Jump to content

Null & Void or an 18 Game Season?


Recommended Posts

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 for testing as a viable option.

I think it would be difficult, nigh on impossible, to argue a club, which committed to around 4 months of testing when they all came up with their proposal - which was brought to the SFA/SPFL - can now no longer afford to test for 2 months max, after clubs have been paying a MAX of 20% wages for all their staff for the past 11 weeks, where they’d budgeted for paying 100% of those wages. Good luck with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt that there are clubs who *can't afford* to test, but it's not demonstrably in the best financial interests of most clubs to do so. There's still no firm exit from restrictions on crowds yet - clubs at all levels should be at least be making some provision in case BCD remains/returns for at least a short time in 21/22. 

The difference between now and January most likely comes down to who was doing the pushing to continue at that time and a more rational cost-benefit analysis being applied, now that they're detached from the competition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bairn88 said:

I think it would be difficult, nigh on impossible, to argue a club, which committed to around 4 months of testing when they all came up with their proposal - which was brought to the SFA/SPFL - can now no longer afford to test for 2 months max, after clubs have been paying a MAX of 20% wages for all their staff for the past 11 weeks, where they’d budgeted for paying 100% of those wages. Good luck with it.

Clubs are perfectly entitled to change their minds though and aren't committed to your back of a fag packet gambit to just keep on playing in January.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

Clubs are perfectly entitled to change their minds though and aren't committed to your back of a fag packet gambit to just keep on playing in January.  

They're "entitled" to do whatever they please.

Instead of stating my argument is "back of the fag packet" maths, can you debate the content of the argument instead? Usually leads to better discussion than worthless gotchas.

Therefore, where am I wrong, Viking?

Did ALL 20 League 1 and 2 clubs get together, 11 days after their suspension, and commit to testing (the condition champ and prem must meet to play)? Yes. If they were then given the green light, would they be playing until the end of the season, 4 months (or a little less if team isn't in a playoff)? Yes. After a further 9 weeks after this, were all players (and probably most, if not all, staff) of these 20 clubs on furlough (a huge cost saver to clubs)? Yes. Is the argument that they can "no longer see paying for testing as a viable option" therefore complete nonsense? Yes.

I doubt you'll engage with the argument, however. You'll go for some "Falkirk and Partick heads are gone ehh lads!" inane rubbish.

Edited by bairn88
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jan Vojáček said:

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. 

 

A one up one down with no play-offs will surely never get enough approval? It has to be financially worth playing out the rest of the season, if there is only 1 promotion spot then there is no reason whatsoever for about 5 or 6 teams per league to bother playing on, and doubtful for another 2 or 3. Most would be choosing to risk being relegated for no potential reward and probably make a big loss into the bargain.

With the play-offs and the league standings as they are there might be enough clubs fancying a shot at the play-offs to see it as worthwhile. But I agree with the people saying that the cost of testing is probably their way of saying they don't think it is worth it. It's not that they can't afford testing, it's probably just that they feel by continuing the season they will face huge costs for no reward - it's perfectly understandable.

Edited by Diamonds are Forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same shitty arguments as 2020. Seems Scottish football really is the sport that never learns.

1 f**k up after the other. Season should never have started. Absolutely zero point without fans. Every person in the world knew the pandemic was to get worse in the winter and there would be more restrictions, except Scottish football.

So many people sitting in the house, not allowed to work. Why on earth are a bunch of part timers made up of joiners, painters etc. allowed to travel the country to play their hobby and side line earner?

Like the matchball every 10 mins at Erbroath, put it in the sea and build for next season.

Edited by big al
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sun (yeah I know) reporting that the option is a 22 game season with a split.


Complete the 18 games then split into two groups of 5, playing four further fixtures in top and bottom halves.
Can see the approach, just seems nonsense when there are so few weeks to play and the possibility of COVID related postponements to deal with....
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Complete the 18 games then split into two groups of 5, playing four further fixtures in top and bottom halves.
Can see the approach, just seems nonsense when there are so few weeks to play and the possibility of COVID related postponements to deal with....
And you'd actually need an extra 5 match days for the 4 post split games.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be looking at 15 matchdays needed to complete the season (3 to make up fixtures so that everyone's played 11, 7 more to get to 18 then 5 post-split)

 

Saturday 13th March: Scottish Cup Round 2 Completion

Tuesday 16th March: Matchday 1

Thursday 18th March:

Saturday 20th:  Matchday 2

Tuesday 23rd: Scottish Cup Round 3

Thursday 25th: Matchday 3

Saturday 27th:  Matchday 4

Tuesday 30th: Scottish Cup Last 16

Thursday 1st April: Matchday 5

Saturday 3rd: Matchday 6

Tuesday 6th: Matchday 7

Thursday 8th:

Saturday 10th: Matchday 8 & Scottish Cup QF

Tuesday 13th: Matchday 9

Thursday 15th:

Saturday 17th: Matchday 10

Tuesday 20th: Matchday 11

Thursday 22nd:

Saturday 24th: Matchday 12 & Scottish Cup SF

Tuesday 27th: Matchday 13

Thursday 29th: Matchday 14

Saturday 1st May: Matchday 15

 

 

Would mean most clubs only playing three games in a week once at the end of the season, other than those who win through in the Scottish cup. You could just about fit 27 in but it would mean playing 3 times a week from next weekend and potentially issues for any lower league side who reaches the last 16 of the cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bairn88 said:

They're "entitled" to do whatever they please.

Instead of stating my argument is "back of the fag packet" maths, can you debate the content of the argument instead? Usually leads to better discussion than worthless gotchas.

Therefore, where am I wrong, Viking?

Did ALL 20 League 1 and 2 clubs get together, 11 days after their suspension, and commit to testing (the condition champ and prem must meet to play)? Yes. 

They didn't 'commit' to anything concrete whatsoever, this is where your blustering fury falls down.

A gormless PR gesture saying that oh aye we'd definitely play if only we were and allowed to and test - safe in the knowledge that there was absolutely zero chance of the SG allowing leagues to resume at the peak of the hospitalisations and deaths in January - is neither a morally nor legally binding stance. If clubs now look at the situation in the cold light of day with two months to either cram in 18 games or truncate the season - costing a huge amount of money in itself - and decide they'd rather just can it instead then that's perfectly reasonable. 

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

They didn't 'commit' to anything concrete whatsoever, this is where your blustering fury falls down.

A gormless PR gesture saying that oh aye we'd definitely play if only we were and allowed to and test - safe in the knowledge that there was absolutely zero chance of the SG allowing leagues to resume at the peak of the hospitalisations and deaths in January - is neither a morally nor legally binding stance. If clubs now look at the situation in the cold light of day with two months to either cram in 18 games or truncate the season - costing a huge amount of money in itself - and decide they'd rather just can it instead then that's perfectly reasonable. 

So your argument rests on the premise that clubs lied when a document was produced in January stating ALL 20 would be able and willing to test. 

My argument rests on the premise that clubs meant what they said in January when they stated they were able and willing to test and sent a document to the SFA and government. 

One of these two is true and you’re on the side of the fence that says it’s completely fair and good that clubs thought it fine to lie. It’s a strange position to take and then try and point and laugh at others at their “gormless fury” but maybe that’s where we are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Donathan said:

Would be looking at 15 matchdays needed to complete the season (3 to make up fixtures so that everyone's played 11, 7 more to get to 18 then 5 post-split)

 

Saturday 13th March: Scottish Cup Round 2 Completion

Tuesday 16th March: Matchday 1

Thursday 18th March:

Saturday 20th:  Matchday 2

Tuesday 23rd: Scottish Cup Round 3

Thursday 25th: Matchday 3

Saturday 27th:  Matchday 4

Tuesday 30th: Scottish Cup Last 16

Thursday 1st April: Matchday 5

Saturday 3rd: Matchday 6

Tuesday 6th: Matchday 7

Thursday 8th:

Saturday 10th: Matchday 8 & Scottish Cup QF

Tuesday 13th: Matchday 9

Thursday 15th:

Saturday 17th: Matchday 10

Tuesday 20th: Matchday 11

Thursday 22nd:

Saturday 24th: Matchday 12 & Scottish Cup SF

Tuesday 27th: Matchday 13

Thursday 29th: Matchday 14

Saturday 1st May: Matchday 15

 

 

Would mean most clubs only playing three games in a week once at the end of the season, other than those who win through in the Scottish cup. You could just about fit 27 in but it would mean playing 3 times a week from next weekend and potentially issues for any lower league side who reaches the last 16 of the cup.

Of course, that's all assuming no coronavirus outbreaks or postponements for other reasons (e.g. weather.

The split seems a ridiculous idea; completely idiotic. We'll play less games, but then add in a few more. I can't wait to see the reaction when Falkirk need to play away against their nearest challengers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David W said:

Of course, that's all assuming no coronavirus outbreaks or postponements for other reasons (e.g. weather.

The split seems a ridiculous idea; completely idiotic. We'll play less games, but then add in a few more. I can't wait to see the reaction when Falkirk need to play away against their nearest challengers. 

Can't wait to the reaction when Clyde need to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bairn88 said:

So your argument rests on the premise that clubs lied when a document was produced in January stating ALL 20 would be able and willing to test. 

My argument rests on the premise that clubs meant what they said in January when they stated they were able and willing to test and sent a document to the SFA and government. 

One of these two is true and you’re on the side of the fence that says it’s completely fair and good that clubs thought it fine to lie. It’s a strange position to take and then try and point and laugh at others at their “gormless fury” but maybe that’s where we are. 

Unless you've invented a time machine that can whisk us back to January - no thanks btw - then your argument is invalid though. Clubs are no longer being asked whether they wish to continue playing a regular 27 game season according to schedule: they're being asked to restart a competition after two months without playing, with a dog's dinner of a schedule no matter what is dreamed up. With furlough now being extended beyond the end of this season's contracts.

There's no contradiction then in clubs deciding that testing and playing from now is not in their best interests. That's a straightforward, logical conclusion and the idea that some scrap of paper gesture from two months ago makes this a Great Betrayal is just hysterical nonsense really.

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, bairn88 said:

So your argument rests on the premise that clubs lied when a document was produced in January stating ALL 20 would be able and willing to test. 

My argument rests on the premise that clubs meant what they said in January when they stated they were able and willing to test and sent a document to the SFA and government. 

One of these two is true and you’re on the side of the fence that says it’s completely fair and good that clubs thought it fine to lie. It’s a strange position to take and then try and point and laugh at others at their “gormless fury” but maybe that’s where we are. 

Your argument is flawed in that it is no longer the middle of January surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, that's all assuming no coronavirus outbreaks or postponements for other reasons (e.g. weather.
The split seems a ridiculous idea; completely idiotic. We'll play less games, but then add in a few more. I can't wait to see the reaction when Falkirk need to play away against their nearest challengers. 

What you mean like last season when Raith got 2 home games out of three and were promoted on that basis?
Cue the usual mob [emoji6]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, David W said:

Of course, that's all assuming no coronavirus outbreaks or postponements for other reasons (e.g. weather.

The split seems a ridiculous idea; completely idiotic. We'll play less games, but then add in a few more. I can't wait to see the reaction when Falkirk need to play away against their nearest challengers. 

 

Yes, this is the other thing. One positive case could lead to a squad isolating resulting in numerous fixtures being postponed. There is no room to rearrange 3 or 4 fixtures. If the League can't fulfil it's fixtures before the play-offs then the participation of League 1 clubs in them would be put at risk. They should be aiming to play the minimum required number of games to ensure completion, not aiming high, it falling apart and then we are nowhere.

It's been clear for weeks that the only viable options are an 18 game season, or null and void. The suggestion of just giving the play-off spot to 2nd place and not 3rd and 4th sounds sensible and would buy a week buffer at the end of the season to get games played. But on the other hand this may mean that clubs who would have been keen to play on like Airdrie, Montrose and East Fife will just think there is no point. The carrot of 3rd and 4th place and maybe getting promoted is what is needed to entice clubs back playing. Removing 3rd and 4th from the play-offs would end that.

Edited by Diamonds are Forever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...