27 games. 14,10,10,10

[Shadwell Dog]

21 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Rank. The playoffs have been great for all the leagues. Getting rid of them in any division would be absolutely dreadful.

2 up 2 down and a playoff then. There needs to be an easier path into the top flight. At the moment it's one up.one down and a miracle for the championship side to win the playoffs. 

[TxRover]

1 hour ago, Dennistoun Bairn said:

Meantime, when's the reconstruction proposal for 2-10-10-10-10 going to the vote? 

I kinda like that idea. Four 10 team leagues...have Celtic and Sevco play each other as often as they want and they can play any other team they’d like to play a fee to come play at their palace. Let’s say they decide to play all of League One and offer to pay each team £10,000 to come visit...why not, since it wouldn’t impact league position and Celtic could play one team while Sevco plays another, no one has a week off. Hell, Aberdeen and Hearts can f**k-off with them too and we add Brora and Kelty.

[AndyDD]

The biggest concern for me is the increasingly obvious motive behind the change; avoiding a legal challenge. 

I don't expect Hearts et al would win the legal challenge (admittedly based on absolutely zero legal knowledge) but there is always a chance that they could, even if it is a remote one. The immediate issue would be the costs of fighting the legal case, the damage this would do to the SPFL's attempt to secure sponsors and their attempt to start the season and get the top flight its Sky money. 

This appears to be the motivation that is driving the change, rather than any well thought through, long term consideration of what would be the best set up for the game in general, or even if it would be an improvement at all on what we have as things stand. I don't see much in the way of evidence that this is being driven by anything else other than an SPFL fearing the implications of a legal challenge being lodged, even if they feel likely to win it. 

The priority behind the move is to get the top flight playing in August. They feel a legal challenge poses a threat to that and, even if it is a small threat, it is one they'd rather avoid if they at all can. 

I don't think we should be making such a change purely to ensure that the SPFL avoids a court case, or even a payout to Hearts and co from the topflight clubs. If Hearts et al take that action and win, then tough. 

[Newbornbairn]

One thing's for sure, I never want to hear anyone refer to Scottish clubs as a "football family" ever again. They'd happily f**k each other over for a £1 coin.

[stuartcraig]

One thing's for sure, I never want to hear anyone refer to Scottish clubs as a "football family" ever again. They'd happily f**k each other over for a £1 coin.

You haven’t met my family.

[Ballboy]

1 hour ago, AndyDD said:

 

The priority behind the move is to get the top flight playing in August. They feel a legal challenge poses a threat to that and, even if it is a small threat, it is one they'd rather avoid if they at all can. 

It seems with a legal challenge rather than have the vote or decisions made over turned it would be much easier for the start of a new season to be delayed until the the courts have time to review the legal process.   This more often than not is not done quickly.  

Any new tv deal would have to be delayed also as courts could give a decision to over turn a vote and complete the previous fixtures and the previous tv deal would have precedence as it's still part of the 19/20 season.  

Everyone has pretty much resigned to the 20/21 season beginning with the same structure.  Quite a few have grievances and about how it's all gone but now most are willing to get on and build for a new season the only problem is hearts.   They are the only team with the money and mindset to mount a legal challenge and this could delay further decisions and start dates for 20/21.  

[JagsCG]

I'm not sure if people realise, how detrimental, Hearts taking the SPFL to court would be. Firstly there'd be average legal costs for the SPFL (so that's money away from clubs), secondly, it may hold up the start of the league, which could effect TV deals, and also the Top Flight clubs, thirdly, if Hearts win, which may be likely, they would be likely due a large amount of compensation (as would Partick Thistle and Stranraer) so thats a lot of money away from the clubs, Fourthly, this whole thing looks bad for the entirety of Scottish Football, it paints the league in a very very bad way. Add into the fact, we STILL haven't even got a sponsor for next season yet. It's a shambles, and Hearts taking the league to court, will be bad for everyone, including Hearts (because if they lose, they've lost a lot of money on legal fees, and they are still in the Championship, so the millions they've lost from their "relegation" still stands too). 

[TxRover]

57 minutes ago, JagsCG said:

I'm not sure if people realise, how detrimental, Hearts taking the SPFL to court would be. Firstly there'd be average legal costs for the SPFL (so that's money away from clubs), secondly, it may hold up the start of the league, which could effect TV deals, and also the Top Flight clubs, thirdly, if Hearts win, which may be likely, they would be likely due a large amount of compensation (as would Partick Thistle and Stranraer) so thats a lot of money away from the clubs, Fourthly, this whole thing looks bad for the entirety of Scottish Football, it paints the league in a very very bad way. Add into the fact, we STILL haven't even got a sponsor for next season yet. It's a shambles, and Hearts taking the league to court, will be bad for everyone, including Hearts (because if they lose, they've lost a lot of money on legal fees, and they are still in the Championship, so the millions they've lost from their "relegation" still stands too). 

Except, the SPFL then simply toss Hearts from the league for violation of the rules. The court tosses the suit as an unfounded assault on the SPFL's prerogatives. Either Falkirk gets promoted to replace Hearts or Partick's relegation gets cancelled...similar at the League One/Two juncture, and either Brora or Kelty join League Two. Voila.

[haufdaft]

The biggest concern for me is the increasingly obvious motive behind the change; avoiding a legal challenge. 
I don't expect Hearts et al would win the legal challenge (admittedly based on absolutely zero legal knowledge) but there is always a chance that they could, even if it is a remote one. The immediate issue would be the costs of fighting the legal case, the damage this would do to the SPFL's attempt to secure sponsors and their attempt to start the season and get the top flight its Sky money. 
This appears to be the motivation that is driving the change, rather than any well thought through, long term consideration of what would be the best set up for the game in general, or even if it would be an improvement at all on what we have as things stand. I don't see much in the way of evidence that this is being driven by anything else other than an SPFL fearing the implications of a legal challenge being lodged, even if they feel likely to win it. 
The priority behind the move is to get the top flight playing in August. They feel a legal challenge poses a threat to that and, even if it is a small threat, it is one they'd rather avoid if they at all can. 
I don't think we should be making such a change purely to ensure that the SPFL avoids a court case, or even a payout to Hearts and co from the topflight clubs. If Hearts et al take that action and win, then tough. 

As I've said previously, I don't think the SPFL board and others would relish giving evidence under oath in a courtroom.

[JagsCG]

34 minutes ago, Tenkay said:

Maybe next week the clubs should just agree to pass the 14-10-10-10  then Hearts would finally shut up, Falkirk and Partick would be happy, then we could, at long last put all this behind us and get on with looking forward to next season?

That is simply the only way for all this to end. If that doesn’t happen (and it’s likely it won’t) this will go on and on, for a long time yet, no doubt about it. 

[craigkillie]

Astonished to see that Edinburgh City and Partick Thistle fans think this should be voted through "for the good of the game".

[AGPar]

3 hours ago, haufdaft said:

As I've said previously, I don't think the SPFL board and others would relish giving evidence under oath in a courtroom.

It's not as if any action Hearts may decide to take is going to constitute some sort of show trial, with Doncaster in the dock being grilled by the finest legal minds in the country on the intricacies of their IT system. The reality will be far more mundane. Some sort of interdict that prevents the Premier League from starting has been mooted. A lot more robust conversations to be had before this has played out.

[JagsCG]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

Astonished to see that Edinburgh City and Partick Thistle fans think this should be voted through "for the good of the game".

Astonishing, that Self-Interest is indulged from every one of the 42 clubs? Really? 

Edited June 13, 2020 by JagsCG

[Ballboy]

5 hours ago, haufdaft said:

As I've said previously, I don't think the SPFL board and others would relish giving evidence under oath in a courtroom.

The evidence I shall give will be the truth.  Somewhere near the truth and nothing like the the truth.  

[EdinburghBlue]

It seems with a legal challenge rather than have the vote or decisions made over turned it would be much easier for the start of a new season to be delayed until the the courts have time to review the legal process.   This more often than not is not done quickly.    

Hearts might well seek an interdict preventing the new season starting until the court has deliberated. Given current backlogs that could take until sometime in 2021.

[haufdaft]

It's not as if any action Hearts may decide to take is going to constitute some sort of show trial, with Doncaster in the dock being grilled by the finest legal minds in the country on the intricacies of their IT system. The reality will be far more mundane. Some sort of interdict that prevents the Premier League from starting has been mooted. A lot more robust conversations to be had before this has played out.

Final sentence in this daily record article is relevent to my point

 

 

"The hidden Scottish football reconstruction motivation as SPFL plan for Hearts legal challenge

The governing body is fearful of a potential £6million compensation claim.

 

The SPFL are staring at the threat of a £6million compensation claim that may only be averted by reconstruction.

 

Clubs have until Monday to indicate their support for the league’s executive proposal of a 14-10-10-10 set-up for next season but, as Record Sport revealed, it already looks dead in the water, which will almost certainly trigger legal action by relegated Hearts.

 

It’s believed claims from the Tynecastle side, Partick Thistle and Stranraer could total more than £6m, with up to £5m from Tynecastle alone, where chairman Ann Budge is determined to act with strong support from the Foundation of Hearts.

The bill would be footed by all 42 SPFL clubs, most likely from future broadcast earnings, as the governing body have previously admitted they have no cash reserves to cover a seven-figure payout.

 

Hampden sources insist the SPFL always knew the revamp was doomed to failure, but have pushed for reconstruction at the 11th hour to strengthen any potential defence in court.

One said: “If Hearts do take legal action, which is looking increasingly likely, the SPFL executive can now argue they tried everything possible to get reconstruction over the line.”

 

It’s understood some SPFL board members were left surprised at their last meeting when the topic of reconstruction was only raised by chief executive Neil Doncaster at the very end of the conference call.

 

It had not been on the agenda - and not all board members were aware of the full contents of the consultation document sent to the 42 clubs by email on Wednesday proposing the new set-up.

It had been dismissed by clubs previously, failing to win sufficient support with 11 of 12 Premiership outfits and 32 out of 42 clubs in total required to bring about a new league set up.

The Hampden source added: “Nothing has changed, but the executive are terrified of the ramifications of a legal defeat - and that’s why they repackaged their 14-10-10-10 proposal. They know Hearts, Partick Thistle and Stranraer have a very good case.”

 

The SPFL will arrange an EGM and formal vote within seven days if enough teams indicate a willingness for change on Monday.

The SPFL’s reconstruction document said: “Much has been said about the curtailment of league season 2019/20 due to Covid-19, with a number of matches still to be played.

 

“While it is now clear that there was no realistic workable alternative to that curtailment, the introduction of a 14-10-10-10 League structure for season 2020/21 would address any perceived unfairness and ensure that those teams relegated as a result of that curtailment would regain their previous divisional status.”

Neil Doncaster, the SPFL chief executive, has conceded the proposal will be the final attempt at league reconstruction ahead of the new season.

 

He added: “I do feel that this is the last realistic prospect of an expanded Premiership being delivered for the season ahead.”

 

Relegations in France and Belgium have already been blocked after court appeals by clubs and the SPFL have taken notice.

The SPFL will point out that more than 80 per cent of clubs agreed to end the 2019/20 campaign and Premiership clubs later admitted their season could not be completed.

However, that could face scrutiny in any court action, particularly after Dundee were allowed to change their vote after the result of the poll had been published by Hampden bosses."

 

[RandomGuy.]

18 hours ago, Shadwell Dog said:

2 up 2 down and a playoff then. There needs to be an easier path into the top flight. At the moment it's one up.one down and a miracle for the championship side to win the playoffs. 

This. 

Without putting to much thought into it, I think have two automatic relegation spots in every division, would be best.

Teams in 3rd/4th play off, winner plays 2nd, or you just go straight into 2nd v 3rd, not sure what would be best.

Both Highland/Lowland League winners come up.

Larger share of money throughout the tiers, and try and give some to HL/LL too, so any relegation isnt a massive financial blow.

[SouthLanarkshireWhite]

Clyde should threaten legal action for loss of revenue due to moving the goalposts after the event. Not as much as £6m but no less important. Anyone else got a case?

[Bairn in Exile]

I am all in favour of 2 up, 2 down, but in a 10 team league that gives you a guaranteed 40% change of teams which is quite high. It does, however, slightly reduce the boredom factor of a 10 team league that many of us complain about at the moment.

Maybe this would work: Next season, 14 – 10 – 10 – 10 and use the same promotion / relegation criteria as now. This would help right the wrongs of finishing this season early.

The following season, 14 -10 – 10 – 10 and keep the same promotion / relegation criteria between the Premiership and the Championship. Down the leagues, from the Championship to League 2, each team is playing to be placed in either a 14 team Championship or a 16 team League 1. Every club would know what is at stake from the start of the season and would help to avoid the complaints from Clyde, Peterhead and Forfar that we had this season.

The season after that, 14 – 14 – 16 and going forward with 1 up, 2 down between all the leagues and teams in 2^nd – 5^th playing in the play-offs for promotion. The play-off format to be the same between all the leagues, except between League 2 and HL/LL where both the champions of each league are promoted with the 2 relegated teams from League 2 going to the appropriate league below. This might require a slight rejig of the teams in HL/LL but I think this happens between the 5^th and 6^th tiers in England at the moment.

Any obvious flaws that I’ve missed? And / or has somebody already proposed this and I am about to be accused of plagiarism?

[Sergeant Wilson]

4 minutes ago, Bairn in Exile said:

I am all in favour of 2 up, 2 down, but in a 10 team league that gives you a guaranteed 40% change of teams which is quite high. It does, however, slightly reduce the boredom factor of a 10 team league that many of us complain about at the moment.

Maybe this would work: Next season, 14 – 10 – 10 – 10 and use the same promotion / relegation criteria as now. This would help right the wrongs of finishing this season early.

The following season, 14 -10 – 10 – 10 and keep the same promotion / relegation criteria between the Premiership and the Championship. Down the leagues, from the Championship to League 2, each team is playing to be placed in either a 14 team Championship or a 16 team League 1. Every club would know what is at stake from the start of the season and would help to avoid the complaints from Clyde, Peterhead and Forfar that we had this season.

The season after that, 14 – 14 – 16 and going forward with 1 up, 2 down between all the leagues and teams in 2^nd – 5^th playing in the play-offs for promotion. The play-off format to be the same between all the leagues, except between League 2 and HL/LL where both the champions of each league are promoted with the 2 relegated teams from League 2 going to the appropriate league below. This might require a slight rejig of the teams in HL/LL but I think this happens between the 5^th and 6^th tiers in England at the moment.

Any obvious flaws that I’ve missed? And / or has somebody already proposed this and I am about to be accused of plagiarism?

I think your fine regarding plagiarism. No-one would admit to coming up with that dog's dinner.