Sparticus Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 4 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: You could be right. Nobody on here knows enough of the detail. But the Partick QCs' opinion is there to read. You can argue it's a strong csae or you can argue it's a weak case. What you can't argue is that it is no case at all. And there are things that have come out since - the sidelining of the Rangers alternative resolution. The French and Belgian Court cases. The unravelling of the "we couldn't get the money to the clubs any other way". The Sky/BT deals maybe not being as solid as claimed at the time. The Championship being curtailed. The fact that The SPFL did/do not have the power to unilaterally save Brechin and cancel promotion from HL/LL. Ask yourself this. If Doncaster was sure of his ground, why would he be even trying to get a 14-10-10-10 reconstruction considered? Nothing of this has anything to do with hearts being relegated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy groundhopper Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 3 hours ago, LIVIFOREVER said: Can you imagine the scenes next season, if the leagues gets called early again, but this time the bottom Premiership team stays up and the Championship team sitting top doesn't get promoted, and Hearts were sitting 15 points clear at the top of the Championship. Citing that it would be unfair to relegate anyone. Ann Budge would have to go against all her reasons for how unfair it was on Hearts, being relegated this season. Naughty but nice, just when will their tiresome appeals finally end ? Hope the silly division splits, play-offs or whatever just doesn't happen, all very boring. How about doing a rugby union type thing, leaders are 20pts clear, then do a top 4 mini LGE only for the leaders to f**k up - hilarious.Imagine Liverpool doing this ? I'd laugh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Sparticus said: Nothing of this has anything to do with hearts being relegated. Board made a decision. In a sloppy fashion, in the view of some. In a couple of weeks we could have been playing out the last 8 games, like down south. Rather than do that, a choice was made to the benefit of some and at the expense of others. Not surprisingly, that decision will need to have been irreproachable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Just now, Pet Jeden said: Board made a decision. In a sloppy fashion, in the view of some. In a couple of weeks we could have been playing out the last 8 games, like down south. Rather than do that, a choice was made to the benefit of some and at the expense of others. Not surprisingly, that decision will need to have been irreproachable. When you say 'a choice was made', you're handwaving the fact that it was made by Hearts, among others. Can Hearts sue themselves for halting the season? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparticus Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: Board made a decision. In a sloppy fashion, in the view of some. In a couple of weeks we could have been playing out the last 8 games, like down south. Rather than do that, a choice was made to the benefit of some and at the expense of others. Not surprisingly, that decision will need to have been irreproachable. The board never made a decision, the board put a vote to the clubs and the clubs voted.Its hearts v the clubs not hearts v the SPFL board. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Board made a decision. In a sloppy fashion, in the view of some. In a couple of weeks we could have been playing out the last 8 games, like down south. Rather than do that, a choice was made to the benefit of some and at the expense of others. Not surprisingly, that decision will need to have been irreproachable.You would be best to but that point to Ms Budge, she voted for it ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs230a Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 4 hours ago, craigkillie said: I've always found the whole notion of creating these mini-groups absolutely ludicrous. You've no longer got a fair way of actually relegating the two worst clubs - two teams in the same section could stink the place out for the post-split section and one of them would stay up anyway, while a teams who performs well in the other section could still in . You're also drastically reducing the number of games each club plays. In addition to that, while I don't mind the idea of a European play-off, it is a complete nonsense that the teams in 4th, 5th and 6th could miss out on a European spot with a bottom section team who wins a diddy group stage and a play-off getting in instead. They would not be giddy group stages as all points from original 26 games would stand going into group stages meaning bottom 2 teams would be in separate groups. The minimum games played would be 34 but if you wanted to get 2 extra for teams that lost in semi finals for euro spot or won in semi to avoid relegation then they could play meaning 36 games. Yes it would be harsh on teams in 5 or 6th place or even 4th if someone else won scottish cup but that is only negative I feel. Football is all about competition and this method imo gives every game meaning with something to play for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 If Hearts (and others) pursue legal action they should be told that if they lose they are chucked out of the SPFL.They won't all bluff and bluster. They'll shite it and slink of to the championship. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DumbartonBud Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Coventry Saint said: I realise it's not a personal injury claim, but in that world there is such a thing as contributory negligence. Ie a settlement figure is agreed based on damages, but then only a percentage is awarded if the injured party was partly responsible. (A cyclist not wearing a helmet is a typical example.) So the question here would be, how much responsibility, as a percentage, would fall on Hearts for the fact that they were bottom of the league when Covid made it impossible to play any more games. I'd put that at about the 100% mark, personally. The case for the defence would just show Ikpeazu trying to control the ball at St Johnstone, Stendal playing Boyce as a winger and any game Berra played last season. Edited June 12, 2020 by DumbartonBud 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 6 minutes ago, gs230a said: They would not be giddy group stages as all points from original 26 games would stand going into group stages meaning bottom 2 teams would be in separate groups. The minimum games played would be 34 but if you wanted to get 2 extra for teams that lost in semi finals for euro spot or won in semi to avoid relegation then they could play meaning 36 games. Yes it would be harsh on teams in 5 or 6th place or even 4th if someone else won scottish cup but that is only negative I feel. Football is all about competition and this method imo gives every game meaning with something to play for. I followed your structure perfectly, I just don't like it. The minimum number of games played would be 32 - clubs in the bottom eight would be playing 26 league games and 6 group games. It doesn't matter if something is the "only negative" if it's such a massive negative that it becomes unfair. If we take 2018/19 as an example, Aberdeen finished in 4th place with 67 points, only behind 3rd placed Killie on goal difference. Under your system they would have lost out on a European spot which would instead go to the winners of group stages involving teams who finished miles behind them in the league. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 43 minutes ago, Sparticus said: The board never made a decision, the board put a vote to the clubs and the clubs voted.Its hearts v the clubs not hearts v the SPFL board. Yes, that is an important distinction. But their decision was based on trust that the board had provided them with all the correct and relevant info. Then there was Dundeegate 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gs230a Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, craigkillie said: I followed your structure perfectly, I just don't like it. The minimum number of games played would be 32 - clubs in the bottom eight would be playing 26 league games and 6 group games. It doesn't matter if something is the "only negative" if it's such a massive negative that it becomes unfair. If we take 2018/19 as an example, Aberdeen finished in 4th place with 67 points, only behind 3rd placed Killie on goal difference. Under your system they would have lost out on a European spot which would instead go to the winners of group stages involving teams who finished miles behind them in the league. Minimum games 34 as 26 plus 6 then a semi home and away meaning 34. Yes I know that's really harsh but if we go to 14 and the bottom split is 8 then I'd imagine there would be 3 or 4 teams with nothing to play for after 26 games. Give and take is needed and I think the only teams against it would be Aberdeen based on recent performances as all other teams are a maybe for top 6. Just my opinion and i totally get how angry you would be if your team was denied a spot because of bottom 8 but as stated the thought of finishing 7th after split 15 to 20 points in front of bottom 2 with nothing to play for fills me with dread. Year before last motherwell had nothing to play for but we were lucky to have davy Turnbull to watch or it would have been boring as sin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparticus Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 14 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: Yes, that is an important distinction. But their decision was based on trust that the board had provided them with all the correct and relevant info. Then there was Dundeegate The important points were in the vote.Hearts still finished bottom of the league? doesnt that matter to any of you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airdrie76 Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 I still don't see how they could take this to court? They were relegated in line with the rules, the SPFL board have done everything democratically, they have put all realistic reconstruction plans on the table and are going through another democratic process to decide if member clubs want to implement a change. The board have went above and beyond any effort they needed to go to, to help Hearts out. It costs clubs money when they are relegated, Hearts should have budgeted correctly, in at least the January transfer window when relegation was a high possibility.Rightly or wrongly Hearts looked to sign players to stay up in January. They may very well have been able to do that if the season had completed. It didn’t, due to a global pandemic. I didn’t see many clubs anticipating covid19 btw but that’s what created this issue after all so I think it’s worth a mention.I’m not sure how the SPFL board have gone above and beyond btw. By fvcking about and embarrassing themselves with the original vote? By setting up a reconstruction working group but dismantling it within a week (despite reconstruction never having gone away)? By taking 2 months to come up with the most obvious solution to this mess? Or by tabling reconstruction proposals in line with their responsibilities? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankthetank22 Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 22 minutes ago, gs230a said: Minimum games 34 as 26 plus 6 then a semi home and away meaning 34. Yes I know that's really harsh but if we go to 14 and the bottom split is 8 then I'd imagine there would be 3 or 4 teams with nothing to play for after 26 games. Give and take is needed and I think the only teams against it would be Aberdeen based on recent performances as all other teams are a maybe for top 6. Just my opinion and i totally get how angry you would be if your team was denied a spot because of bottom 8 but as stated the thought of finishing 7th after split 15 to 20 points in front of bottom 2 with nothing to play for fills me with dread. Year before last motherwell had nothing to play for but we were lucky to have davy Turnbull to watch or it would have been boring as sin. Why a top 6 bottom 8, surely better the other way round? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparticus Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 Just now, frankthetank22 said: Why a top 6 bottom 8, surely better the other way round? To be honest i thought that as well.If it had to be 14 i thought itmight be best to have it like this.Bottom gets less games for finishing last six and extra time for playoffs while the top finish off.No brainer for me but none of the clubs said so. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Airdrie76 said: Rightly or wrongly Hearts looked to sign players to stay up in January. They may very well have been able to do that if the season had completed. It didn’t, due to a global pandemic. I didn’t see many clubs anticipating covid19 btw but that’s what created this issue after all so I think it’s worth a mention. I’m not sure how the SPFL board have gone above and beyond btw. By fvcking about and embarrassing themselves with the original vote? By setting up a reconstruction working group but dismantling it within a week (despite reconstruction never having gone away)? By taking 2 months to come up with the most obvious solution to this mess? Or by tabling reconstruction proposals in line with their responsibilities? Did the SPFL have to set up a reconstruction working group? Did the SPFL have to come up with any solution at all? Did Hearts finish in the relegation spot at the end of the season in line with the rules? They could have quite easily finished bottom after spending all that money even after the original amount of games and still blown a shit load of cash. Edited June 12, 2020 by johnnydun 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 12 minutes ago, Sparticus said: The important points were in the vote.Hearts still finished bottom of the league? doesnt that matter to any of you? Finished? Is it true that 2 times in the last 3 years the team at the bottom escaped? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparticus Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 3 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: Finished? Is it true that 2 times in the last 3 years the team at the bottom escaped? Not this time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted June 12, 2020 Share Posted June 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: Finished? Is it true that 2 times in the last 3 years the team at the bottom escaped? Yes. Finished. Not sure if you noticed but you voted to finish the season. So it's by definition 'finished'. 3 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.