Jump to content

Null & Void or an 18 Game Season?


Recommended Posts

52 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:


Correct. Yet another example of why the current structure doesn’t work in coming up with what’s commonsense for the game....
But here we are.

All the clubs in League1and League 2 have proposed this format. What alternative 'structure' would you set up to make decisions for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Arnold Layne said:

All the clubs in League1and League 2 have proposed this format. What alternative 'structure' would you set up to make decisions for them?

He wants some sort of independent body to impose decisions like colts or whatever on the leagues, and doesn't think the clubs should have a say in that. 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

Genuinely can't even think why they all want 22. I maybe get that the likes of Falkirk might as a bit of an insurance policy if they start slowly (although it could also be another 4 games to chuck the title away if leading after 18), but can't see why every other club would want it. For clubs like ourselves, Montrose or East Fife the less games the better - one hot streak of form could win you the league.

18 games is a fair split and it's virtually guaranteed to have time to fit the games in even with the inevitable postponements. 22 games is likely to lead to issues getting games completed, thankfully it looks like the SPFL are putting this onto the clubs to ensure no farcical end to the season - although it still would be regardless of whatever they come up with.

Can they not just get on and agree to 18 games, then we can relax and enjoy an exciting end to the season without worrying about getting games completed in a ridiculous schedule. Then we can move on and forget this season ever happened and start properly in July.

Why should it be on the clubs to determine what happens if someone can’t finish their games? What would the SPFL Board do in the event of a Premiership or Championship club getting a covid outbreak in the last few weeks and be unable to fulfil 38 or 27 fixtures in those leagues? Surely whatever happens in those leagues would apply to L1 and L2 as well if someone can’t finish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wants some sort of independent body to impose decisions like colts or whatever on the leagues, and doesn't think the clubs should have a say in that. 🤷‍♂️

Correct. However we would have an agreed set of rules up front in consultation with clubs that would include no colts. The independent body would ensure that the agreements are being adhered to.
Poor argument about colts being made by advocates of the current dreadful system that’s failing us yet again tonight.
Indeed I fully expect to see colts in forthcoming years under the current system as greed and self interest inevitably prevail....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:


Correct. However we would have an agreed set of rules up front in consultation with clubs that would include no colts. The independent body would ensure that the agreements are being adhered to.
Poor argument about colts being made by advocates of the current dreadful system that’s failing us yet again tonight.
Indeed I fully expect to see colts in forthcoming years under the current system as greed and self interest inevitably prevail....

How would you select and measure the performance of the individuals in this organisation and as a group? Who would employ or pay them? How would you deal with under-performance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Correct. However we would have an agreed set of rules up front in consultation with clubs that would include no colts. The independent body would ensure that the agreements are being adhered to.
Poor argument about colts being made by advocates of the current dreadful system that’s failing us yet again tonight.
Indeed I fully expect to see colts in forthcoming years under the current system as greed and self interest inevitably prevail....
You've pretty much perfectly described the current setup.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

Because the Board do not want it. They want 18.

They are saying before they rubber stamp it, clubs had better come up with a plan if things go to pot. Seems sensible to me.

Why can’t they just apply whatever they would do to Premiership and Championship if they can’t complete? Don’t really see much of a difference to be honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, South Lanarkshire Jag said:

Why should it be on the clubs to determine what happens if someone can’t finish their games? What would the SPFL Board do in the event of a Premiership or Championship club getting a covid outbreak in the last few weeks and be unable to fulfil 38 or 27 fixtures in those leagues? Surely whatever happens in those leagues would apply to L1 and L2 as well if someone can’t finish.

 

If it is on the clubs to take responsibility for thinking up a new way of ending the season then it is also on them to come up with a suitable contingency in the entirely like event of not all games being played.

The SPFL board do not agree with playing 22 but are saying that is fine as long as you are all happy with whatever contingency you come up with. The alternative which you seem to be suggesting is that the clubs suggest a new system with a clear flaw and then ask the SPFL board to fix it, which seems bizarre.

For once I think the SPFL seem to be handling this well. They are giving the freedom to the clubs to decide things but also ensuring we do not end up with a farcical end to the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

 

For once I think the SPFL seem to be handling this well. They are giving the freedom to the clubs to decide things but also ensuring we do not end up with a farcical end to the season.

I think so as well. "The clubs" as a cumulative are coming off as extremely arrogant here and not for the first time either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

If it is on the clubs to take responsibility for thinking up a new way of ending the season then it is also on them to come up with a suitable contingency in the entirely like event of not all games being played.

The SPFL board do not agree with playing 22 but are saying that is fine as long as you are all happy with whatever contingency you come up with. The alternative which you seem to be suggesting is that the clubs suggest a new system with a clear flaw and then ask the SPFL board to fix it, which seems bizarre.

For once I think the SPFL seem to be handling this well. They are giving the freedom to the clubs to decide things but also ensuring we do not end up with a farcical end to the season.

I’m not suggesting anything. I’m asking why, regardless of whether we attempt to play 18 games or 22 games, the SPFL Board cannot apply the sanctions, whatever they may be, that they would to a Premiership or Championship team if they cannot complete their season. I don’t really see a difference and why they should be handled differently(basically one decided by the clubs and one by the board).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, South Lanarkshire Jag said:

Why can’t they just apply whatever they would do to Premiership and Championship if they can’t complete? Don’t really see much of a difference to be honest.

 

Perhaps they could, but why not let the clubs decide, as they are with trying to do with deciding how to finish the season?

And also because the clubs in this scenario appear to be deliberately picking a scenario that makes incomplete fixtures much more likely. The top 2 leagues have more freedom to play postponed games at a different date - which would presumably be their first solution. That solution is unlikely to be an option for League 1/2 clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you select and measure the performance of the individuals in this organisation and as a group? Who would employ or pay them? How would you deal with under-performance?

You do wonder how large organisations or our legal professions survive nowadays....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 22 games is to get a unified agreement.
Most will want 18, those that want more games to give them a better chance of improving their current situation will refuse to agree thus forcing 27 games which everyone knows will go belly up.
It'll likely just give Forfar a better chance of finishing further behind 9th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Without the voting and self interest elements?
If a holistic view was taken we would have arrived at 18 games.
We didn’t.
Your previous comment said the rules would be set in consultation with the clubs.

How do you agree the rules with clubs without self interest or without letting the clubs vote on it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Without the voting and self interest elements?
If a holistic view was taken we would have arrived at 18 games.
We didn’t.
No we wouldn't.

You stated this "However we would have an agreed set of rules up front in consultation with clubs"

Or are you proposing that this group can just break the agreed set of rules with the clubs?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your previous comment said the rules would be set in consultation with the clubs.

How do you agree the rules with clubs without self interest or without letting the clubs vote on it?

I meant consultation to review and agree an all encompassing set of rules up front. There’s clearly big gaps in the ones we have.
Not for a ongoing debating system every time an event arises...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

Perhaps they could, but why not let the clubs decide, as they are with trying to do with deciding how to finish the season?

And also because the clubs in this scenario appear to be deliberately picking a scenario that makes incomplete fixtures much more likely. The top 2 leagues have more freedom to play postponed games at a different date - which would presumably be their first solution. That solution is unlikely to be an option for League 1/2 clubs.

I would argue that the fixture dates for the Premiership post-split phase are also picked at a scenario that makes incomplete fixtures much more likely. They have a midweek card(10/11 of May I think) and weekend card(15/16 May) to conclude. If a team(for example Kilmarnock) gets an outbreak before then, there is little room to replay the games and they could potentially be involved in relegation playoffs. Obviously you don’t have that issue if it is mid table sides(which could also happen in L1) - the SPFL Board must have a plan of how they would deal with this - why can they not apply the exact same to L1/2?

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...