League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[Andy groundhopper]

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

Think I've found my fetish late in life, that is disturbingly erotic.

That video is only temporary,nothing concrete. Hang on ,letting my imagination go wild for a minute

[Lebowski]

And that was the problem.  Sticking with a failing manager for so long then replacing him with a guy with no knowledge of the game up here and expecting him to hit the ground running.
Budge has a lot to answer for.

I think Hearts fans in general are a bit blasé about how next season will be fwiw. The reference point is the previous relegation. But that's ignoring the way that Hearts were relegated that season. They delayed administration to get an extra season in the top league, that provided a decent amount of money. The administration gave Hearts a clean slate to clear out their wage bill which they took. Hearts then proceeded to play a stack of young players in the relegation season. The ones good enough formed the basis of the squad for the promotion season and were complemented by some judicious signings where needed.

Now Hearts are obviously going to be the best funded side in the championship next season, but there isn't the same financial flexibility as previously. Emptying players will be very difficult too. And the squad is still a mess.

I fully expect Hearts to get promoted next season. But I don't think it will be a procession.

[Aim Here]

44 minutes ago, ZingaliMan said:

I may be wrong think there is point deduction coming both Thistle and Hearts way. 

Nope. Even if there's sanctions, it'll be financial or a suspension (the latter being extremely unlikely), rather than in-tournament penalties. The SFA won'd dish out in-competition penalties for a tournament it doesn't run, and it would be bad politics for the SPFL to be seen to directly punish teams for trying to sue it.

[Dunning1874]

1 hour ago, Snifter Pee Rot said:

a resurgent Falkirk

[Andy groundhopper]

1 minute ago, Aim Here said:

Nope. Even if there's sanctions, it'll be financial or a suspension (the latter being extremely unlikely), rather than in-tournament penalties. The SFA won'd dish out in-competition penalties for a tournament it doesn't run, and it would be bad politics for the SPFL to be seen to directly punish teams for trying to sue it.

Both maybe correct but leagues and associations don't like getting questioned, and usually dish out punishment, whether that be a longer ban for a player, an extra fine or point deductions etc. Be interesting to see the outcome eventually. Isn't the SFA the all powerful, with league's below them ?

[ArabFC]

1 hour ago, Tynierose said:

The last time Hearts were in the championship under Neilson the title was won by 21 points.  That league included Rangers and Hibs.

A resurgent Falkirk, ffs.

If memory serves me right, Hearts knew they were going down months in advance and so had the opportunity to blood a good crop of kids with no pressure, setting them up nicely for the Championship season. I wouldn’t expect it to be quite such smooth sailing this time.

[Aubrey Maturin]

11 minutes ago, ArabFC said:

If memory serves me right, Hearts knew they were going down months in advance and so had the opportunity to blood a good crop of kids with no pressure, setting them up nicely for the Championship season. I wouldn’t expect it to be quite such smooth sailing this time.

I wouldn't expect it to be, especially with a truncated season however if Neilson does a decent job then you would imagine it will be enough and it should be comfortably achieved.

* disclaimer.  Been wrong before.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Tynierose

[TonyFerrino]

1 hour ago, Tynierose said:

The last time Hearts were in the championship under Neilson the title was won by 21 points.  That league included Rangers and Hibs.

A resurgent Falkirk, ffs.

I think they also had some good players.

[RandomGuy.]

Hearts seem likely to have a strikeforce of Boyce and Naismith, and no longer have an absolute clownshoes keeper who'll chuck three in a game, nor do they have a manager who's tactical ability relies entirely on just chucking increasing numbers of attackers on the pitch.

Theyll have the Championship won before its even halfway done.

[Suspect Device]

It might have been  asked before but how much would the legal fees be for those 3 days?

 

Can't have been cheap.

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Suspect Device said:

It might have been  asked before but how much would the legal fees be for those 3 days?

 

Can't have been cheap.

Raith are apparently saying theyll be splitting £25k with United and Cove for their part in it.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Flash said:

It can’t be fully funded by the gate money. The SPFL gets 42.5% of the gate. So, to generate £500,000, the gate money for the 6 games would have to be £1,176,470. If it has to fund an additional £250,000 for the following or previous season, the gate money would need to be £1,785,714.

Using £1.2m as a rough approximation and if we assume the average net of VAT admission fee was £20 (which is probably too high) the total crowds for the 6 games would need to be 60,000, which is an average of 10,000 per tie. They probably made that when Rangers were in them, but I doubt if they do every season.

I did say in my earlier post that the play-offs contribute to the parachute. But Article 156 shows that the parachute payments are a deduction from the overall income of the SPFL before the prize money is paid out. So, even if nothing was generated from the play-off games, the parachute payments would be funded out of the SPFL’s other income.

Eta In any event, I was replying to the point of what happens to the parachute money in seasons where there are play-offs but the Premiership club stays up. The gate money retained is added to the prize money pot.

You're correct to say that the SPFL will pay out the same amount regardless of the takings, so if in theory nobody turned up for the play-offs they'd still have to pay out £500k. However, the whole reason that the SPFL take a levy of the gate monies is to fund the play-offs - it was part of the compromise which allowed the introduction of the play-offs in the first place. In practice, what it means is that the overall SPFL prize pot gets a little boost each year the Premiership club wins the play-off, but is a bit lower in the years when the Championship club wins it.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

7 hours ago, Ric said:

I apologise, bit of a long one (oo-er), there's a 'TL;DR?' at the end.

Good post. However there is an outcome you have overlooked and it is the one most favourable to Hearts and Thistle.

The arbtrator could rule that Hearts must play the 2020/21 season in the Premiership and Thistle in the Championship.

The arbitrator would not have to say how that would happen just that the SPFL must make it happen. I think it is highly unlikely that is the outcome but the arbitrator can certianly rule that way.

[Florentine_Pogen]

5 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Good post. However there is an outcome you have overlooked and it is the one most favourable to Hearts and Thistle.

The arbtrator could rule that Hearts must play the 2020/21 season in the Premiership and Thistle in the Championship.

The arbitrator would not have to say how that would happen just that the SPFL must make it happen. I think it is highly unlikely that is the outcome but the arbitrator can certianly rule that way.

Based on what ?

[Romeo]

The last time Hearts were in the championship under Neilson the title was won by 21 points.  That league included Rangers and Hibs.
A resurgent Falkirk, ffs.

^^^ scared of Falkirk imo

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

1 minute ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

Based on what ?

That it was UNFAIR that the league finished early.

I don't think that argument is going to stand up but I feel like it has to be pointed out that this is an option. And the primary reason I  think Hearts and Thistle will not get financial compensation in arbitration.

Either the league unfairly ejected Hearts or they didn't.

The basis for deciding this is did the SPFL act with malice towards Hearts/Thistle by changing the rules during the season.

[Guest Flash]

21 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

You're correct to say that the SPFL will pay out the same amount regardless of the takings, so if in theory nobody turned up for the play-offs they'd still have to pay out £500k. However, the whole reason that the SPFL take a levy of the gate monies is to fund the play-offs - it was part of the compromise which allowed the introduction of the play-offs in the first place. In practice, what it means is that the overall SPFL prize pot gets a little boost each year the Premiership club wins the play-off, but is a bit lower in the years when the Championship club wins it.

I know. I was just making the point that the SPFL’s share of the gate money won’t always be enough to cover the parachute payment, so some of it has to come out of other income.  

For example, if they’d had to pay it in 2018/19, the total attendance was about 34,400. The SPFL’s share of that would be about 14,600. There is no way they could have generated £500,000 from that. Including VAT, the average entrance fee would need to be about £40. So, if it was about £20, the gate money would have generated about £250,000 for the SPFL. The other £250,000 would have to come out of the other income.  Applying that to this season would mean that what would have been £250,000 paid out as part of the 11th place parachute has been saved.

It is just the notion that because the play-offs didn’t happen there definitely wasn’t any money for the 11th placed parachute that I have an issue with.

[Aim Here]

2 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

That it was UNFAIR that the league finished early.

I don't think that argument is going to stand up but I feel like it has to be pointed out that this is an option. And the primary reason I  think Hearts and Thistle will not get financial compensation in arbitration.

Either the league unfairly ejected Hearts or they didn't.

But if the league was found to have unfairly relegated Hearts, but it's impractical to rectify by unrelegating them, then compensation would be the obvious alternative.

2 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

The basis for deciding this is did the SPFL act with malice towards Hearts/Thistle by changing the rules during the season.

The petition doesn't use the word malice at all. It claims that the SPFL acted in a way that was unreasonable - or caused the clubs to act in an unreasonable way. The petition also claims that the clubs voting the wrong way weren't acting in good faith, which I suppose is a bit closer to the whatever is understood by the word 'malice'.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Flash said:

I know. I was just making the point that the SPFL’s share of the gate money won’t always be enough to cover the parachute payment, so some of it has to come out of other income.  

For example, if they’d had to pay it in 2018/19, the total attendance was about 34,400. The SPFL’s share of that would be about 14,600. There is no way they could have generated £500,000 from that. Including VAT, the average entrance fee would need to be about £40. So, if it was about £20, the gate money would have generated about £250,000 for the SPFL. The other £250,000 would have to come out of the other income.  Applying that to this season would mean that what would have been £250,000 paid out as part of the 11th place parachute has been saved.

It is just the notion that because the play-offs didn’t happen there definitely wasn’t any money for the 11th placed parachute that I have an issue with.

The playoffs also have/had their own tv deal with BT Sport.

And I don't think the SPFL assume that parachute payments would be made every year. With years, for example when Motherwell pumped Rangers 6-1, that money would go into funds and be used to pay for parachute payments in other seasons.

[Florentine_Pogen]

5 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

That it was UNFAIR that the league finished early.

I don't think that argument is going to stand up but I feel like it has to be pointed out that this is an option. And the primary reason I  think Hearts and Thistle will not get financial compensation in arbitration.

Either the league unfairly ejected Hearts or they didn't.

The basis for deciding this is did the SPFL act with malice towards Hearts/Thistle by changing the rules during the season.

If the concept of "unfairness" was to be be enshrined in law we'd be in a right feckin' mess, no ?  Do you seriously think any arbitrator is going down that rabbit-hole when the globe is in the middle of the biggest health and economic crisis for decades, if not ever ?