Season over

[BMan]

Nonsense Burnie. [emoji846] 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]
 
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.
 
 
 

We'll agree to disagree :-)

[Guest]

For me, if you are using ppg to promote after two thirds of a season played, so you dont disproportionately disadvantage clubs in the lower division, surely the same process applies to the bottom clubs in the league above who have played the same amount of their season?

 

If you apply a process in any arena, from football to any work environment, you have to apply it across the whole thing.

 

Sadly, when it comes to reasonable solutions, you have to. You can't pick and choose where to apply it and where not to, without justifiable reasons.....and to be frank not unfairly disadvantaging teams isn't a justifiable reason when you only apply it to a certain level, league or club.

 

Whilst this is an precedented experience, and I understand why clubs in relegation places don't want the process applied for every circumstance across all divisions, a process like this has to be or it will remain open to challenge.

 

For me, under the circumstances, if the eosfl look at this reasonably, and they don't relegate, then use this to lessen the blow for those who are now unfairly disadvantaged, to change tact and form a first division and second division for next season?

 

 

 

 

[Black & Red Socks]

Its a complete slap in the face for Leith and Kinnoull, especially when Premier League dross isn't being relegated

The disrespect here is entirely unnecessary but seems par for the course when supporters of relatively small teams, in the overall scheme of things, try and disparage those who are even smaller. Reflects poorly on you sir.

[newcastle broon]

Just now, G4Mac said:

For me, if you are using ppg to promote after two thirds of a season played, so you dont disproportionately disadvantage clubs in the lower division, surely the same process applies to the bottom clubs in the league above who have played the same amount of their season?

If you apply a process in any arena, from football to any work environment, you have to apply it across the whole thing.

Sadly, when it comes to reasonable solutions, you have to. You can't pick and choose where to apply it and where not to, without justifiable reasons.....and to be frank not unfairly disadvantaging teams isn't a justifiable reason when you only apply it to a certain level, league or club.

Whilst this is an precedented experience, and I understand why clubs in relegation places don't want the process applied for every circumstance across all division, a process like this has to be or it will remain open to challenge.

For me, under the circumstances, if the eosfl look at this reasonably, and they don't relegate, then use this to lessen the blow for those who are now unfairly disadvantaged, to change tact and form a first division and second division for next season?
 

Whitehill would be down wi this scenario but having games in hand over practically the whole of the bottom half and few games played at home it would be very harsh but others are suffering within the Scottish game. 

Only other issue would be to void the whole season but that would upset many teams as well. 

A very tough call for the EoSFL to make. 

[the tin man]

Just like kninnoull wi promotion

Whitehill would be down wi this scenario but having games in hand over practically the whole of the bottom half and few games played at home it would be very harsh but others are suffering within the Scottish game. 
Only other issue would be to void the whole season but that would upset many teams as well. 
A very tough call for the EoSFL to make. 

[BMan]

4 minutes ago, G4Mac said:

For me, if you are using ppg to promote after two thirds of a season played, so you dont disproportionately disadvantage clubs in the lower division, surely the same process applies to the bottom clubs in the league above who have played the same amount of their season?

If you apply a process in any arena, from football to any work environment, you have to apply it across the whole thing.

Sadly, when it comes to reasonable solutions, you have to. You can't pick and choose where to apply it and where not to, without justifiable reasons.....and to be frank not unfairly disadvantaging teams isn't a justifiable reason when you only apply it to a certain level, league or club.

Whilst this is an precedented experience, and I understand why clubs in relegation places don't want the process applied for every circumstance across all divisions, a process like this has to be or it will remain open to challenge.

For me, under the circumstances, if the eosfl look at this reasonably, and they don't relegate, then use this to lessen the blow for those who are now unfairly disadvantaged, to change tact and form a first division and second division for next season?

Easy for me to say because I have a vested interest, but I believe the EoS are correct in not relegating clubs when there is no need to do so (following the LL's lead), and extending the Premier to accommodate as many as they practically can from the Conferences.   If they go down the null & void route (probably the only other practical option), then a lot more clubs are disadvantaged, that would have been the easy thing to do.

Some like Dunipace, will miss out on promotion and be unhappy and that is understandable, but they have to come up with a solution, they are following the SPFL LL and HL as far as PPG is concerned and at least they are putting it to clubs to have a say.

[AlanCamelonfan]

3 minutes ago, BMan said:

Easy for me to say because I have a vested interest, but I believe the EoS are correct in not relegating clubs when there is no need to do so (following the LL's lead), and extending the Premier to accommodate as many as they practically can from the Conferences.   If they go down the null & void route (probably the only other practical option), then a lot more clubs are disadvantaged, that would have been the easy thing to do.

Some like Dunipace, will miss out on promotion and be unhappy and that is understandable, but they have to come up with a solution, they are following the SPFL LL and HL as far as PPG is concerned and at least they are putting it to clubs to have a say.

we could play the rest of the season on football manager and see how it turns out or fifa

[Guest]

And numerous others

Just like kninnoull wi promotion

[Ormi]

9 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

we could play the rest of the season on football manager and see how it turns out or fifa

I’m up for that

[Blowin In the Wind]

3 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

we could play the rest of the season on football manager and see how it turns out or fifa

Or we could go to a pools panel like they did when fixtures got called off.

I agree if they use PPG  it should be applied consistently.  It is the only fair way to do it.  As with other solutions there will be winners and losers but this is a consistent rather than inconsistent process.

As for next season there is a better than even chance that this will also be interrupted due to this virus until a workable and effective vaccine is found.  Expanding leagues with more teams is a recipe for more trouble.

Not an easy decision for anyone so whatever happens we just need to take it on the chin and move on.

p.s. I follow Broxburn who will be a potential loser in the PPG scenario.

 

[BMan]

11 minutes ago, AlanCamelonfan said:

we could play the rest of the season on football manager and see how it turns out or fifa

Just relegate us now 

[Guest]

Easy for me to say because I have a vested interest, but I believe the EoS are correct in not relegating clubs when there is no need to do so (following the LL's lead), and extending the Premier to accommodate as many as they practically can from the Conferences.   If they go down the null & void route (probably the only other practical option), then a lot more clubs are disadvantaged, that would have been the easy thing to do.
Some like Dunipace, will miss out on promotion and be unhappy and that is understandable, but they have to come up with a solution, they are following the SPFL LL and HL as far as PPG is concerned and at least they are putting it to clubs to have a say.

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.

[BMan]

Just now, 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.

As explained, relegation due to circumstances out with your control is punishment (see Partick as an example), but not being one of the two or three not being promoted isn't punishment as I see it.  It's gutting no doubt, but at least 2 or 3 clubs are still going up which was the intention at the start of the season, and which would not be on the table if the season was voided.

Wanting clubs relegated isn't a good look BTW!  I'll leave it there.

[gaz5]

they are following the SPFL LL and HL as far as PPG is concerned and at least they are putting it to clubs to have a say.

They're not though. The SPFL have used it to promote and relegate, not just to promote.

For me, there were multiple options:

1. Ignore PPG, relegate no-one and restructure the Premier to promote Tynecastle, who were the only team assured of going up. Harsh on the other 6, but at least fair across the board.

2. Use PPG to promote 3 teams (4 if Bo'ness go up) and by reflection use PPG to relegate 3. If you use it, it has to be for both. Again, harsh on the 4 (3) that don't go up, but fair across the board.

3. Restructure (if only we had some experience in a structure that could accommodate multiple teams at the same level...) the Premier to take all 7 up and relegate no one, with additional relegation to return to 16 the next season. Fair across the board.

4. Void the season: Unfair to all but the teams in Relegation places, especially Tynecastle.

5. Relegate no one saying PPG is unfair for that and then cherry pick teams using the same PPG that is apparently unfair from below. Creates divide between teams in the conferences chasing promotion as the 7 are treated differently.

For me, 3. was doable but there were no big teams impacted so probably not paletable.

1. Was a "fairer" option because at least the conference sides were treated evenly and Tynecastle had earned it.

4. benefited only the teams who seem to benefit in every scenario, the ones who under achieved in the Premier.

2. Would have at least followed the same methodology as the the majority of the senior game.

5. Is the worst option of all of the above.

As you can see, the only other option wasn't to void, there were others that would have been fairer and in most of the other, better, options we still wouldn't go up.

The option presented, as I've said all day, is in my view the worst that could have been put forward because it's not a balanced option.

[gaz5]

As explained, relegation due to circumstances out with your control is punishment (see Partick as an example), but not being one of the two or three not being promoted isn't punishment as I see it.  It's gutting no doubt, but at least 2 or 3 clubs are still going up which was the intention at the start of the season, and which would not be on the table if the season was voided.
Wanting clubs relegated isn't a good look BTW!  I'll leave it there.

FFS Burnie, No one wants clubs relegated, it's been explained multiple times today. Don't go full lurker! [emoji1787]

There were (are) plenty of other options (see above for examples) which are fairer than what has been proposed and doesn't disadvantage some clubs over one another.

We've always said that.

This isn't about relegating teams, it's about getting a fair resolution for everyone.

This isn't it.

[fowler23]

2 hours ago, youngyin said:

Better one team from eosfl going up to the lowland league than none. I feel a Dundee moment coming our way.

Agree

[fowler23]

2 hours ago, the tin man said:

If boness did go up then highest runner up Inverkeithing wid go up that's where a lot of the unsettling of teams comes in for me they should just promote the champs

I agree with this also

[Guest]

As explained, relegation due to circumstances out with your control is punishment (see Partick as an example), but not being one of the two or three not being promoted isn't punishment as I see it.  It's gutting no doubt, but at least 2 or 3 clubs are still going up which was the intention at the start of the season, and which would not be on the table if the season was voided.
Wanting clubs relegated isn't a good look BTW!  I'll leave it there.

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.

[fowler23]

2 hours ago, BMan said:

2 hours ago, gaz5 said:

If they are promoting on PPG they should be relegating based on PPG as well.

That's where a lot of people are going to be annoyed.
 

Why punish clubs when there is no need?

And also I agree with this

[Marshmallo]

13 minutes ago, gaz5 said:

FFS Burnie, No one wants clubs relegated, it's been explained multiple times today. Don't go full lurker!

There were (are) plenty of other options (see above for examples) which are fairer than what has been proposed and doesn't disadvantage some clubs over one another.

We've always said that.

This isn't about relegating teams, it's about getting a fair resolution for everyone.

This isn't it.

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.