Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[diegomarahenry]

If Rangers story turns out to be a fabrication, do they get hit with a points deduction ? That would be one way to resolve it. 

[Arnold Layne]

2 minutes ago, Yenitit said:

It’s already been said he was contacted by a ‘big hitting’ club at 5.03pm yesterday. 

Are you sure he wasn't hit with a big club at 5.03?

[THEHonestman1910]

13 minutes ago, Crawford said:

This started exciting and is now brexit levels of boring. 

Boring??. This might be the funniest thing Scottish football has ever produced. 

[Parttimesupporter]

12 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Look, it's this simple. We're not playing any more games this season. Everyone accepts that.

There's absolutely no appetite within the game for delaying or reducing the following season to finish this one. Again everyone pretty much accepts that if we can't get playing again by June it's not finishing and the Govt has already confirmed we're not playing again before mid July at best.

All of the prize money / funds of the SPFL have already been paid up to the extent that the bottom place funding in each division (plus the three sides guaranteed to be top six in the Premiership have been paid money for 6th spot).

Under the existing rules the only way to release the rest of the funds is to finalise the positions one way or another. You could of course do so in a number of ways (tables as they stand, tables on average points (which is what we just voted on), tables at the halfway point or 3/4 point (although there are o/s fixtures in those), etc).

We do not need to agree promotion and relegation scenarios at the same time as finalising positions of course but the two probably should be considered together as otherwise you potentially get clubs accepting positions which may later be regretted if a different scheme of promotion or reconstruction is introduced.

There could be a proposal to distribute the remaining funds on some other model but it seems unlikely that would achieve a 75% majority as half the clubs would be disadvantaged by it. Inverness can be as magnanimous as they like while "on one knee" but I don't see another 10 or 11 clubs thinking the same way.

They could pay out the prize money based on current positions but then if some other solution in declaring final positions is arrived at you'd be snookered.

Null and void is not on the table. There are commercial reasons why it can't happen.

That's where we are.

Highlighted 3 points above.

On point 1 is your understanding that Rangers are in effect arguing for 'null and void'?  Or are they only club who believe that the season can be completed?  Totally agree that there is no chance of 'completing' this season without next season being reduced eg no League Cup or fewer league games.

Agree on point 2 - the proposal for finalising positions for the purposes of releasing cash seems to be the most reasonable one available.  Given this nearly got over the line trying to find a different formula would seem unwise.  Scot Gardiner made it pretty clear that ICT would have been OK with this - he used the word 'conflated' at least twice today.

On point 3 a number of clubs seem to have voted yes reluctantly.  Concerns have been expressed about timescales to consider a large document.  It is hard to believe a deadline of 5pm on Friday was required to stop one or more clubs folding, but that appears to have swayed some of the votes.   'Vote yes now or have blood on your hands'.   

There is no obvious reason to settle titles/promotion/relegation now if the SPFL Board are genuine in their desire to have a look at reconstruction.  For the avoidance of doubt I think they know the 11-1 rule means reconstruction won't happen and this was a ruse to get the likes of ICT in particular over the line.  I would also question the need to settle European positions now - clearly European competitions are going to start months later than normal.

I appreciate clubs need to speak to players about contracts and deal with sponsors but these are not normal times.  If funds can be disbursed to keep clubs afloat then there is no obvious reason to rush to action before the next UEFA meeting and some clarity on the government's views on what happens next.  

 

 

[Pull My Strings]

1 minute ago, THEHonestman1910 said:

Boring??. This might be the funniest thing Scottish football has ever produced. 

I think you're forgetting  a very funny event from 2012.

[Fifespud]

Look, it's this simple. We're not playing any more games this season. Everyone accepts that.
There's absolutely no appetite within the game for delaying or reducing the following season to finish this one. Again everyone pretty much accepts that if we can't get playing again by June it's not finishing and the Govt has already confirmed we're not playing again before mid July at best.
All of the prize money / funds of the SPFL have already been paid up to the extent that the bottom place funding in each division (plus the three sides guaranteed to be top six in the Premiership have been paid money for 6th spot).
Under the existing rules the only way to release the rest of the funds is to finalise the positions one way or another. You could of course do so in a number of ways (tables as they stand, tables on average points (which is what we just voted on), tables at the halfway point or 3/4 point (although there are o/s fixtures in those), etc).
We do not need to agree promotion and relegation scenarios at the same time as finalising positions of course but the two probably should be considered together as otherwise you potentially get clubs accepting positions which may later be regretted if a different scheme of promotion or reconstruction is introduced.
There could be a proposal to distribute the remaining funds on some other model but it seems unlikely that would achieve a 75% majority as half the clubs would be disadvantaged by it. Inverness can be as magnanimous as they like while "on one knee" but I don't see another 10 or 11 clubs thinking the same way.
They could pay out the prize money based on current positions but then if some other solution in declaring final positions is arrived at you'd be snookered.
Null and void is not on the table. There are commercial reasons why it can't happen.
That's where we are.

Whit? You’ve just answered the question you’ve been demanding everyone else who you thought was contradicting you to answer.

As you have so clearly put it there are other ways to end the impasse other than the one we are just voting on.

We have learned today that 1) there are a lot of clubs not about to go bust without this money (Forfar Chairman and Scott the w**k) 2) for a few of the clubs it’s not that much anyway (Skyline Drifter) 3) there’s been a lot of back channeling and coercion going on that a lot of clubs feel uncomfortable about.

Given that we are never going to finish this season the 2 main points of contention appear to me to be 1) we need to divvy up the loot but should we link promotion and relegation to that divvy up - it seems to me that lots of clubs may think relegating Thistle, Hearts etc is a tad unfair but they voted to do so because they wanted a) the dosh and b) certainty of which league they’re going to be playing in next season and 2) a desire for reconstruction - again if you want reconstruction it’s far better doing that before you’ve taken the ‘jam tomorrow’ option from Lancaster and his cronies.

I strongly suspect in Dundee’s case Nelms has made a royal c**t of it all but despite that it’s still fucking hilarious to see how desperate the Dayglo Funsters are to get promoted - they are shiteing themselves about the consequences of another season of eye watering losses and Shankland getting sold [emoji4][emoji4][emoji39]

[THEHonestman1910]

3 minutes ago, Pull My Strings said:

I think you're forgetting  a very funny event from 2012.

Give it time. This shambles will 100% top it.

[RossBFaeDundee]

Just now, THEHonestman1910 said:

Give it time. This shambles will 100% top it.

I can't see it personally. Nothing touches the banter years.

[Ludo*1]

The Sun (I know) are purporting that Nelms will say yes if the SPFL guarantee to consider a 14 team top flight in order to 'get his moment in the sun'.

[SweeperDee]

When do we start posting pictures of nurses with their tits out?

[Parttimesupporter]

52 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Can't comment on specific clubs but a couple of points of note would be:

The furlough scheme is great but it needs to be funded for about 6 weeks before any money is seen from the Govt. They are trying to get it sorted out for refunds to be made by the end of April but that still means every club is covering 6 weeks wages in full or at least 80% while they wait for it.

Also, the maximum value of the furlough probably means all the top division clubs and the top 3 or 4 payers in the Championship are not properly covered by it.

Clubs also probably still have some ongoing liabilities such as utility bills etc to cover.

The fact that a number of clubs have appealed to fans for cash shows that there are some who may be close to the edge.  

Clubs selling season tickets when they have no idea when the season will start is another sign of distress.

[THEHonestman1910]

4 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said:

The Sun (I know) are purporting that Nelms will say yes if the SPFL guarantee to consider a 14 team top flight in order to 'get his moment in the sun'.

Would that be the top 3 and hearts relegated or just the top 2 and no relegation?

[Ludo*1]

1 minute ago, THEHonestman1910 said:

Would that be the top 3 and hearts relegated or just the top 2 and no relegation?

Top 2 and no relegation.

[Skyline Drifter]

10 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said:

Highlighted 3 points above.

On point 1 is your understanding that Rangers are in effect arguing for 'null and void'?  Or are they only club who believe that the season can be completed?  Totally agree that there is no chance of 'completing' this season without next season being reduced eg no League Cup or fewer league games.

Agree on point 2 - the proposal for finalising positions for the purposes of releasing cash seems to be the most reasonable one available.  Given this nearly got over the line trying to find a different formula would seem unwise.  Scot Gardiner made it pretty clear that ICT would have been OK with this - he used the word 'conflated' at least twice today.

On point 3 a number of clubs seem to have voted yes reluctantly.  Concerns have been expressed about timescales to consider a large document.  It is hard to believe a deadline of 5pm on Friday was required to stop one or more clubs folding, but that appears to have swayed some of the votes.   'Vote yes now or have blood on your hands'.   

There is no obvious reason to settle titles/promotion/relegation now if the SPFL Board are genuine in their desire to have a look at reconstruction.  For the avoidance of doubt I think they know the 11-1 rule means reconstruction won't happen and this was a ruse to get the likes of ICT in particular over the line.  I would also question the need to settle European positions now - clearly European competitions are going to start months later than normal.

I appreciate clubs need to speak to players about contracts and deal with sponsors but these are not normal times.  If funds can be disbursed to keep clubs afloat then there is no obvious reason to rush to action before the next UEFA meeting and some clarity on the government's views on what happens next. 

I have no idea what Rangers are arguing for. I've not read their proposed motion. Is it published anywhere? Their statement said they were going to produce a motion that would "release prize money" but presumably didn't link it to promotion or relegation at this stage. They then announced, and the SPFL confirmed, that their resolution was invalid. I don't think anyone clarified what was in it but maybe it's been in one of the papers? I don't get a newspaper these days.

I've no idea why they wanted a 5pm deadline on Friday but presume they were getting pressure from some clubs who have cash flow issues. I wouldn't know.

Personally I think it's logical to consider promotion / relegation at the same time as finalising the positions but if clubs would vote for one without the other I guess it would at least solve part of the problem. Although getting agreement on anything regarding promotion / relegation in extraordinary circumstances without a motivating factor might prove well night impossible!

 

[Iain]

14 is a ridiculous number of teams to have in a league. Hard to think of any format that distributes home and away games evenly and fairly. 18 is the right number or, at a push, 20.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Iain

[Parttimesupporter]

4 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said:

The Sun (I know) are purporting that Nelms will say yes if the SPFL guarantee to consider a 14 team top flight in order to 'get his moment in the sun'.

Bit hard to believe that he could be that naive.  'Consider'?  The SPFL can't promise the end result.  The top flight clubs can promise to consider a proposal very carefully for around 10 seconds as only 2 need to say no to block it.  Nelms then has a choice - he can look like a half wit or he can claim that the voting form with his signature is a forgery. 

Perhaps there is another option - he could say that he was inspired by Boris Johnson and signed one form which said 'yes' and once which said 'no'.

  https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnsons-article-backing-britains-future-in-the-eu-a3370296.html

[Skyline Drifter]

1 minute ago, Iain said:

14 is a ridiculous number of teams to have in a league. Hard to think of any format that distributes home and away games evenly and fairly. 18 is the right number or, at a push, 20.

We had 14 clubs in leagues for years mind you. And yes, fixtures were imbalanced.  You played 39 games a season, as far as possible 20 home one season, 19 home the next.

[Ludo*1]

Here's the article:

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/5484409/dundee-could-propose-league-reconstruction-spfl-nelms/

Reads very much like guesswork to me.

[craigkillie]

If Dundee were 2nd this would make sense, but they're not so it doesn't. Just a bullshit "could", "might" article from the Sun, as per.

[RossBFaeDundee]

13 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said:

The Sun (I know) are purporting that Nelms will say yes if the SPFL guarantee to consider a 14 team top flight in order to 'get his moment in the sun'.