League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[craigkillie]

I don't think a temporary change could work under those circumstances for exactly that reason. If anything it would be a temporary 14-10-10-10 followed by a permanent 12-12-10-10 (or something similar).

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, itzdrk said:

It just kicks the problem down the road, if the league increases temporarily to 44 then 3 of the current League Two clubs could end up out the SPFL when the league's return to normal.  That's just shifting Hearts and Partick's problems onto other clubs. 

True, but assuming it's all agreed in advance and all games are completed then it's much fairer than calling it mid season.

If relegation didn't cause such huge financial issues (on top of what's already going on) then I'd be saying Hearts, Partick etc should just accept their footballing fate and enjoy relegation, but we're talking an existential threat being imposed on them.

[capt_oats]

14 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

I agree with you. I think that any expansion of the top flight will necessarily require a change in the financial distribution - it won't get the top flight votes otherwise.

Quite.

Going by the prize money from last season you'd go from the team finishing bottom of the 12 team league getting £1.25m to the team finishing bottom of a 14 team Premiership getting £475k.

The whole "yOu DoNt neEd to cHangE tHe prIZe MoNeY" mob are at it.

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Quite.

Going by the prize money from last season you'd go from the team finishing bottom of the 12 team league getting £1.25m to the team finishing bottom of a 14 team Premiership getting £475k.

The whole "yOu DoNt neEd to cHangE tHe prIZe MoNeY" mob are at it.

This is where I don't really follow the line about 'we'll sort reconstruction first, then worry about distribution' that's coming out of the working group.

If distribution is going to collapse the whole thing like a house of cards then you probably do need to think about it.

[craigkillie]

3 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

Quite.

Going by the prize money from last season you'd go from the team finishing bottom of the 12 team league getting £1.25m to the team finishing bottom of a 14 team Premiership getting £475k.

The whole "yOu DoNt neEd to cHangE tHe prIZe MoNeY" mob are at it.

Hard to imagine a single club beyond Rangers, Celtic and Aberdeen agreeing to that. Even our own clubs, who have been kicking about the top half more often than not over the last few years, will still be thinking "Nah".

[Ric]

26 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

I disagree.

Hearts being relegated is funny but objectively it's not particularly fair. I can absolutely see the justification for a temporary reconstruction, so long as it included a fair distribution of money to help clubs through this.

Reconstruction is only on the table in the first place because of potentially relegated clubs so it is absolute madness to take that sort of permanent decision to 'pander to one club'.

You can disagree all you want because it's very likely not to affect your club.

There is absolutely no justification for a temporary reconstruction.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Ric said:

You can disagree all you want because it's very likely not to affect your club.

There is absolutely no justification for a temporary reconstruction.

Good use of bold font for emphasis there, I liked it.

Why are you happy with a permanent one then?

 

[Ric]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

Good use of bold font for emphasis there, I liked it.

Why are you happy with a permanent one then?

I thought it would be better emphasis than all caps..

I've got absolutely no issue with reconstruction, although a forced one because one club made a rip-roaring arse of things then whined like a child is probably the least justification I can find for it.

[itzdrk]

21 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

True, but assuming it's all agreed in advance and all games are completed then it's much fairer than calling it mid season.

If relegation didn't cause such huge financial issues (on top of what's already going on) then I'd be saying Hearts, Partick etc should just accept their footballing fate and enjoy relegation, but we're talking an existential threat being imposed on them.

Forgot to add to the original: it also helps Hearts and Partick avoid relegation and sends Stranraer down regardless so is inherently unfair. 

But yes if it's agreed it does have a sense of fairness, good luck getting clubs to take that risk they won't be one though! 

[weetoonlad]

Well it can only be 14  14  14

[Terry_Tibbs]

How can we even begin to discuss reconstruction when we don't know how many clubs will survive? The priory should be getting the season up and running in late July/early August with spectators. A commitment to doing so, based on the current format, would stop clubs going to the wall needlessly.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Terry_Tibbs

[jamamafegan]

Are we looking at at having a split in all those new 14 team leagues then? If so get that idea in the bin where it belongs.

[Ric]

17 hours ago, jamamafegan said:

Are we looking at at having a split in all those new 14 team leagues then? If so get that idea in the bin where it belongs.

I think the split position is mutable. if Hearts are in the top section then it'll be the same each season, if not Budge is demanding a temporary reconstruction of the split to fit whichever position they are in the league. If this involves an odd number of games then she's demanding on the days that Hearts are not playing they are allowed a "glamour friendly" in Dubai.

Edited April 28, 2020 by Ric

[Dons_1988]

26 minutes ago, Ric said:

I thought it would be better emphasis than all caps..

I've got absolutely no issue with reconstruction, although a forced one because one club made a rip-roaring arse of things then whined like a child is probably the least justification I can find for it.

But this would be a forced one for exactly that reason. Yet you want to make it permanent.

[Ric]

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

But this would be a forced one for exactly that reason. Yet you want to make it permanent.

You are making an assumption that I wish reconstruction to assist Hearts. I do not. I am, however, an advocate of a bigger league and always have been.

If that reconstruction happens because of Hearts, then the "ends justifies the means" I suppose. What it absolutely should never be, is a temporary fix to stop Hearts being relegated then the "status-quo" is returned when Hearts are no longer in that position. That suits Hearts and Hearts alone, and is going to have a far bigger effect on my team.

If St Mirren were bottom of the league, no reconstruction talks would be going on, I can guarantee you that.

 

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Ric said:

You are making an assumption that I wish reconstruction to assist Hearts. I do not. I am, however, an advocate of a bigger league and always have been.

If that reconstruction happens because of Hearts, then the "ends justifies the means" I suppose. What it absolutely should never be, is a temporary fix to stop Hearts being relegated then the "status-quo" is returned when Hearts are no longer in that position. That suits Hearts and Hearts alone, and is going to have a far bigger effect on my team.

If St Mirren were bottom of the league, no reconstruction talks would be going on, I can guarantee you that.

 

I'm not, it's clear you have no desire to help Hearts. But that (and Partick and Stranraer) is why these talks are taking place.

So we have a process that from the very outset has a goal of protecting clubs from relegation, all in the midst of the biggest financial crisis the Scottish game is likely to have ever seen. It is not circumstances to be making long term decisions.

A bigger league (that I tentatively support too btw) comes with a number of complex factors to consider. My gut feeling is that we'll put a lot of time and effort into this and achieve nothing, because we'll never get consensus on a long term plan.

Going by different soundbites there appears to be a level of recognition that relegation is unfair and that a temporary fix to resolve that is palatable. If so, then get it done and start getting plans in place to be playing football again. Then we can start talking longer term league restructuring. 

As to your last point, you can't guarantee that and I actually disagree.

 

[capt_oats]

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

But this would be a forced one for exactly that reason. Yet you want to make it permanent.

Tbh I think this is where reconstruction falls generally. Trying to reconfigure the league to solve this specific issue doesn't really work.

I'm hesitant to say these are fixed positions but the Premiership clubs I've read comments from seem to be open minded with regards reconstruction but against a temporary "quick fix" along the lines Budge seems to be angling for.

That article I linked to in the other thread from Dempster has her saying this:

Quote

“We are open-minded to league reconstruction,” she added. “But it would have to be a reconstruction that is progressive and looked at the opportunities in the game over the next five or ten years. Not something that is just rushed or temporary.

“We believe the biggest issue facing the game in Scotland is not reconstruction, it’s getting our whole game back up and running. The club’s position, as has been discussed at board level, is it would have to be a solution that is good for the game as a whole, is not short term – and something that could unite the game behind it. It has to be genuinely innovative and not just a quick fix for one season.”

Motherwell's update from the chairman was along similar lines:

Quote

We believe quick decisions can often be bad ones. ‘Something needs to be done‘ is not the best methodology to apply. We should be as imaginative as possible and look at a number of different options – not just the obvious ones and immediately box ourselves into a corner around one particular structure.

Our hope is that the talks within the task force and a vote, if there is one, remain constructive. Any change should make the game in Scotland more attractive to all the stakeholders, principally the supporters.

It has to make the game better in the long term for fans. It also needs to consider the various potential scenarios for restarting the game, their implications for member clubs and therefore how the league and game as a whole navigate it accordingly.

Livi set out their own proposal but were clear that they wanted a permanent solution.

Quote

We believe that permanent league reconstruction is the most progressive way forward for Scottish Football as a whole.

Accies Chairman was in the press saying they're against a temporary fix:

Quote

"I understand the value in saying: 'look, let's make sure no-one is penalised, it's no-one's fault this has happened so next year we'll be able to revert to what it was'.

"I can see that, but equally it looks very much like it's to save Hearts as a one-off season and that doesn't sit right.

"I think it looks a bit narrow-minded. A longer term solution of a 14-team league would work much better as far as we're concerned and that's the way we're going to go and vote for it, I think.

Those are just the ones off the top of my head - I'm not sure if other clubs have stated their positions publicly. The common thread is that none of them want a temporary solution - yet it's precisely what Budge seemed to be working towards and I'd have thought it'd be difficult to square that circle especially if she's talking about wanting it done in a couple of weeks.

You've got clubs (rightly) saying that reconstruction should improve the league vs Budge whose interest isn't improving the league, she's more concerned with "fairness" (and she'd prefer to revert to 12 after a season or two anyway).

It's two parties looking for completely different outcomes.

Edited April 27, 2020 by capt_oats

[Ric]

14 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

As to your last point, you can't guarantee that and I actually disagree.

Yes, I can guarantee you that, as unlike your club I've not seen any clamour for it to be saved from relegation.

As for the rest of your comments, it's good that your disagree with me on most things because I think you are being massively naive.

Now please don't take that as an insult, I am sure you are an intelligent and well intentioned individual.

[stepek 4 tellys]

Accies chairman has reiterated the board are against a temporary restructuring and their preferred approach is a 14 team top flight. He also made some interesting points re closed doors games, in so much as it could lead to financial disaster for clubs, more so, the so called "big" teams.

 

 

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, Ric said:

Yes, I can guarantee you that, as unlike your club I've not seen any clamour for it to be saved from relegation.

I know that plenty people want certain clubs to be in the league no matter what, that doesn't mean plenty of people wouldn't want to see fairness applied to St Mirren. I agree that there is bigger support for it because it's Hearts.

5 minutes ago, Ric said:

As for the rest of your comments, it's good that your disagree with me on most things because I think you are being massively naive.

Now please don't take that as an insult, I am sure you are an intelligent and well intentioned individual.

Now you're just being patronising. I am not naive, I think we will achieve nothing here because of too many conflicting interests and it will do untold damage to the game. We just disagree on the best way forward.

I'm sure you're well intentioned too but bold font, your 'guarantees' and a patronising pat on the head doesn't win you a debate.