League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[Dons_1988]

58 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

I’ll type this slowly for you because I know you can’t read very fast.

The lack of a crowd is what changes the nature of the product. The loophole that SKY use as a get-out could be any technicality. Like the start dates, which Doncaster will be shitting himself about

Remember when you very articulately pointed out that a contract isn't only a page long? You realise that is the case to avoid one party finding vague 'technicalities' like the 'changed nature of the product' to try and seek compensation from another party?

Can you just admit that you've created an entirely hypothetical loophole and you know have no tangible/measurable knowledge of what it is/might be?

 

[RandomGuy.]

4 hours ago, ahemps said:

I have no issue with these teams in the lower leagues and having followed a junior team when I was younger I agree these clubs do good things for their local communities, they provide great away days and they are part of a healthy football system.

It is simply my opinion we have too many teams in our professional league system. I would like to see a more elite top level league system with a smaller amount of professional clubs.

I also don't believe it should be a closed shop and I believe there should be a pathway for ambitious clubs to be promoted into this system.

So you want a set up where it's impossible for full time sides to fail, while you also hand full time sides more money, and part time sides less?

The whole plan is literally designed to kill of smaller sides, either directly or through the process of starving them until they wither away.

If you're wanting a league system where the elite clubs share a division, but smaller clubs have a pathway, then adding more automatic relegation/promotion spots to all four tiers just now would be better.

3 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Remember when you very articulately pointed out that a contract isn't only a page long? You realise that is the case to avoid one party finding vague 'technicalities' like the 'changed nature of the product' to try and seek compensation from another party?

Can you just admit that you've created an entirely hypothetical loophole and you know have no tangible/measurable knowledge of what it is/might be?

 

I'll save you a couple of posts.

LOOPHOLE! LOOPHOLE! LOOPHOLE!

[ahemps]

3 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

So you want a set up where it's impossible for full time sides to fail, while you also hand full time sides more money, and part time sides less?

The whole plan is literally designed to kill of smaller sides, either directly or through the process of starving them until they wither away.

If you're wanting a league system where the elite clubs share a division, but smaller clubs have a pathway, then adding more automatic relegation/promotion spots to all four tiers just now would be better.

Teams would fail by being relegated. I stated several times I would not have a closed shop top league.

I wouldn't take pleasure in any club being killed off at any level.

I don't begrudge any team money and I don't believe I have said anywhere that these teams shouldn't be getting money so I don't know how you draw that conclusion.

What I think is there should be levels and clubs should be at the level most appropriate to them. We have professional teams and semi-professional teams in the same setup. That is where I think it could be better managed. The semi-pro teams from league 1 down (there may be exceptions, Falkirk/Raith etc.) are  closer in stature to that of the better teams in the highland/lower/junior leagues than they are to the professional teams in the premier league. I feel they would be better in the same setup as these clubs have similar circumstances and ambitions that are totally different to those of the full time professional clubs.

I suppose I am saying that we should have a professional system, a semi-pro system and an amateur system and I would encourage pathways between them all so that clubs that want to can progress.

And on your last point I also would increase the current amount of promotion/relegation places especially at the bottom of league 2 as I think there are several clubs who could join that league and do well as is evident by the top 2 at the time of lockdown, Cove and Edinburgh.

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, ahemps said:

Teams would fail by being relegated. I stated several times I would not have a closed shop top league.

I wouldn't take pleasure in any club being killed off at any level.

I don't begrudge any team money and I don't believe I have said anywhere that these teams shouldn't be getting money so I don't know how you draw that conclusion.

What I think is there should be levels and clubs should be at the level most appropriate to them. We have professional teams and semi-professional teams in the same setup.

And a league set up that allows clubs to move up and down divisions, that has been in situ for 8 years, doesnt allow that?

You cant have full time leagues, and part time leagues, and demand clubs swap between part time and full time every time they're relegated/promoted.

Edited May 26, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[Pet Jeden]

43 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Remember when you very articulately pointed out that a contract isn't only a page long? You realise that is the case to avoid one party finding vague 'technicalities' like the 'changed nature of the product' to try and seek compensation from another party?

Can you just admit that you've created an entirely hypothetical loophole and you know have no tangible/measurable knowledge of what it is/might be?

 

I agree. In 99% of situations, 1 or 2 pages would be far better, for exactly the reason you say . But that's not the way life is, that's not the way modern contracts are. As I keep saying, the lack of a crowd is the reason for grievance. The loophole actually used could be anything.

[Dons_1988]

7 minutes ago, ahemps said:

I suppose I am saying that we should have a professional system, a semi-pro system and an amateur system and I would encourage pathways between them all so that clubs that want to can progress.

This is an odd statement.

I'm sure there are many clubs that want to progress but are restrained by finances. Your solution to clubs lack of progress would be to cut them loose from the professional set up and deny them access to existing funds, never mind additional?

You seem to be following Strachan's mantra that several clubs are just freeloaders who need to be cut loose and come back when they've decided they want to progress.

[AlbionMan]

3 hours ago, ahemps said:

From afar I see it as such a contrast in levels and resources. Teams with part time players with small crowds having influence on a structure that includes teams competing in European competitions with internationals and multi million pound players.

I have said I don't want a closed shop top league and I believe there should be a pathway for clubs to get in to the professional league system. 

I accept my view may be wrong and I may be in the minority with this opinion.

You're misusing "professional", pretty much all the teams in the top 5 tiers are professional as well as  many of the bigger junior clubs. I think you must mean full time as opposed to part time.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Pet Jeden said:

I agree. In 99% of situations, 1 or 2 pages would be far better, for exactly the reason you say . But that's not the way life is, that's not the way modern contracts are. As I keep saying, the lack of a crowd is the reason for grievance. The loophole actually used could be anything.

You're missing my point.

A lengthy contract is there to prevent vague accusations like 'the nature of the product changed therefore the contract hasn't been fulfilled'. This loophole you're suggesting needs to be a specific clause that's been negotiated.

I get that Sky would want to preserve the 'spectacle' of an OF game, which would involve the 50-60k morons acting like mutants for 90 minutes but even if they had a clause that effectively said we want it in a full stadium, there would be a caveat to that if they were unable to have spectators in the stadium for whatever reason, the clause doesn't apply.

Similar with the August start date, if that wasn't met because we held onto to play out the remainder of last season, Sky have a valid complaint. If we don't meet the August start date because government regulations don't allow football to be played, they won't have a complaint.

[wastecoatwilly]

55 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

Debatable depending on what you are looking for.

In purely technical terms, I agree but then quality of football on display always plays second fiddle to the excitement of games. None of us are exactly massive players when you look at the big picture so I'm not exactly shitting bricks at the prospect of watching slightly less technically gifted footballers.

Substitute quality for excitement every day for me. If all clubs have a severely truncated budget and need to go with a mix of experience and youths and we're all in the same boat, it'll make for a relatively exciting product.

Below Celtic I think we had that it wasn't a surprise our team beating Aberdeen and hearts at home but in turn to lose that wee bit of quality that makes the difference will be a shame.the only thing that was missing in the st mirren team was a goalscorer,for me there was very little between at least 8 clubs in the top flight.

[ahemps]

6 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

This is an odd statement.

I'm sure there are many clubs that want to progress but are restrained by finances. Your solution to clubs lack of progress would be to cut them loose from the professional set up and deny them access to existing funds, never mind additional?

You seem to be following Strachan's mantra that several clubs are just freeloaders who need to be cut loose and come back when they've decided they want to progress.

I don't wish to deny any club money and the more money in the game the better. 

I also don't agree that clubs are freeloaders, they find themselves where they are and I'm certain they all have ambitions to improve and progress.

I don't think our structure is the best it can be and I don't there is anything wrong with having different tiers and levels that suit the resources of those clubs but the current system has too big a contrast of these teams in my opinion.

I am obviously not putting my point across very well here as I am not intending to belittle the so called smaller clubs.

[wastecoatwilly]

13 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

If we don't meet the August start date because government regulations don't allow football to be played, they won't have a complaint.

I think it's more about the £12.5 million Sky give out in august to see some football for their money is the problem. 

[ahemps]

30 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

And a league set up that allows clubs to move up and down divisions, that has been in situ for 8 years, doesnt allow that?

I don't know what point you are debating here? I agree with promotion and relegation.

30 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

You cant have full time leagues, and part time leagues, and demand clubs swap between part time and full time every time they're relegated/promoted.

I wouldn't demand clubs change overnight between part time and full time, if a part time club gets promoted then it would be their decision to do what they want in that regard. Were QOS not part time until fairly recent but still managed to play in the Championship? Are Falkirk not 1 or 2 years in league 1 away from turning part time? I imagine we currently have several clubs on a very thin line of being full or part time.

I don't have a list of who is part time and full time but I would guess across the whole of the SPFL it is about 24/18. So around 18 teams that are part time in the top structure of Scottish football.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Just now, ahemps said:

I don't know what point you are debating here? I agree with promotion and relegation.

I wouldn't demand clubs change overnight between part time and full time, if a part time club gets promoted then it would be their decision to do what they want in that regard. Were QOS not part time until fairly recent but still managed to play in the Championship? Are Falkirk not 1 or 2 years in league 1 away from turning part time? I imagine we currently have several clubs on a very thin line of being full or part time.

In which case you're suggesting basically the same situation as we have at the moment only with different badges on some of the blazers.

 

 

 

[Stag Nation]

17 hours ago, Lobby Dossar said:

It’s the Murdoch’s and SKY we’re talking about …… so they’ll be dicks 

The Murdochs no longer have anything to do with Sky.

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

5 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

What do you mean by 'elite' top level league? All of Scotland's top, and therefore 'elite', teams play there already. How will punting clubs like Albion Rovers or Stirling Albion from the league system help? What will it actually accomplish, and what will he different?

Also what do you mean by 'ambitious'? Are you one of those folk who equate ambition with money? I think all our clubs are ambitious, but most are sensible enough to know that doesn't mean chucking huge sums of cash they can't afford at it to try and climb the leagues.

Arbroath could have ended up in the playoffs this year. They're very ambitious but it's taken them a while to reach that level. They've done so sustainably and patiently, often spending long stretches in the lower leagues. Kelty Hearts are being touted by the usual idiots as an ambitious club, but they're another Gretna waiting to happen. Chucking loads of cash at something and using a model dependent on a benefactor to fund it all is not ambition, unless that ambition is to reach new heights of stupidity. 

It beggars belief that some think there is room for another club in an area already well served by Dunfermline, C'beath, Raith and East Fife. What are they hoping to achieve? I can't see the point unless it is to become bigger/more successful than the clubs already there for the sake of local pride/ego?

[DA Baracus]

1 minute ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

It beggars belief that some think there is room for another club in an area already well served by Dunfermline, C'beath, Raith and East Fife. What are they hoping to achieve? I can't see the point unless it is to become bigger/more successful than the clubs already there for the sake of local pride/ego?

I have no issue with Kelty Hearts as a team. For years they've had a decent turnout and I think there is room for them.

It's the spending that will be an issue. It isn't sustainable and will end badly.

[craigkillie]

4 minutes ago, SouthLanarkshireWhite said:

It beggars belief that some think there is room for another club in an area already well served by Dunfermline, C'beath, Raith and East Fife. What are they hoping to achieve? I can't see the point unless it is to become bigger/more successful than the clubs already there for the sake of local pride/ego?

Kelty Hearts aren't being magically conjured out of thin air if they join the SPFL. They already exist as a club alongside those other Fife teams and already have their own supporters who are Kelty Hearts fans, not East Fife or Cowdenbeath fans. I'd imagine that what they are hoping to achieve is the same thing that every other club in Scotland is hoping to achieve - to be successful, finish as high in the league as possible and do well in some cups.

[wastecoatwilly]

4 hours ago, ahemps said:

I accept my view may be wrong and I may be in the minority with this opinion.

Keep going you're doing well,there is no way in what your saying will end in a cull of clubs and there's no way people on hear will accept that.

[ahemps]

34 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

In which case you're suggesting basically the same situation as we have at the moment only with different badges on some of the blazers.

No I want a more structured tier for the levels club find themselves at. It is only an opinion of mine that some of the smaller clubs in league 1 and 2 have more in common with the highland/lowland league teams so may benefit from being in a similar setup. I would absolutely want these clubs to gain promotion to a smaller but hopefully better quality SPFL of around 30 teams. 

16 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Keep going you're doing well,there is no way in what your saying will end in a cull of clubs and there's no way people on hear will accept that.

 I'm having a mare 

I don't want a cull on clubs at all. I realise that's what people are taking from what I am saying which really isn't what I am intending so I'll bow out.

[btb]

What is happening with "successful businesswoman Anne Budge's" latest attempt on reconstruction - I heard she was courting other clubs and that a new proposal would be presented last Friday and when that didn't happen there was going to be further discussions over the weekend and the proposals would be brought forward yesterday - is there a new date?