League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[gs230a]

I dont know if anyone has seen what they do in austria which i feel would work here but there are obviously cons to it

it goes like this

14 teams with a split after 2 games each meaning 26 games to the split of a top 6 and bottom 8.

The big thing is the uefa spots with from next season we will have 5 so 1 of the uefa spots is kept for the winners of the bottom 8 which would be a big concession from clubs such as my own Motherwell as well as clubs who hope on a regular basis to get in top 6.

Top 6 play each other home and away with uefa spots handed out to top 4 or 3 if someone outside top 4 or winners of bottom 8 wins Scottish cup.

Bottom 8 split into 2 groups of 4 after 26 games so  number 7,9,11,13 in 1 group and 8,10,12,14 in another with playing each other home and away meaning another 6 games. Top 2 in each group go into semi finals then final both home and away to get the europa league spot meaning maximum games 36 . Bottom 2 in each group play off home and away with their "semi final winners" safe from relegation with the 2 "semi final losers" going against each other with the losers automatically relegated with championship winners promoted and the losers in a play off with 2nd in championship to stay up.

The benefits of this in bottom 8 would mean there would be no dead rubbers and create excitement as well as still as now 1 relegated and 1 in a play off with 2nd in championship.

It would also end the farce of sometimes having to play a team 3 times at home or away as sometimes happens just now.

 

Apologies if this has already been discussed as just new to the board.

[Sergeant Wilson]

19 minutes ago, SEETHING said:

IIRC, the "offer" from the Belgian lad was to share the arguments used, which you'd expect to be fairly similar. I'm not a competition lawyer, but I expect there's some EU law involved. 

In any event, precedents from comparative jurisdictions are cited in court all the time. They aren't binding, but can be persuasive. 

Aye, but from the same country usually.

[Ric]

10 minutes ago, SEETHING said:

3) I am a lawyer; disappointed that you haven't managed to pick that up from my excellent and learned posts. 

To be fair, I've always found your posts to be quite entertaining and not dripping with the levels of simmering angst shown by some of your fellow supporters. What's more you've taken the humdinger of the last match post thread with a level of humour which is worthy of note.

As for the points though, it isn't EU law because competition and/or company law is governed within national jurisdiction unless under very specific cases (which this doesn't adhere to). Similar rulings in other jurisdictions are irrelevant in this one, so going to court and saying "other boys did it so we should too" barely gets close to the level required to be considered circumstantial evidence.

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Ric
..because i reall should proof read stuff before posting.

[Green Day]

18 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

Yeah, I used them all on the Hibs and St Mirren posters, great bunch of lads.

Have one back, enjoy the weekend

#hibmirrendeesfuckthejamboids

Doesnae work, but hey....................

[Billy Jean King]

It’s agreed that a 14 team league has a split far too early in the season.  If that split results in a top six then the European spaces are more or less determined at that point.  Is it 5 or 6 places next year? With no increase in relegation spots the majority of the league will be stale in the last 3 months.

And Hearts know it hence they are willing to support this in the name of "permanent " knowing full well it will be ditched within 3-4 years tops. Sounds like a good few clubs are waking up to this now and may seek some cast iron guarantees before supporting it.

[The Great Stagsby]

Anyone would think I have a lot of time on my hands just now, but I actually really don't. Childish distractions like this keeping me sane  I may have missed a suggestion or seven, but does this sum up where we're at and how we all hope and expect it to end?

[SEETHING]

7 minutes ago, Johnstoun said:

It's understandable you'd prefer them to meaningful games given what happened in your last one tbf.

"If you can make one heap of all your hubris

And risk it on one turn of St Mirren tossers

And lose, and start again at your beginnings 

And never breathe a word about your loss

...

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,

And - which is more - you'll be a man, my son." 

5 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Aye, but from the same country usually.

Agreed. That's why I said it wouldn't be binding. 

4 minutes ago, Ric said:

To be fair, I've always found your posts to be quite entertaining and not dripping with the levels of simmering angst some of your fellow supporters. What's more you've taken the humdinger of the last match post thread with a level of humour.

As for the points though, it isn't EU law because competition and/or company law is governed within national jurisdiction unless under very specific cases (which this doesn't adhere to). Similar rulings in other jurisdictions are irrelevant in this one, so going to court and saying "other boys did it so we should to" and barely gets close to the level required to be considered circumstantial evidence.

 

Thanks Ric. 

Fair enough - like I said, I'm not a competition lawyer.  I also never bothered to see whether the Belgian case went higher than the equivalent of their local courts, so that's why I was focusing on the offer of sharing arguments, which may or may not be of any use in Scotland. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by SEETHING

[Green Day]

31 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

She gave the job to her brother in law and then suddenly doubled the price that Hearts fans would be paying him to build it.

He then built a "rent a build" stand that looks horrendous, hasnt finished half the interior stuff, and asked for more money still.

Ann Budge then put her name on the stand.

Sorry to be a cock, it was her brother.

However, the more fun news on that is that he is actually a Hibby.

 

 

[Fife Saint]

Part of me wants to see Hearts reinstated just for the visual trauma that this thread will erupt into.

[Lebowski]

Actually like this idea. It's something I'd like to see introduced. 2021/22 seems like it would work for a time frame.

 

Honestly, it does address lots of the issues people have with the 14 team proposal. Split isn't ridiculously early (3 games earlier than now). Sides would see a pathway to getting in the top 8 more than the top 6. Everyone plays the same number of games.

 

Edit: just to clarify he's saying "playoff" when he's just meaning defining the final fixture.

 

 

[JimmyMirren]

39 minutes ago, SEETHING said:

IIRC, the "offer" from the Belgian lad was to share the arguments used, which you'd expect to be fairly similar. I'm not a competition lawyer, but I expect there's some EU law involved. 

In any event, precedents from comparative jurisdictions are cited in court all the time. They aren't binding, but can be persuasive. 

Except the situations aren’t similar...

Firstly, both the Belgian and French leagues were ended by a decision made by the League themselves, not by a vote of the constituent members. This is the argument being made by Waasland-Beveren. They feel that the decision was unfair as it was not democratically made. Likewise with the French League, the clubs felt it unfair that demotion was imposed rather than voted for. I’m afraid this argument won’t wash here as it was a democratic vote carried by the majority of clubs to end the league. As per Rule 84 of the SPFL rulebook, clubs agree to abide by decisions made by a democratic vote as a condition of their membership.

Secondly, please do elaborate. I know EU law is enshrined in our current legal system, but I don’t imagine there’s much here that’s relevant to members of a private organisation who have agreed to the terms and conditions of membership then being dissatisfied with the consequences of those terms. No contract has been breached so where’s your evidence?

Thirdly, in precedent applies in Common Law systems. We in Scotland (unlike England) have a hybrid system and is partly based on Legislation, and partly on Common Law precedents set in higher courts, or ultimately the UK Supreme Court which took over from the House of Lords. As far as I’m aware, there no legislation that would be of use to HoMFC, and using a precedent from outwith their jurisdiction and further from an entirely foreign country would be legal suicide. As I said before, that would be like being arrested here for possession of Cannabis then claiming it was okay because it’s legal abroad?

I’m yet to see any Hearts fan or board member put forward a single coherent legal argument to back up their assertion that they would win in court. Even if they took a civil action, they would have to prove the league treated them unfairly, and given the amount of opportunities the talk of reconstruction has had that’d be damn difficult.

Edited June 12, 2020 by JimmyMirren

[Green Day]

5 minutes ago, Lebowski said:

Actually like this idea. It's something I'd like to see introduced. 2021/22 seems like it would work for a time frame.

 

Honestly, it does address lots of the issues people have with the 14 team proposal. Split isn't ridiculously early (3 games earlier than now). Sides would see a pathway to getting in the top 8 more than the top 6. Everyone plays the same number of games.

 

Edit: just to clarify he's saying "playoff" when he's just meaning defining the final fixture.

 

 

Is that the guy that does Hibs stats analysis?

I quite like the idea of a 16 team league. It would allow some of the larger Championship clubs like Dundee, Dunfermline, Ayr, QoS and Hearts something to aim for in the coming season and they would all have some skin in the game.

[Lebowski]

Is that the guy that does Hibs stats analysis?
I quite like the idea of a 16 team league. It would allow some of the larger Championship clubs like Dundee, Dunfermline, Ayr, QoS and Hearts something to aim for in the coming season and they would all have some skin in the game.

It is aye.

[ropy]

32 minutes ago, gs230a said:

I dont know if anyone has seen what they do in austria which i feel would work here but there are obviously cons to it

it goes like this

14 teams with a split after 2 games each meaning 26 games to the split of a top 6 and bottom 8.

The big thing is the uefa spots with from next season we will have 5 so 1 of the uefa spots is kept for the winners of the bottom 8 which would be a big concession from clubs such as my own Motherwell as well as clubs who hope on a regular basis to get in top 6.

Top 6 play each other home and away with uefa spots handed out to top 4 or 3 if someone outside top 4 or winners of bottom 8 wins Scottish cup.

Bottom 8 split into 2 groups of 4 after 26 games so  number 7,9,11,13 in 1 group and 8,10,12,14 in another with playing each other home and away meaning another 6 games. Top 2 in each group go into semi finals then final both home and away to get the europa league spot meaning maximum games 36 . Bottom 2 in each group play off home and away with their "semi final winners" safe from relegation with the 2 "semi final losers" going against each other with the losers automatically relegated with championship winners promoted and the losers in a play off with 2nd in championship to stay up.

The benefits of this in bottom 8 would mean there would be no dead rubbers and create excitement as well as still as now 1 relegated and 1 in a play off with 2nd in championship.

It would also end the farce of sometimes having to play a team 3 times at home or away as sometimes happens just now.

 

Apologies if this has already been discussed as just new to the board.

Hearts would take a dive against St Mirren in game 26 to keep them in 7th place as they might fancy their chances of that European spot.

[frankthetank22]

44 minutes ago, ropy said:

It’s agreed that a 14 team league has a split far too early in the season.  If that split results in a top six then the European spaces are more or less determined at that point.  Is it 5 or 6 places next year? With no increase in relegation spots the majority of the league will be stale in the last 3 months.

But why have a top 6 bottom 8, surely the other way round would be better?

I think we need to discuss these maters, who is it that's saying it must be top6 bottom8? 

[Raphael]

1 hour ago, JimmyMirren said:

Keep on digging Stanislav...you’re just making a tit of yourself!

I for one (and I imagine many others) would rather spend time in Dens Park, a proper ground with a bit of character and charm than Tynecastle, a soul-less polished turd dropped slap bang in Gorgie filled with cold pies, the lingering smell of Latvian bankruptcy and broken dreams, and inhabited by the ghost of Chuckie’s maw.

'Soul-less'

[SEETHING]

10 minutes ago, JimmyMirren said:

Except the situations aren’t similar...

Firstly, both the Belgian and French leagues were ended by a decision made by the League themselves, not by a vote of the constituent members. This is the argument being made by Waasland-Beveren. They feel that the decision was unfair as it was not democratically made. Likewise with the French League, the clubs felt it unfair that demotion was imposed rather than voted for. I’m afraid this argument won’t wash here as it was a democratic vote carried by the majority of clubs to end the league. As per Rule 84 of the SPFL rulebook, clubs agree to abide by decisions made by a democratic vote as a condition of their membership.

Secondly, please do elaborate. I know EU law is enshrined in our current legal system, but I don’t imagine there’s much here that’s relevant to members of a private organisation who have agreed to the terms and conditions of membership then being dissatisfied with the consequences of those terms. No contract has been breached so where’s your evidence?

Thirdly, in precedent applies in Common Law systems. We in Scotland (unlike England) have a hybrid system and is partly based on Legislation, and partly on Common Law precedents set in higher courts, or ultimately the UK Supreme Court which took over from the House of Lords. As far as I’m aware, there no legislation that would be of use to HoMFC, and using a precedent from outwith their jurisdiction and further from an entirely foreign country would be legal suicide. As I said before, that would be like being arrested here for possession of Cannabis then claiming it was okay because it’s legal abroad?

I’m yet to see any Hearts fan or board member put forward a single coherent legal argument to back up their assertion that they would win in court. Even if they took a civil action, they would have to prove the league treated them unfairly, and given the amount of opportunities the talk of reconstruction has had that’d be damn difficult.

Ok, I'm definitely going back to puerile gifs after this.

1) I don't know about the Belgian and French league governing structure. I had read that clubs had voted in Belgium, in the same way that they did in Scotland. In any event, a Judicial Review would examine the process behind the making of the vote, which I expect would take us back to Nelmsgate etc. 

2) I never said a contract had been breached. As above, Judicial Review is available in Scotland to appeal the decision-making process of private members' clubs. It's why you could take your local golf club to court to Judicially Review a decision made by its committee - e.g. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=79b386a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

3) "legal suicide" = lol. It's really not, mate. At worst, a judge says "So what?" to which the answer is "I appreciate it isn't binding, but you may find the reasoning behind the decision (insofar as it applies) to be useful." Section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 may well assist HMFC. Your cannabis analogy is not a good one, sorry. 

4) No wonder -  most Hearts fans (myself included) aren't competition lawyers. This shit is complex. You would be reviewing a decision which, arguably, was made unfairly. Trolling aside, I accept that Hearts have already, officially, been relegated. That's the decision you'd be JRing. 

[ropy]

1 minute ago, frankthetank22 said:

But why have a top 6 bottom 8, surely the other way round would be better?

I think we need to discuss these maters, who is it that's saying it must be top6 bottom8? 

I am not advocating it, this seems to be the common chat to allow these top six clubs space to compete in Europe in April and May (?)

[DA Baracus]

2 hours ago, Bohemian said:

 loved that cartoon .. Now I'm going to be humming the theme tune all day... thanks 

I think you should rewrite said tune to reflect the current situation.

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

She gave the job to her brother in law and then suddenly doubled the price that Hearts fans would be paying him to build it.

He then built a "rent a build" stand that looks horrendous, hasnt finished half the interior stuff, and asked for more money still.

Ann Budge then put her name on the stand.

Don't forget the cultural vandalism that is the plaque.

[JimmyMirren]

2 minutes ago, SEETHING said:

Ok, I'm definitely going back to puerile gifs after this.

1) I don't know about the Belgian and French league governing structure. I had read that clubs had voted in Belgium, in the same way that they did in Scotland. In any event, a Judicial Review would examine the process behind the making of the vote, which I expect would take us back to Nelmsgate etc. 

2) I never said a contract had been breached. As above, Judicial Review is available in Scotland to appeal the decision-making process of private members' clubs. It's why you could take your local golf club to court to Judicially Review a decision made by its committee - e.g. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=79b386a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

3) "legal suicide" = lol. It's really not, mate. At worst, a judge says "So what?" to which the answer is "I appreciate it isn't binding, but you may find the reasoning behind the decision (insofar as it applies) to be useful." Section 2 of the Competition Act 1998 may well assist HMFC. Your cannabis analogy is not a good one, sorry. 

4) No wonder -  most Hearts fans (myself included) aren't competition lawyers. This shit is complex. You would be reviewing a decision which, arguably, was made unfairly. Trolling aside, I accept that Hearts have already, officially, been relegated. That's the decision you'd be JRing. 

1. I’ll accept that the vote situation with Dundee was less than ideal; but at the end of the day it was unprecedented circumstances and looking back in hindsight always shows up flaws. However, the fact it was a democratic decision made by the majority of clubs would see off the argument that the Belgian and French cases had any relevance to the situation HoMFC now find themselves in.

2. You could under many circumstances take it to a judicial review, but the SPFL’s own Articles of Incorporation state that their ultimate course of appeal would be to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. By choosing to take any legal action without exhausting the avenues open to them, and choosing not to follow the rules laid down which come with being a member club of the SPFL, Hearts would more than likely be damaging their own case than helping it. 

3. Back to point one, different circumstances so bringing it forward to back up your argument would likely be a waste of time. Bear in mind, no final decision has been made in either Belgium or France. It may be the case that the appeals lose in which case it would again be more harmful to Hearts case than helpful. As for the Competition Act, be more specific...which part of S.2 would be helpful. I can’t see anything relevant to their case at all. The SPFL are not restricting the clubs ability to trade by relegating them, nor have any dissimilar terms been applied to them than would be against any other club in their position. Besides, if HoMFC dont like the decision or feel they are having their trade restricted then they have the option to sell their share and leave the SPFL. I’m sure they’ll find an alternative option somewhere?

Further to that, Hearts signed up to abide by decisions made by a popular vote (SPFL Rule 84). They’ve signed the contract, purchased a share, and agreed to the terms and conditions of membership. If anything they’re opening themselves up to a suit for breach of contract should they attempt to circumvent the decision made.

4. We can agree on something. It’s complicated and dry as hell. I think only a sadist would have chosen to study it for that aspect. As I said in previous posts, I did initially have sympathy for the situation Hearts found themselves in, but that waned very quickly with many fans and the club itself bringing the game into disrepute. The attitude of a lot of fans towards Hearts I reckon has been influenced by that.