek to disadvantage everyone (harsh but fair) across the board, seek to disadvantage everyone to the same degree (promoting only the highest ppg club, harsh but fair on the rest) or disadvantage nobody (harsh but less fair on everyone) There are/were other options available, clubs have been asked to vote on the scenario provided by the league, clubs haven't driven the proposals that they are voting on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't said about tynecastle, or Bo'ness, to my knowledge anyway.

I have always said null and void. Although in taking stalk of the scenario you said i agree that promoting the top club is great and ensures the highest placed club with the best ppg total isn't disadvantaged. Brilliant, do that.

That ensures a level of fairness (whilst being poor for the other title chasers granted, but they are all treated equally in that scenario) however, promoting any other clubs in other positions across two conferences, unfairly punishes other clubs who were guaranteed to be in the mix for the last third of a season. (The very same unfair punishment that people suggest shouldnt be applied to clubs in relegation places from the league above.)

The current process doesn't account for the imbalance in fixtures or home/away games, run in, who had to play who.

Whilst I agree it isnt an easily fixable scenario, you should either seek to disadvantage everyone (harsh but fair) across the board, seek to disadvantage everyone to the same degree (promoting only the highest ppg club, harsh but fair on the rest) or disadvantage nobody (harsh but less fair on everyone) There are/were other options available, clubs have been asked to vote on the scenario provided by the league, clubs haven't driven the proposals that they are voting on.

On your last point, off the top of my head Haddington, Burntisland, Hill of Beath, Ormiston, Tynecastle, Broxburn and maybe one or two others are represented on the board so I'd assume a good cross section of opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On your last point, off the top of my head Haddington, Burntisland, Hill of Beath, Ormiston, Tynecastle, Broxburn and maybe one or two others are represented on the board so I'd assume a good cross section of opinion.
So clubs directly affected don't get to have their opinion? (Don't answer, I know you believe they do [emoji16]) 

To put this to rest though, since we are going round the opinion circle, what would you say if Blackburn stood to miss out on promotion under these circumstances? (A bit of devils advocacy so to speak)

 

(and to answer your next question, yes I would have the same vested interest if Dunipace were in yours)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, G4Mac said:

So clubs directly affected don't get to have their opinion? (Don't answer, I know you believe they do emoji16.png

To put this to rest though, since we are going round the opinion circle, what would you say if Blackburn stood to miss out on promotion under these circumstances? (A bit of devils advocacy so to speak)

 

(and to answer your next question, yes I would have the same vested interest if Dunipace were in yours)

 

 

 

It's a question I can't answer with any feeling really as I'm not in it.  If I was in Tynecastle's position I'd probably be gutted if there was no promotion as they are so obviously the best team in the Conferences by a mile and would have been up in normal circumstances.

If I were in your position, I'd also be gutted not to have a chance to close the gap at the top, but maybe grudgingly accept it as you weren't looking likely to win it. It was between LTHV and Leith IMO.

That's about as honest as I can be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a question I can't answer with any feeling really as I'm not in it.  If I was in Tynecastle's position I'd probably be gutted if there was no promotion as they are so obviously the best team in the Conferences by a mile and would have been up in normal circumstances.

If I were in your position, I'd also be gutted not to have a chance to close the gap at the top, but maybe grudgingly accept it as you weren't looking likely to win it. It was between LTHV and Leith IMO.

That's about as honest as I can be!

Dunipace were never out the top 3 all season. It was between leith, lthv, kinnoul and ourselves for promotion, there were way too many variables involved to determine otherwise (leith with only 2 home games left from 9, as an example).

 

And I think we both know, whether you want to admit it or not, that in Dunipaces shoes you would approach this similarly. [emoji23]

 

For as long as I have read, mostly agreed with, and followed your posts you have never been the guy who 'grudgingly agrees' with or 'accepts' anything, particularly if it disadvantaged his club, unfairly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Swifty said:

Brechin?

Brechin are in the same boat as Queen of the South and Forfar - saved through not being in an automatic relegation spot, only a play-off one. So there is consistency through T2-T4. 

My guess is no-one will be relegated anywhere in the pyramid though, which IMO is a good compromise. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunipace were never out the top 3 all season. It was between leith, lthv, kinnoul and ourselves for promotion, there were way too many variables involved to determine otherwise (leith with only 2 home games left from 9, as an example). 
And I think we both know, whether you want to admit it or not, that in Dunipaces shoes you would approach this similarly. [emoji23]
 
For as long as I have read, mostly agreed with, and followed your posts you have never been the guy who 'grudgingly agrees' with or 'accepts' anything, particularly if it disadvantaged his club, unfairly.
 
 
You asked my opinion, I gave you an honest answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You asked my opinion, I gave you an honest answer.
I never said you didn't, just surprised me thats all.

Anyway, now that we have done this to death I am away to lick my wounds, plan my revenge and cross some names off of my christmas card list.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clubs being punished = none.

All clubs have the option to vote for or against the proposal.

If the clubs vote for it, the clubs are deciding in favour as a group and as a group it is their decision.

If the proposal is rejected by the clubs the EOS say they will look at alternatives.

It's all there in the statement.

No punishments, an eventual decision by the clubs in the league about their league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By a proposal that is likely to be accepted by the majority of those clubs voting on it as it doesn't negatively impact on them.

Regardless of what way it is cut, clubs are being negatively impacted on through no fault of their own.

Its easy remain ambivalent to a process that doesn't disadvantage or impact on you personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gaz5 said:

Nonsense Burnie. emoji846.png 

Those teams have all put time, money and a great deal of effort into their seasons to put themselves in a position, with a third of the season to go, to still get promoted.

 

Tynecastle were nearly there, the other 6 all still had just as much chance as any of their peers of going up.

 

4 of them have been denied that opportunity through no fault of their own and then to rub salt in the wound a formula which can't possibly be applied fairly across two separate league tables and imbalanced fixture lists has been applied to randomly select 2 to join Tynecastle and the same formula, which is infinitely more applicable to a single league with a balanced fixture list, which has been applied that way through the rest of the Scottish senior game (the EoS are the exception here) is not applicable to that league?

 

Really? And you don't think any of these clubs are being punished?

 

We all getting a magic rebate for the time, money and effort that the 3 teams bottom of the Premier on PPG are getting? emoji1787.png

 

Edit: To answer your added question:

 

Promote all 7 and have a split or start with conferences, with more than normal being relegated to get back to 16 the season after.

 

With 10 teams coming into Tier 7 there would be more than enough to do that and have viable leagues at both levels.

 

That's a solution that would leave no one disadvantaged. Not just premier League teams.

 

 

 

This is a no win situation but a decision needs to be made and stuck with - whichever way it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, G4Mac said:

You are missing my point, if you use a process for one league, club or circumstance you have to use it for every circumstance. Doing something so you don't 'upset' clubs in a higher league whilst finding it acceptable upsetting clubs below who are in the same position isnt fair, in any way.

To say that because one league has done something, which is unfair, then use it to suggest your own process is fair, again isn't a justifiable approach.

If you are promoting on ppg after two thirds of a season, with clubs having games in hand, then the same process should be used to relegate clubs who have played two thirds of a season with games in hand.

Two wrongs don't make a right here.

Either use a process unilaterally for everyone or don't use it. To suggest its the way forward because everyone else is doing it is what gets human beings into trouble, consistently.

Disadvantage everyone or disadvantage no one. You can't pick the grey matter in between in these scenarios because it suits.

Maybe the SFA should bring in rules which cover all leagues (whether in or out of the pyramid) so that if the same situation arises again there is a way forward which all clubs will be aware of before a ball is even kicked?

Edited by Dev
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gaz5 said:

Maybe, but to be fair I'm not arguing for Dunipace (though obviously have a vested interest) I'm arguing for fairness.

I'd rather see Tynecastle go up alone to a restructured Premier, because they have earned it and were clearly going to achieve it, and ignore PPG altogether, for Promotion and Relegation.

It's shite for us and the other 5 teams in the hunt, but it treats us all (and those in the relegation spots) evenly, rewarding the only team who has truly "earned" anything so far this season, Tynecastle.

My issue isn't we won't go up, it's that PPG in a conference setup, where clubs have all played different fixtures, clubs will all play different fixtures and not everyone has even played everyone they have to once yet is inherently unfair. Teams will benefit based on luck (of fixturing, of games off, of when the shutdown happened) not on achievement.

I'm not an advocate of null and void, because that would only punish the one team who have achieved anything for sure this season: Tynecastle.

Yes but one man's view of what's fair won't be the same as the next man under the circumstances which exist. Someone has to make decisions and the EoS is putting forward a proposal which can either be accepted or rejected. What's unfair about that? Your view may win the day! Either way the season has to end and it is good that clubs continue to find their own level via the pyramid system.  I would rather movement of some sort than none at all.

Edited by Dev
.
Link to comment
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...