Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Ad Lib]

5 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The board could end the season if they wanted, but it is clearly fairer to leave it up to the clubs rather than having self-interested board members making decisions from on high.

Yes much better to produce a proposal that there’s a partisan interest in the clubs shafting other clubs over...

I don’t think that’s a silver bullet.

[SueSue]

If they had put forward a league restructure at the same time as this vote it may show that their is no need for relegation at all. 
In fact it could also show a good few clubs getting promoted also.

Clubs that are going to be relegated or with a chance of promotion will never vote to end the season.

 

[srw]

Just now, The Master said:

Settle.

I asked a genuine question based on the lack of information in the original press release. If you'd pointed to the SPFL rules (it's in actually in the Articles of Association) originally, all would have been good.

As I said, the media in this country aren't exactly an authoritative source, so it's right to question where they get their information from.

Cmon now.

You wont believe what journalists write, you wont believe whats written on here, now you want someone to point to it?

Theres taking the piss, and theres this.

[The Master]

1 minute ago, srw said:

Cmon now.

You wont believe what journalists write, you wont believe whats written on here, now you want someone to point to it?

Theres taking the piss, and theres this.

Since when has wanting a concrete source for something constituted "taking the piss"?

Would it really have been so difficult for your first reply to me to be "it's in the Articles of Association of the SPFL"?

[Honest_Man#1]

2 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

I can only go based on what my boss has told me, but the furlough scheme isnt money for nothing.

Once this is over the government is expecting you to pay the money back.

I shouldn’t be surprised that you believe that nonsense coming from a local Perth garage gaffer as gospel after being certain that COVID was a Chinese engineered virus with HIV. 

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Ad Lib said:

I think it’s clear that at least three teams in the Championship would have rejected it. They would have wanted a guarantee that in no circumstances a team would be relegated based on an incomplete and unequally complete season.

Sorry, but I'm still absolutely baffled by what you're saying here.

Have you at least three specific Championship teams in mind, or do you mean it in a more general 'surely 30%+ would reject it' type way?

Either way, I don't get the confidence of the assertion.  Had something along these latest lines been proposed to tackle these highly unlikely circumstances in advance, I don't see why they wouldn't have gone through.  They're not intrinsically disadvantageous to anyone, although it does mean certain sides would of course suffer in the event of such an axe falling in practice.  

The "unequally complete" part is tackled by averaging points per game.  Now again, this looks (and quite possibly is) unfair when imposed at this stage.  Had it been proposed in advance as the way to go though, I'm sure it would have been accepted.

None of this matters of course.  The reality is that none of this was set up as a contingency, so attempting to put it in place now is understandably problematic.  I maintain though, that such ideas would pass your test of being palatable in the first place.

[Monkey Tennis]

29 minutes ago, The Master said:

Is that a new film for Easter?

 Would that not be 'Christ: What a Moron'?

Anyway, all he did was claim to be the Son of God, provoking the Romans into subjecting him to a gruesome execution.

Thinking money needs paid back by furloughed employees, is surely more stupid than that.

[flyingscot]

The one thing I can’t figure out is why the Premiership teams would go for the one season of reconstruction. What incentive is there for Hamilton, St Mirren, Ross County, St Johnstone, Killie and others to agree to this when you will have a much greater prospect of relegation next season over just swapping Dundee United with Hearts? Self interest no doubt, and if those teams were in the Championship I know they would say different things, but if your auntie had balls etc... 

[Guest Flash]

15 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The board could end the season if they wanted, but it is clearly fairer to leave it up to the clubs rather than having self-interested board members making decisions from on high.

Probably allowing all clubs to vote on the Premiership/Championship play-offs is the same because the only clubs likely to challenge the outcome are some Championship ones and pointing to Articles that don’t allow them a vote in the first place wouldn’t get them anywhere. I suppose if the resolution fails and the play-offs aren’t cancelled, clubs near the bottom of the Premiership could challenge the decision, though. But then there wouldn’t have been a change in the rule, so they probably wouldn’t get anywhere with that either. Probably not following the Rules and Articles to the letter because nobody is going to challenge it.

[Daydream]

20 hours ago, Sting777 said:

Utter pish. If we had played the same amount of games I would have accepted it but the fact is that we have a game in hand over QOTS and if we win it we wouldn’t be bottom. Hope we don’t roll over and accept this, but likelihood is that we will and let face it, there are more important things to bother with at the moment!

Surely all right minded teams will see this.  I'll be surprised if even Dundee United vote for this.  

[weetoonlad]

If they had put forward a league restructure at the same time as this vote it may show that their is no need for relegation at all. 
In fact it could also show a good few clubs getting promoted also.
Clubs that are going to be relegated or with a chance of promotion will never vote to end the season.
 

Totally 100% correct

[SueSue]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

Just going by the SPFL statement.

If the league fixtures cannot be played in the top flight theyll use points per game, if this is voted in.

Worth mentioning Rangers have just ripped up the Ibrox pitch, and the new TV deal starts in August. 

There will be, one way or another.

Rangers quite clearly have been given the heads up that they will not be needing their pitch any time soon, no matter what their official stance is.

[Ludo*1]

Surprised that more clubs haven't declared their position yet.

[Ad Lib]

29 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Sorry, but I'm still absolutely baffled by what you're saying here.

Have you at least three specific Championship teams in mind, or do you mean it in a more general 'surely 30%+ would reject it' type way?

Either way, I don't get the confidence of the assertion.  Had something along these latest lines been proposed to tackle these highly unlikely circumstances in advance, I don't see why they wouldn't have gone through.  They're not intrinsically disadvantageous to anyone, although it does mean certain sides would of course suffer in the event of such an axe falling in practice.  

The "unequally complete" part is tackled by averaging points per game.  Now again, this looks (and quite possibly is) unfair when imposed at this stage.  Had it been proposed in advance as the way to go though, I'm sure it would have been accepted.

None of this matters of course.  The reality is that none of this was set up as a contingency, so attempting to put it in place now is understandably problematic.  I maintain though, that such ideas would pass your test of being palatable in the first place.

Yes. I think at the very least, for example, Alloa and Arbroath, and probably 2-3 of the full-time teams, would not have accepted this approach to disasters if presented to them at the outset. They would have known it would make the situation of a team with an early poor run of form at an extreme disadvantage. Teams would have much preferred an arrangement that protected them against the catastrophic.

The unequally complete part is not tackled by averaging points per game. That's literally the whole bone of contention. If you've played Celtic three times but St Johnstone zero times you are at a sporting disadvantage compared to someone who played Celtic twice and St Johnstone twice. If you have played 28 games and everyone else has played 29 games you have played the other teams in the division in different proportions. That is the unfairness and average points per game is never fair unless you have played the same teams the same number of times.

The only fair ways to end the season are voiding it outright, playing it outright, or perhaps calling it based on one set of home and away fixtures rather than two. If those aren't possible, it is the moral duty of the league to compensate and support those who are punished for deserts that had not fully been earned, and not as fully to reward those who had not earned it outright.

Only rejecting outright promotion and relegation or temporary reconstruction with promotion but no relegation then more relegation the following season can begin to address that.

[Ad Lib]

29 minutes ago, flyingscot said:

The one thing I can’t figure out is why the Premiership teams would go for the one season of reconstruction. What incentive is there for Hamilton, St Mirren, Ross County, St Johnstone, Killie and others to agree to this when you will have a much greater prospect of relegation next season over just swapping Dundee United with Hearts? Self interest no doubt, and if those teams were in the Championship I know they would say different things, but if your auntie had balls etc... 

You don't. You have more shit teams to play against and therefore if anything a better chance of escaping it despite there being more relegation spots.

If they think they aren't as good as Dundee United and Inverness, or as Raith Rovers and Falkirk etc then that's on them.

If there is no reconstruction a team that finishes 10th or better in the Premier League is safe.

If there is reconstruction a team that finishes 10th or better in the Premier League is safe.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Ad Lib

[MacArab]

Not that it matters, but I think that calling it all now, and declaring Celtic Champions, and looking at reconstruction is the least damaging way to end this utter clusterfuck now, and protect the integrity of next season.

The only team out of 44 that will be unhappy with this would be The New Rangers, and to be fair, the ensuing Sevconian meltdown would give us all a laugh during these tragic times.

Apologies if I am repeating stuff other have said already, however...

United and Caley up (to be fair, Caley have been consistently second pretty  much all season)

Raith and Falkirk up (saves any tears and snotters out of Grangemouth)

Cove and EC up.

Kelty and Brora introduced to league 2 (Welcome)

Anybody further down the list in terms of current or potentials playoff positions (including Dundee sadly) need to realise that we are in uncharted waters and it is highly unlikely that they were going up anyway, especially if we can’t play any more games for the next 3 months.

Hearts and Partick Thistle are saved, Stranraer and Brechin (who looked doomed) are also saved.

Premiership Next Season 3 go down automatically, and 1 play off, whilst in the Championship is as is, with 1 up and playoffs as normal, meaning that. We then have 12 team leagues for the Premiership and Championship the follwoing season, and can introduce the split to the Championship as well for 2021/22.

What’s not to like?

[johnnydun]

4 minutes ago, MacArab said:

Not that it matters, but I think that calling it all now, and declaring Celtic Champions, and looking at reconstruction is the least damaging way to end this utter clusterfuck now, and protect the integrity of next season.

The only team out of 44 that will be unhappy with this would be The New Rangers, and to be fair, the ensuing Sevconian meltdown would give us all a laugh during these tragic times.

Apologies if I am repeating stuff other have said already, however...

United and Caley up (to be fair, Caley have been consistently second pretty  much all season)

Raith and Falkirk up (saves any tears and snotters out of Grangemouth)

Cove and EC up.

Kelty and Brora introduced to league 2 (Welcome)

Anybody further down the list in terms of current or potentials playoff positions (including Dundee sadly) need to realise that we are in uncharted waters and it is highly unlikely that they were going up anyway, especially if we can’t play any more games for the next 3 months.

Hearts and Partick Thistle are saved, Stranraer and Brechin (who looked doomed) are also saved.

Premiership Next Season 3 go down automatically, and 1 play off, whilst in the Championship is as is, with 1 up and playoffs as normal, meaning that. We then have 12 team leagues for the Premiership and Championship the follwoing season, and can introduce the split to the Championship as well for 2021/22.

What’s not to like?

How is binning the play offs fair? 

If we are to end it and wait for next season then surely next seasons first games should be the play offs.

But even that is not fair on the teams who still have a chance to get in the play offs but are not currently in those positions.

[vikingTON]

‘What’s not to like’ is the idea of expanding the top flight for one season alone just to placate a handful of clubs whose teams were utter shite and deserved to go down anyway. 

[Ludo*1]

On 31/03/2020 at 19:48, Ludo*1 said:

Rather than null & voiding this season, I propose this (I mentioned it a page or so back, but I've fleshed it out):

• No more games this season.
• Average point system used which will be added to on the completion of next season.
• Overall average points over 2 seasons decides league positioning. - There'd be a 'table' for this season but Avg. determines who goes down/who goes up.

This would cover us in several areas. It'd avoid this season being a complete waste of time. If there are to be further lockdowns, it means that everything being determined over a longer period of time means we can shut down at a moments notice. It would also give teams a fresh start, ie, allow players to leave when their contracts originally expired.

It wouldn't be categorically unfair on any side - Hearts wouldn't just get relegated automatically, United wouldn't have wasted this season and they'd still be in a commanding position.

This isn't a long term solution for the Scottish leagues but is fairer than any other option that I can see.

Doesn't have the negatives of scrapping this season, automatically relegating clubs that aren't mathematically relegated and more importantly (For the SPFL/SFA) it would mean they don't have to piss off either of the bigot brothers (Which is all they care about).

I still reckon this is the way forward and it's used in some South American leagues such as Argentina and Uruguay.

 

[johnnydun]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

‘What’s not to like’ is the idea of expanding the top flight for one season alone just to placate a handful of clubs whose teams were utter shite and deserved to go down anyway. 

The "deserve to go down" argument is utter pish. No team "deserves" to go down or win a league if it was still mathematically possible not to be in that position at the completion of the season.