Zing. Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-could-pushed-towards-financial-22072970 Could be a game changer in the AB reconstruction bid. Well and truly relying on the sympathy vote but it could work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 5 minutes ago, Zing. said: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-could-pushed-towards-financial-22072970 Could be a game changer in the AB reconstruction bid. Well and truly relying on the sympathy vote but it could work. Again though, 'Save us, never mind the rest of the championship'. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 4 minutes ago, Zing. said: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-could-pushed-towards-financial-22072970 Could be a game changer in the AB reconstruction bid. Well and truly relying on the sympathy vote but it could work. Still struggle with the thinking on this one though. "The entire championship is fucked, so please let us back in" doesn't sound like a reasonable concept (unless you are Hearts)........and I'm fairly sure that a few championship clubs will think the same. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 Also, no being funny but do these championship clubs think that we can all survive with no income?? The problem is hardly unique to that division. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyFerrino Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 13 minutes ago, Zing. said: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-could-pushed-towards-financial-22072970 Could be a game changer in the AB reconstruction bid. Well and truly relying on the sympathy vote but it could work. But they are a model club ran by a successful business woman. Surely her successful business skills can accommodate a reduction in income? 7 years but. Nice number that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 Very, very interesting take on events from the moon howlers at Kickback. And the charm offensive carries on into the Championship: 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lebowski Posted May 22, 2020 Share Posted May 22, 2020 The "one of the few decent Hearts fans" epithet has been used on here for years and seems to exclusively apply to posters who are offensively beige or or never argue against any criticism. I'll try not to be too disappointed. The prevailing anti-reconstruction arguments on here at the moment seem to focus on why league reconstruction is not completely, unimpeachably fair, rather than why it's more unfair than what's actually happening. Trying to be as objective as I can, I don't think it is more unfair and I've already explained why that is. At least not in terms of the "sporting" arguments that people are putting forward. In a financial sense, I suppose you could argue it's not fair for the many teams to have to accept a smaller % of the prize money to accommodate the few shafted teams. That at least makes sense, but if you're basically going to admit that we're taking a massive shafting to save everyone else a few pennies then you'll forgive us for being a bit fucking peeved about it. [emoji38] If nothing else, it's been a nice diversion from being absolutely furious at Hearts for a wee while.Hearts aren't taking a "massive shafting", they've been the worst team in the league and are relegated due to that. This happens every year to the worst team in the league. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 7 hours ago, Green Day said: Also, no being funny but do these championship clubs think that we can all survive with no income?? The problem is hardly unique to that division. Championship clubs don't think the numbers add up to restart with closed doors games at that level - in the same way that nobody is seriously talking about restarting the bottom two national leagues under some magic beans streaming service. The incentives (commercial as well as UEFA) to do so may well be different enough for the top flight to make it desirable but it shouldn't be applied further down the levels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparticus Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 7 hours ago, Zing. said: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-could-pushed-towards-financial-22072970 Could be a game changer in the AB reconstruction bid. Well and truly relying on the sympathy vote but it could work. Everyones in the same boat on this one.Cant get crowds in the championship=cant get crowds at any game.Its not exclusive to championship clubs, they're just shouting louder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lofarl Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 What’s this 18 game season pish about. From what I understand you can’t relegate teams after 30 games. So you can hardly promote teams after 18 right? Never mind the playoffs in May. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) Successful businesswoman Ann Budge can't be much of a successful businesswoman if she can't successfully run her business because of relegation. It's not like relegation wasn't a possibility at the start of the season, and hadn't been looking a strong possibility for weeks. I'm sure many clubs will have considerable sympathy for one of the largest and richest clubs in the land, with all the benefits that brings, claiming poverty in some way to offset that club's utter failure on the pitch. Said it already, she just needs to claim racism and misogyny for the "full house" of reasons not to reconstruct the league. Edited May 23, 2020 by Ric 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 9 hours ago, DC92 said: The "one of the few decent Hearts fans" epithet has been used on here for years and seems to exclusively apply to posters who are offensively beige or or never argue against any criticism. I'll try not to be too disappointed. The prevailing anti-reconstruction arguments on here at the moment seem to focus on why league reconstruction is not completely, unimpeachably fair, rather than why it's more unfair than what's actually happening. Trying to be as objective as I can, I don't think it is more unfair and I've already explained why that is. At least not in terms of the "sporting" arguments that people are putting forward. In a financial sense, I suppose you could argue it's not fair for the many teams to have to accept a smaller % of the prize money to accommodate the few shafted teams. That at least makes sense, but if you're basically going to admit that we're taking a massive shafting to save everyone else a few pennies then you'll forgive us for being a bit fucking peeved about it. If nothing else, it's been a nice diversion from being absolutely furious at Hearts for a wee while. On the face of it I think this is a reasonable argument in favour of temporary reconstruction. An increased chance of relegation for everyone in the Premiership in a full season which can be finished could absolutely be considered fairer than calling the season early, and as there needs to be an exceptional solution which has some element of unfairness to it in these exceptional circumstances I can see why Hearts fans would naturally gravitate to this being the least bad solution. The problem is though that in terms of sporting fairness it considers the Premiership in a vacuum. You can credibly argue that having more relegation in one or two seasons time with the full season being completed is fairer than calling the league as it is and conclude that's a fairer solution for the Premiership, so it's the fairest solution overall. The Premiership isn't in a vacuum though, and however you reconstruct there's a ripple effect through the leagues which sees some clubs being fucked over through reconstruction. In the seemingly favoured plan of 14-14-14/16, that's Clyde, Peterhead and Forfar. Seeing that there's no solution which doesn't hurt some clubs, you come full circle to the argument of what's the least unfair way of deciding who gets hurt and having to consider sporting merit in that. That unavoidably brings us back to saying the clubs sitting bottom of their league on merit at the time the season stopped taking the hit is the least unfair option. If it's somehow beyond the pale for Hearts, Partick & Stranraer to go down in these circumstances because of the financial impact at a hugely challenging time for everyone despite the fact they were bottom, why would it be okay for clubs sitting mid-table in their league to be entirely arbitrarily bombed into a weaker division from positions which wouldn't normally have you changing division, with a financial impact on them as a result? There's no solution which doesn't hurt someone, and relegating the teams in automatic relegation places is considerably less unfair than that. 16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btb Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 36 minutes ago, Ric said: Successful businesswoman Ann Budge can't be much of a successful businesswoman if she can't successfully run her business because of relegation. It's not like relegation wasn't a possibility at the start of the season, and hadn't been looking a strong possibility for weeks. I'm sure many clubs will have considerable sympathy for one of the largest and richest clubs in the land, with all the benefits that brings, claiming poverty in some way to offset that club's utter failure on the pitch. Said it already, she just needs to claim racism and misogyny for the "full house" of reasons not to reconstruct the league. I disagree, I still reckon there was sympathy for Hearts at the start of the process and if SBW-AB had been a bit more aware that other clubs have financial worries about the pandemic and the next coupla years and offered say 5 years on an expended top flight before any further reconstruction happened she'd have had a lot more interest from diddy clubs like ourselves.. It's over now 12-10-10-10 remains the system and we're making offers to players based on that with fingers crossed on when games can restart and more importantly when will any & how many fans will be let in. I repeat it's over, the ship has sailed and if it comes back into port to pick up Hearts (+1) my flabber will be gasted. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zing. Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 9 hours ago, Green Day said: Still struggle with the thinking on this one though. "The entire championship is fucked, so please let us back in" doesn't sound like a reasonable concept (unless you are Hearts)........and I'm fairly sure that a few championship clubs will think the same. This is true, however I think it’s their best shot at it now. It’s quite a clear strategy played out in the press over the weekend to try and bully clubs into voting to save them, they’re obviously hoping that no one will want to look like they are responsible for the death of such a big huge massive club. It’s clear why AB delayed until Monday. Could they not simply attempt to cut their cloth accordingly as every other club in the land will have to do? I’m guessing some of the players earning big bucks don’t have relegation clauses. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Dunning1874 said: On the face of it I think this is a reasonable argument in favour of temporary reconstruction. An increased chance of relegation for everyone in the Premiership in a full season which can be finished could absolutely be considered fairer than calling the season early, and as there needs to be an exceptional solution which has some element of unfairness to it in these exceptional circumstances I can see why Hearts fans would naturally gravitate to this being the least bad solution. The problem is though that in terms of sporting fairness it considers the Premiership in a vacuum. You can credibly argue that having more relegation in one or two seasons time with the full season being completed is fairer than calling the league as it is and conclude that's a fairer solution for the Premiership, so it's the fairest solution overall. The Premiership isn't in a vacuum though, and however you reconstruct there's a ripple effect through the leagues which sees some clubs being fucked over through reconstruction. In the seemingly favoured plan of 14-14-14/16, that's Clyde, Peterhead and Forfar. Seeing that there's no solution which doesn't hurt some clubs, you come full circle to the argument of what's the least unfair way of deciding who gets hurt and having to consider sporting merit in that. That unavoidably brings us back to saying the clubs sitting bottom of their league on merit at the time the season stopped taking the hit is the least unfair option. If it's somehow beyond the pale for Hearts, Partick & Stranraer to go down in these circumstances because of the financial impact at a hugely challenging time for everyone despite the fact they were bottom, why would it be okay for clubs sitting mid-table in their league to be entirely arbitrarily bombed into a weaker division from positions which wouldn't normally have you changing division, with a financial impact on them as a result? There's no solution which doesn't hurt someone, and relegating the teams in automatic relegation places is considerably less unfair than that. A lot of that analysis is reasonable, although I don’t agree with all your conclusions. Your blind spot seems to be putting into the matrix of unfairnesses the possibility of actually playing out the remaining matches or, at the very least, the play-offs. The biggest group of losers under the chosen solution has been the teams who had a decent chance of a promotion play off. The biggest group of winners are those that worried they could be in a relegation play off. Hopefully, if it gets to court we’ll see if the balance of fairness was considered in the board paper and weighed up by the board members before putting to the vote of the 42 as the “only solution” and only route to the remaining £9m. Edited May 23, 2020 by Pet Jeden 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 19 minutes ago, Zing. said: Could they not simply attempt to cut their cloth accordingly as every other club in the land will have to do? I know it was a rhetorical Q, but as we all know, that concept isnt in Hearts DNA, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparticus Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 To be honest i think it needs to go to court now. Hearts are an utter disgrace. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coventry Saint Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 20 minutes ago, Zing. said: I'm guessing some of the players earning big bucks don’t have relegation clauses. They do, but they don't have expulsion clauses. It's a very important semantic point. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 1 minute ago, Sparticus said: To be honest i think it needs to go to court now. Hearts are an utter disgrace. GUILTY, NEXT! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted May 23, 2020 Share Posted May 23, 2020 16 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: A lot of that analysis is reasonable, although I don’t agree with all your conclusions. Your blind spot seems to be putting into the matrix of unfairnesses the possibility of actually playing out the remaining matches, or at the very, least the play-offs. The biggest group of losers under the chosen solution has been the teams who had a decent chance of a promotion play off. The biggest group of winners are those that worried they could be in a relegation play off. Hopefully, if it gets to court we’ll see if the balance of fairness was considered in the board paper and weighed up by the board members before putting to the vote of the 42 as the “only solution” and only route to the remaining £9m. Any solution which had games being played would have been preferable, but I discounted it because we're clearly long past the point where finishing the season on the pitch is possible and there is no practical way of holding the playoffs. You can't have playoffs a week before the season starts and you know this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.