Null & Void or an 18 Game Season?

[Sergeant Wilson]

40 minutes ago, MS RR said:

Tbf we wouldn't have signed up to that if we knew how some clubs would vote. We still don't know what Dundee were offered to change their vote, they voted against their own interests which would suggest something odd behind the scenes occurred. 

The bottom line is you can't have clubs, who are solely interested in the future of their clubs and rightly so, voting for how the the league should be finalised. Right now, the bottom 5 in the championship will obviously vote for null and void for league 1 and 2 to eliminate the risk of being relegated. 

The voting system was introduced years before by the SPL and further implemented to include all divisions in 2013. It's not about Dundee, Falkirk or any other individual club.I

The format used last season had been in place for football purposes and complied with company law. There was an investigation that established there had been no rules broken. Fire on elsewhere if you want to question the morality question, but that isn't the issue here.

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, roman_bairn said:

What, like the fact that you continue to make this into a ‘Falkirk wronged’ thing, when I’ve pointed out many times across several threads that Raith were rightly promoted and Hearts and Thistle rightly relegated?
My concern is the chaos that this system continues to throw up, the inconsistent decision making that comes up time and again, and whilst I don’t think there is an ideal solution, I certainly think that the current one can be improved upon.....

I don't think Falkirk have been disadvantaged more than any other club. Where do you get that from?

The rules are shite but they apply to everyone. Have you read them yet?

Edited February 28, 2021 by Sergeant Wilson

[pleslie99]

2 hours ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

I’m not arguing over the point that Alloa or Arbroath are better than Falkirk - they clearly are and are also above us on merit - I don’t disagree with that at all.

I’ve also no issue with Falkirk not being allowed to play because of the restrictions - health and the recovery of the country must come first.

Alloa and Arbroath have however been given preferential treatment as they are being treated differently from others in the same group (part time clubs). That’s a fact whether you like it or not.

There is no preferential treatment. They are being treated the same as everyone else in their league. Same as Falkirk and thistle are I league 1! To say it's "preferential" is ridiculous. Preferential implies that they are getting special treatment, their not, they are getting the se treatment as those in their league! Thats a fact whether you like it or not.

[Life on Marrs?]

I'm sceptical that they do really want colt sides in the league, I think it's the media trying to create news. 

Killie were asked to play thier u18s in the league cup or forfeit the match, they said it wouldn't be fair to pitch these kids in. Incidently poor, put upon Falkirk were the beneficiaries of that outcome! 

If they really want youngsters getting experience, why don't they help struggling clubs out, by loaning them out? 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Life on Marrs?

[pleslie99]

1 hour ago, Jan Vojáček said:

Article in today's Sunday Mail with Fraser Wishart of the PFA saying that 89 percent of lower league players want to get playing, and 70 percent are happy to do so without testing.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/lower-league-players-ready-nicola-23577909

 

Sorry Jan, I fail to see the point here. Ask any amateur player who has been sidelined since last March, it would be 95%+ who would want to get playing again and without testing. Everyone would like to get back to normality without testing too but it's not an option! 

 

Ps I know you want hits on the website so I clicked the link anyway

[craigkillie]

Can anyone explain why there does not appear to have been anything tabled in the articles that clubs cannot admit colt teams? I’m sure over 50% of clubs would vote for it.

Colt teams are not allowed in the SPFL currently. Rules can always be changed though, and that's what Rangers and Celtic are trying to do.

[craigkillie]

I'd also like to play football and don't require a test. I'm not really sure what point he's making.

The main point would be that they are comfortable with the risk they are taking with their own health, which is clearly a consideration in the decision making process. It's not the only thing that's important, but no decision to restart playing would be made without the approval of the union.

[Stag Nation]

2 hours ago, MS RR said:

Tbf we wouldn't have signed up to that if we knew how some clubs would vote. We still don't know what Dundee were offered to change their vote, they voted against their own interests which would suggest something odd behind the scenes occurred. 

The bottom line is you can't have clubs, who are solely interested in the future of their clubs and rightly so, voting for how the the league should be finalised. Right now, the bottom 5 in the championship will obviously vote for null and void for league 1 and 2 to eliminate the risk of being relegated. 

You say "you can't",  but no-one is in a position to prevent it.

The clubs had a chance pre-season to put rules in place for this eventuality, but didn't.

[Jan Vojáček]

35 minutes ago, pleslie99 said:

Sorry Jan, I fail to see the point here. Ask any amateur player who has been sidelined since last March, it would be 95%+ who would want to get playing again and without testing. Everyone would like to get back to normality without testing too but it's not an option! 

 

Ps I know you want hits on the website so I clicked the link anyway

 

29 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The main point would be that they are comfortable with the risk they are taking with their own health, which is clearly a consideration in the decision making process. It's not the only thing that's important, but no decision to restart playing would be made without the approval of the union.

This is basically it. It seems like a return to action would be with the blessing of the union. That's a big step. Union support is important in any industry, and football is still just a job at the end of the day.

I reckon if you'd asked players the same question last March/April then the answer would've been far closer to a no vote. 

The original lockdown in Spring 2020 was roundly supported by clubs, players and fans. And it was still messy for all those impacted. This time around it doesn't look to have that support, and that means things could be even messier than last summer.

Spoiler

Not my article anyway, but I'm sure the good Record people appreciate their corn being paid for, for another day

 

[jagsfan57]

There is no preferential treatment. They are being treated the same as everyone else in their league. Same as Falkirk and thistle are I league 1! To say it's "preferential" is ridiculous. Preferential implies that they are getting special treatment, their not, they are getting the se treatment as those in their league! Thats a fact whether you like it or not.

They obviously are. The SPFL consists of all 4 divisions. Two of those divisions are being allowed to play, two aren’t. In fact, prior to leagues stopping in January, the protocols being followed by the Championship clubs were the same as L1 & L2. They were allowed to introduce testing to play. L1 & L2 weren’t.
Supposedly we are now being driven by data, not dates. Where is the data that shows that part time players are testing positive in larger numbers than championship or premiership players.

[Arnold Layne]

4 hours ago, banditjag said:

Essential appears several times. Granted not as I pasted anymore. The guidance/advice/rules have evolved over the past year which I guess seems to have confused many. My point was whether playing football is as important as going to a hospital appointment say, or a worker having to go to work in a supermarket.

Thanks for the link 

You're welcome. I assume everyone is well aware of the guidance by now.

Yes, the word essential appears many times but not in reference to  work.

[Grangemouth Bairn]

2 hours ago, pleslie99 said:

There is no preferential treatment. They are being treated the same as everyone else in their league. Same as Falkirk and thistle are I league 1! To say it's "preferential" is ridiculous. Preferential implies that they are getting special treatment, their not, they are getting the se treatment as those in their league! Thats a fact whether you like it or not.

I’m not getting into an online ding-don’t about this mate so we’ll just disagree.

I think the risk of part time players mixing with colleagues/customers/clients then in a separate group with their football colleagues is as much of a ‘spread’ risk no matter what division the part time players are in.

[St-ow!]

1 hour ago, jagsfan57 said:

 

They obviously are. The SPFL consists of all 4 divisions. Two of those divisions are being allowed to play, two aren’t. In fact, prior to leagues stopping in January, the protocols being followed by the Championship clubs were the same as L1 & L2. They were allowed to introduce testing to play. L1 & L2 weren’t.
Supposedly we are now being driven by data, not dates. Where is the data that shows that part time players are testing positive in larger numbers than championship or premiership players.

 

Hearts is why they're treated differently, I tells yer. 

[DA Baracus]

18 hours ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

I’m not saying it did mate but it’s a fact that two teams who have benefited from the current horrible situation have had members on the SPFL board.

BIG BAD MIKE MULRANEY RUNS SCOTTISH FOOTBALL AND DOESN'T JUST HAVE A SINGLE VOTE ON A BOARD!!!!

Our chairman is on that board. We didnt benefit from the vote to call the leagues. Why does Big Bad Mike Mulranrey's vote count more than that of the other members of the board? Is his vote worth 5 instead of 1?

[Life on Marrs?]

No country in the world has relaxed a lockdown since the new Covid-19 varient has become the dominant virus.

Surely getting children, who have missed the best part of a school year back is far more important than to allow lower league football to resume at this period in time? 

[Sergeant Wilson]

12 minutes ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

I’m not getting into an online ding-don’t about this mate so we’ll just disagree.

I think the risk of part time players mixing with colleagues/customers/clients then in a separate group with their football colleagues is as much of a ‘spread’ risk no matter what division the part time players are in.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

28 minutes ago, Life on Marrs? said:

No country in the world has relaxed a lockdown since the new Covid-19 varient has become the dominant virus.

Surely getting children, who have missed the best part of a school year back is far more important than to allow lower league football to resume at this period in time? 

Why is opening schools up directly related to certain football teams starting up again?

[Life on Marrs?]

9 minutes ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

Why is opening schools up directly related to certain football teams starting up again?

If you had to choose what to reopen, what would you prioritise? 

[pleslie99]

1 hour ago, jagsfan57 said:

 

They obviously are. The SPFL consists of all 4 divisions. Two of those divisions are being allowed to play, two aren’t. In fact, prior to leagues stopping in January, the protocols being followed by the Championship clubs were the same as L1 & L2. They were allowed to introduce testing to play. L1 & L2 weren’t.
Supposedly we are now being driven by data, not dates. Where is the data that shows that part time players are testing positive in larger numbers than championship or premiership players.

 

We're talking specifically about Arbroath and Alloa, who were according to Grangemouth Bairn, given preferential treatment. Your comment above is regards to the championship and premiership. If you think they are being treated preferentially compared to everyone else then you may have an argument. To say just 2 clubs are is madness!

45 minutes ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

I’m not getting into an online ding-don’t about this mate so we’ll just disagree.

I think the risk of part time players mixing with colleagues/customers/clients then in a separate group with their football colleagues is as much of a ‘spread’ risk no matter what division the part time players are in.

I dont disagree its a risk, I personally think when the were shutting it down they shouldve shut down the lot if that's the case. I'm merely pointing out to you that singling out Arbroath and Alloa for being treated with preference is just plain daft. We can agree to disagree but you can't single out just 2 clubs here. It's not their fault they have been successful and are playing at their level. Do you suggest the championship was just to continue with 8 teams?

[Grangemouth Bairn]

11 minutes ago, pleslie99 said:

We're talking specifically about Arbroath and Alloa, who were according to Grangemouth Bairn, given preferential treatment. Your comment above is regards to the championship and premiership. If you think they are being treated preferentially compared to everyone else then you may have an argument. To say just 2 clubs are is madness!

I dont disagree its a risk, I personally think when the were shutting it down they shouldve shut down the lot if that's the case. I'm merely pointing out to you that singling out Arbroath and Alloa for being treated with preference is just plain daft. We can agree to disagree but you can't single out just 2 clubs here. It's not their fault they have been successful and are playing at their level. Do you suggest the championship was just to continue with 8 teams?

Fair enough - we both agree it’s a risk (I thought you were saying it wasn’t) and no they can’t play with 8.