Null & Void or an 18 Game Season?

[Sergeant Wilson]

Just now, roman_bairn said:

Can you also write to my club for me?

They'd know it wasn't you.

[LoonsYouthTeam]

Awaiting fixtures to resume:

https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-statement-47512

[roman_bairn]

Broken record.
As you are the expert, please can you kindly confirm the following?
As it stands we now need to complete a 27 game campaign.
However we can change that if 8 of 10 clubs agree to it and 75% across both League 1 and 2. Otherwise we are stuck with 27 games.
Teams need to be given 28 days to agree to the proposal but if they reject it they can change their minds and accept the proposal at any point within the 28 days, although once they agree to it they cannot change their minds the other way. Teams cannot accept the proposal and then choose to change their minds however.
And now the important question: Once the proposal has been raised we cannot start the 27 game campaign as we won’t know until the 28 days have passed or 8 teams agree and 75% has been reached, what the final decision is?
i think this was the basis of the voting last time out.
On a positive note, Dundee are not part of the vote.........
 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record re this farcical voting system (not really[emoji16]), here’s the latest farce being reported after this evenings meeting of L1 and L2 clubs......

[true_rover]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record re this farcical voting system (not really[emoji16]), here’s the latest farce being reported after this evenings meeting of L1 and L2 clubs......

These would be the same L1 and L2 clubs that unanimously agreed to pay for testing a month ago? But they won't pay for it for less time to get to the end of the season?

I'd be careful believing a Daily Record report into it.

[G51]

9 minutes ago, true_rover said:

These would be the same L1 and L2 clubs that unanimously agreed to pay for testing a month ago? But they won't pay for it for less time to get to the end of the season?

I'd be careful believing a Daily Record report into it.

It has quotes from the Elgin City chairman.

[Jan Vojáček]

8 hours ago, roman_bairn said:

At the risk of sounding like a broken record re this farcical voting system (not really), here’s the latest farce being reported after this evenings meeting of L1 and L2 clubs......

Reading that, it seems like some clubs agreed to test - but didn't calculate the costs....Which is mental if it is the case.

I suspect this is the start of some politics being played by clubs to try and get the season cut to the length they want. But it'll not doubt rumble on before some unsatisfactory outcome is reached where clubs are playing four times a week - or not at all.

[Newbornbairn]

I suspect some chairmen were very keen to give an appearance of wanting to play whilst privately expecting the season to be cancelled, allowing them to keep all or most of the season ticket money - "It wisnae oor fault, help oor club pleease".

 

Nothing makes a Chairman shite himself more than the word "refund"

[SUPERSOUTH]

Surely Mr James Andersons money given to all clubs will cover covid costs for 8 weeks.... 

[Donathan]

Is it weekly testing or testing before every game? I’d imagine the costs and logistics of 3 tests a week could be very difficult with regards to a 27 game season.

[The Moonster]

13 minutes ago, Donathan said:

Is it weekly testing or testing before every game? I’d imagine the costs and logistics of 3 tests a week could be very difficult with regards to a 27 game season.

No other division is testing three times a week so I'm not sure why we would need to. 

[banditjag]

I think if my memory is still holding up, that, of all people, Ian McCall said last week on sportsound something along the lines that most managers he had spoken to wanted to just crack on with the fixtures as was before the suspension. He also made the point that why would it matter if L1 and 2 kept going into June as none of the clubs players were internationals in the euros and on paper wouldn't affect viewing figures for that tournament. 

I guess us lower clubs would simply bow out of the cup, or prioritise the cup games until we are all out. 

The only other issue would be the play off spot in the championship. That club might have gone 6 weeks without a game and be unable to make plans for the following season. Might result in the play offs for L1 being abandoned and just a straight one up situation which would be preferable to null and void, for me anyway.

[SLClyde]

48 minutes ago, SUPERSOUTH said:

Surely Mr James Andersons money given to all clubs will cover covid costs for 8 weeks.... 

That money wasn’t given for testing, clubs had to show how some of the money would be used to benefit the community. Testing is a massive expense, no idea why anyone agreed to it without knowing the cost. 

[The Moonster]

30 minutes ago, banditjag said:

I think if my memory is still holding up, that, of all people, Ian McCall said last week on sportsound something along the lines that most managers he had spoken to wanted to just crack on with the fixtures as was before the suspension. He also made the point that why would it matter if L1 and 2 kept going into June as none of the clubs players were internationals in the euros and on paper wouldn't affect viewing figures for that tournament. 

Ian McCall embarrassing himself then. There is no chance this season gets extended well into June without play-offs being scrapped. So unless McCall is happy to give up a play-off place then he should sit down.

7 minutes ago, SLClyde said:

That money wasn’t given for testing, clubs had to show how some of the money would be used to benefit the community. Testing is a massive expense, no idea why anyone agreed to it without knowing the cost. 

There's not a chance clubs didn't know what testing would cost them. We already have clubs testing their players and staff, I really don't understand how any club can't be aware of the costs. If anyone has said they'll test as some sort of bluff, the bluff should be called. 

[Jan Vojáček]

1 hour ago, banditjag said:

I think if my memory is still holding up, that, of all people, Ian McCall said last week on sportsound something along the lines that most managers he had spoken to wanted to just crack on with the fixtures as was before the suspension. He also made the point that why would it matter if L1 and 2 kept going into June as none of the clubs players were internationals in the euros and on paper wouldn't affect viewing figures for that tournament. 

I guess us lower clubs would simply bow out of the cup, or prioritise the cup games until we are all out. 

The only other issue would be the play off spot in the championship. That club might have gone 6 weeks without a game and be unable to make plans for the following season. Might result in the play offs for L1 being abandoned and just a straight one up situation which would be preferable to null and void, for me anyway.

This will depend on contracts. Most players deals will be up around the start of June, and I can't see them being willing to play additional games when they're out of contract. 

I actually think a one up, one down approach might be the fairest way to do things between the Championship and League One. If League Two can finish its campaign (either as 18 or 27 games) then the playoffs there might be able to remain - depending on where we are in the calendar. 

[Jaggy Snake]

24 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

There's not a chance clubs didn't know what testing would cost them. We already have clubs testing their players and staff, I really don't understand how any club can't be aware of the costs. If anyone has said they'll test as some sort of bluff, the bluff should be called. 

Whilst I don't doubt clubs would have known cost of testing, how exactly would you call a clubs bluff? The clubs proposed covid testing players as a route to get back to playing in January. It's going to be 2 months on from that by the time they're playing again, with no date actually set yet. Any club could simply claim their financial situation has changed and they no longer have enough money to pay for testing.

[latapythelegend]

2 minutes ago, Jaggy Snake said:

Whilst I don't doubt clubs would have known cost of testing, how exactly would you call a clubs bluff? The clubs proposed covid testing players as a route to get back to playing in January. It's going to be 2 months on from that by the time they're playing again, with no date actually set yet. Any club could simply claim their financial situation has changed and they no longer have enough money to pay for testing.

staff are on furlough, cash flow projections would be made months in advance. Unless they have been robbed, what could have changed? 

[The Moonster]

1 minute ago, Jaggy Snake said:

Whilst I don't doubt clubs would have known cost of testing, how exactly would you call a clubs bluff? The clubs proposed covid testing players as a route to get back to playing in January. It's going to be 2 months on from that by the time they're playing again, with no date actually set yet. Any club could simply claim their financial situation has changed and they no longer have enough money to pay for testing.

What could possibly have changed for clubs in that time though? We were offering to test from the end of January right through to May, now we only need to test March to May, so what's the problem? Any club coming out with that shite are hopefully in the minority and the rest of the clubs can vote to start. If any club seriously can't afford it after saying they could then they can sit out and accept 3-0 defeats for the rest of their fixtures. If it's a majority of clubs (which I highly doubt) then the game's a bogey. 

[Jaggy Snake]

10 minutes ago, latapythelegend said:

staff are on furlough, cash flow projections would be made months in advance. Unless they have been robbed, what could have changed? 

 

8 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

What could possibly have changed for clubs in that time though? We were offering to test from the end of January right through to May, now we only need to test March to May, so what's the problem? Any club coming out with that shite are hopefully in the minority and the rest of the clubs can vote to start. If any club seriously can't afford it after saying they could then they can sit out and accept 3-0 defeats for the rest of their fixtures. If it's a majority of clubs (which I highly doubt) then the game's a bogey. 

Furlough only covers a percentage of wages and they may be paying over and above that to top wages up. They may still have some basic staff - admin, groundskeeping etc that are getting paid (though I except wages like that would be small). They may still be paying rent, general bills, loan/debt payments. That on top of having no income for months and, though I'm not saying I agree with the argument, it wouldn't be difficult for a club to argue they no longer see paying for testing as a viable option.

Edited March 3, 2021 by Jaggy Snake

[The Moonster]

3 minutes ago, Jaggy Snake said:

 

Furlough only covers a percentage of wages and they may be paying over and above that to top wages up. They may still have some basic staff - admin, groundskeeping etc that are getting paid (though I except wages like that would be small). They may still be paying rent, general bills, loan/debt payments. That on top of having no income for months and, though I'm not saying I agree with the argument, it wouldn't be difficult for a club to argue they no longer see paying to testing as a viable option.

Topping up furlough is the employers choice, so if a club has chosen to do that I'm not sure they can now use it as a reason not to pay for testing. The government grant of £150K more than covers any staff still working, especially at part time sides. Lets see what happens, the lad from Stirling Albion seems confident it'll be resolved. 

[latapythelegend]

2 minutes ago, Jaggy Snake said:

 

Furlough only covers a percentage of wages and they may be paying over and above that to top wages up. They may still have some basic staff - admin, groundskeeping etc that are getting paid (though I except wages like that would be small). They may still be paying rent, general bills, loan/debt payments. That on top of having no income for months and, though I'm not saying I agree with the argument, it wouldn't be difficult for a club to argue they no longer see paying to testing as a viable option.

I wouldn't argue with any of those costs but I'd be worried if clubs tried to use them as an argument. 

Surely the 1st thing they would have done in January when the leagues were suspended (or later on when they agreed to carry out testing),  would be to project for scenario's X,Y and Z knowing fine well what there financial position is likely to be if we start back on a particular date.