Jacksgranda Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 13 hours ago, DeeTillEhDeh said: Who is is this new zoomer? I think they've a breeding scheme, and always have one available to replace the previous puntee. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, JTS98 said: I'm afraid all three of these points are off the mark. 1) Of course I have. My point has always been that the clubs should share the burden around so that we all suffer a bit rather than making a small number of clubs carry the can. Maybe you disagree with that, but that's been my, and many others', position for a long time. 2) That's a philosophically weak point indeed. Clubs have had different fixtures from one another, clubs have had matches recontextualised after they finished. Being in a certain position with more than 20% of the season to go does not mean these clubs should carry the can while everyone else shrugs their shoulders. You know that and if a different side was bottom, I imagine you'd be arguing that very point. 3) No, and I'll reiterate point 1 for you here. I've said that the burden should be shared. It's very simple. Hearts had not been relegated, and imposing that is an injustice. It's far more fair to say we're going to cope with this by reshuffling things a bit so that we all take a manageable hit. That's a simple point, and, again, one I'm sure you'd make with a different league table. The burden should be shared, however Hearts put nothing credible forward to allow this to happen. There is of course an argument that reconstruction should be facilitated by the board and not by Hearts themselves but given that nobody was touting reconstruction pre-Covid then it was probably in Hearts best interests to head it up, which is indeed what happened when they were appointed to chair the reconstruction committee. But they didn’t propose to share the burden, they proposed to save their own skin and let Clyde, Peterhead etc carry the burden for them with 14-14-14, then they went 14-whatever which was clearly for self preservation. Non of their proposals showed any level of detail to how splits would work, how promotion and relegation would work or how we would get back to 12-10-10-10 in a year or 2. Details such as prize money breakdown for a 44 team system could easily have been included to demonstrate how the burden was being shared. The pishy Rangers Colts proposal at least was well presented even if the content was nonsense. Finally 14-10-10-10 was proposed with minimal details and we now find out that Budge didn’t even contact lower level teams. Couple that with her obvious disdain for them shown by her stated desire to fire leagues 1 and 2 into the sea and it really isn’t any surprise that nothing has been passed. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 34 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: How cruel, implying they're not even big enough to be stabbed in the back... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordonD Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Alan Stubbs said: If you don't think the seemingly widespread lack of sympathy for Hearts is your own club and fans' doing, you're at it. This. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people who couldn't give a toss one way or the other have turned against Hearts because of their toys-out-of-the-pram attitude. 14 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said: That's not quite true. The vote ended the lower leagues and gave the board the power to end the Premiership. The board just didn't end it until they had consulted the top flight sides. Of course you're right, but the bottom line is that the final decision was taken by the 12 clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welldaft Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 This may have been mentioned before but if I were the SPFL I would be deducting any legal fees incurred from Hearts and Partick. You hope for a speedy outcome either way but if this rumbles on then it will cost 100 of thousands and a fair whack from each member club. I did favour reconstruction of some sort but I am one of those that are starting to think Hearts are becoming a pain in the arse. Budge is seeking to deflect from her numerous shortcomings and failure to appoint a semi decent manager. I am sure they don’t give a toss but if this does impact leagues starting and cause even more financial pain for other clubs then the damage will be irretrievable. They will be the new Rangers and fans and custodians of other clubs will not forget in a hurry. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 2 hours ago, Pet Jeden said: I'd be amazed if the emergency powers used were not time limited. There's the law, there's government advice and there's NHS advice. Only the first of these 3 is actually enforceable (hence the Dominic Cummings fiasco) The emergency powers expire of the 30th September if they are not extended. They can be extended until 30th September 2021. Find some other straws as this one is a dead end. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 1 hour ago, The Master said: Assuming BT and the BBC are entitled to recompense for the unfinished season, it's important to know if the clubs were fully informed of this before the vote to end the season. Even if the exact sums involved weren't known, the SPFL Board would have had a rough idea based on the value of the contract, games remaining etc. If the clubs weren't informed, that might actually be grounds for the vote to be annulled. As with France, however, that wouldn't be the same as ruling relegation unlawful. It just means the vote needs to be taken again and Hearts will still be relegated (but with the added bonus of Neil Doncaster almost certainly getting his jotters). Edit: this was one of the things mentioned in the infamous Sevco dossier. The SPFL response at the time wasn't exactly transparent: Even if the £10m was wildly inaccurate, the "or any other size of claim" read in conjunction with "that was not reported to you because it is simply not the case" does raise a question. I thought that I had read that the SPFL had already released a statement that all liabilities for the season have been recognised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aberdeen Cowden Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 31 minutes ago, welldaft said: This may have been mentioned before but if I were the SPFL I would be deducting any legal fees incurred from Hearts and Partick. You hope for a speedy outcome either way but if this rumbles on then it will cost 100 of thousands and a fair whack from each member club. I did favour reconstruction of some sort but I am one of those that are starting to think Hearts are becoming a pain in the arse. Budge is seeking to deflect from her numerous shortcomings and failure to appoint a semi decent manager. I am sure they don’t give a toss but if this does impact leagues starting and cause even more financial pain for other clubs then the damage will be irretrievable. They will be the new Rangers and fans and custodians of other clubs will not forget in a hurry. Correct. Hearts pointing the finger at everyone else. They and they alone are responsible for their league position. If they had finished higher up the league they wouldn’t be giving a toss about reconstruction. If they or anyone else is pushing for changes, make their thoughts/ ideas known before the 21/22 season starts. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 2 hours ago, DA Baracus said: The Dundee vote wasn't the deciding vote. Would be very amusing if Hearts' legal challenge only resulted in Dundee's vote being changed to a 'Yes', which wouldn't change things at all. Genuinely can’t remember how the numbers worked out, what was the tipping point? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 11 minutes ago, ropy said: Genuinely can’t remember how the numbers worked out, what was the tipping point? Or was the point that it was the subsequent vote that relegated Hearts? One followed the other, no? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybeee Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 2 hours ago, kingjoey said: I hope that he's a better lawyer than he was a player. he isn't, he is wrong, wait and see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 2 hours ago, ribzanelli said: The burden should be shared, however Hearts put nothing credible forward to allow this to happen. There is of course an argument that reconstruction should be facilitated by the board and not by Hearts themselves but given that nobody was touting reconstruction pre-Covid then it was probably in Hearts best interests to head it up, which is indeed what happened when they were appointed to chair the reconstruction committee. But they didn’t propose to share the burden, they proposed to save their own skin and let Clyde, Peterhead etc carry the burden for them with 14-14-14, then they went 14-whatever which was clearly for self preservation. Non of their proposals showed any level of detail to how splits would work, how promotion and relegation would work or how we would get back to 12-10-10-10 in a year or 2. Details such as prize money breakdown for a 44 team system could easily have been included to demonstrate how the burden was being shared. The pishy Rangers Colts proposal at least was well presented even if the content was nonsense. Finally 14-10-10-10 was proposed with minimal details and we now find out that Budge didn’t even contact lower level teams. Couple that with her obvious disdain for them shown by her stated desire to fire leagues 1 and 2 into the sea and it really isn’t any surprise that nothing has been passed. Except being relegated isn't "a burden" it's the natural consequence of being pish. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamamafegan Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53076970 Scottish football's going down the pan apparently. If that's how he feels then maybe he should encourage the SPFL and member clubs not to pursue piss poor proposals such as 14 team leagues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 8 minutes ago, jamamafegan said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53076970 Scottish football's going down the pan apparently. If that's how he feels then maybe he should encourage the SPFL and member clubs not to pursue piss poor proposals such as 14 team leagues. I'm not sure he can do anything given that he left the SFA two years ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Heliums Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, jamamafegan said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53076970 Scottish football's going down the pan apparently. And the disparaging line about clubs voting in their own interests as if that's risible, or an approach only pursued by clubs who voted against reconstruction. Probably every diddy club has had cause at one time or another to be aggrieved with the governing bodies. Saints have at least twice been robbed of a top-league spot on tenuous grounds. Don't think we've ever challenged it in the courts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowden Cowboy Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 3 hours ago, The Master said: Assuming BT and the BBC are entitled to recompense for the unfinished season, it's important to know if the clubs were fully informed of this before the vote to end the season. Even if the exact sums involved weren't known, the SPFL Board would have had a rough idea based on the value of the contract, games remaining etc. If the clubs weren't informed, that might actually be grounds for the vote to be annulled. As with France, however, that wouldn't be the same as ruling relegation unlawful. It just means the vote needs to be taken again and Hearts will still be relegated (but with the added bonus of Neil Doncaster almost certainly getting his jotters). Edit: this was one of the things mentioned in the infamous Sevco dossier. The SPFL response at the time wasn't exactly transparent: Even if the £10m was wildly inaccurate, the "or any other size of claim" read in conjunction with "that was not reported to you because it is simply not the case" does raise a question. Why would it be reported in that way to clubs - they would all readily recognise up front that the situation would potentially impact on broadcasting deals and that conversations/negotiations would take place. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 49 minutes ago, ropy said: Or was the point that it was the subsequent vote that relegated Hearts? One followed the other, no? Hearts were relegated because they had the fewest points, not because of any vote. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 I agree with how this has panned out, however I do think there could be a case for compensation for Hearts and Partick, and by default Stranraer. Something akin to an extra parachute payment. Should we put a bucket round the clubs? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booker-T Posted June 17, 2020 Share Posted June 17, 2020 On 17/03/2020 at 20:14, Dons_1988 said: Plenty clubs want as many OF home fixtures a season as possible, not just the TV channels. but how much money is it worth? Obviously for micro clubs like Hamilton it matters but for Aberdeen, Hibs type clubs, is it a meaningful difference? 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.