Jump to content
FFC 1876

Null & Void or an 18 Game Season?

Recommended Posts

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...

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roman_bairn said:


You do wonder how large organisations or our legal professions survive nowadays....

That doesn't answer any of the questions.

Are you suggesting a bidding process that outside agencies compete for a contract to manage the SPFL? 

Same questions, how would it be selected and performance measured? Who would pay?

If it's the clubs, how is that body independent?

Another, how do you guarantee that independence? Do you go through every employee to find out who they support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 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....

What if your independent body decided that including colt teams was a good idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if your independent body decided that including colt teams was a good idea?

Then they would be breaking with the rules agreed at the outset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't answer any of the questions.
Are you suggesting a bidding process that outside agencies compete for a contract to manage the SPFL? 
Same questions, how would it be selected and performance measured? Who would pay?
If it's the clubs, how is that body independent?
Another, how do you guarantee that independence? Do you go through every employee to find out who they support?

Look, I’ve outlined the principles and flagged the weaknesses of the current system. I’m not spending my evening doing a business process redesign. We can debate that should realisation ever hit home.
It probably won’t though.....
And no I’m not talking about subcontracting to the highest bidder you clot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:


Then they would be breaking with the rules agreed at the outset.

I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, roman_bairn said:


Look, I’ve outlined the principles and flagged the weaknesses of the current system. I’m not spending my evening doing a business process redesign. We can debate that should realisation ever hit home.
It probably won’t though.....
And no I’m not talking about subcontracting to the highest bidder you clot emoji16.png

How can we judge your solution if you can't explain how it works? Not detail, a few headlines will do.

Was it you that was picking others up about insults recently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can we judge your solution if you can't explain how it works? Not detail, a few headlines will do.
Was it you that was picking others up about insults recently?

My apologies. It was a ridiculous suggestion though.☹️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, South Lanarkshire Jag said:

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?

 

I agree they should have a plan, and they could just impose whatever they want. But given clubs are picking a higher risk option, and that the usual solution of fixture rearrangement could well not be possible, I think they are right to ensure the clubs have a solution that they are all happy with.

What if the planned contingency the SPFL board came up with wasn't satisfactory with the clubs? They may want to go back and decide actually 18 is a better option after all. Or we'd be back to square one debating what to do. I don't see the problem with giving the clubs the choice here, if they want to hand over responsibility to the SPFL board to decide then I'm sure they could, but I doubt we'll see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then they would be breaking with the rules agreed at the outset.
Which is what you would want to happen with 18 games being imposed instead of the 27 agreed at the outset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

 

I agree they should have a plan, and they could just impose whatever they want. But given clubs are picking a higher risk option, and that the usual solution of fixture rearrangement could well not be possible, I think they are right to ensure the clubs have a solution that they are all happy with.

What if the planned contingency the SPFL board came up with wasn't satisfactory with the clubs? They may want to go back and decide actually 18 is a better option after all. Or we'd be back to square one debating what to do. I don't see the problem with giving the clubs the choice here, if they want to hand over responsibility to the SPFL board to decide then I'm sure they could, but I doubt we'll see that.

The planned contingency would, I presume, have been circulated around all 42 clubs at the start of the season. If it is not satisfactory then it should have been challenged/adjusted/changed at the start of the season - the prime issue is running out of games/dates to play them. This could happen in any division so they should be treated equally. If it turns out to be 3-0 forfeits in Prem then it should be same for Champ and L1/2.

It is up to the clubs to decide how many they want to play. As a collective they have asked for 22 - the board should have, in my opinion, focused on whether they were allowing the restart date to go ahead and if they were granting the extension for season rather than batting it back to clubs to decide sanctions for an incomplete season since these should already be in place. Why should the consequence of not finishing in L1/2 be different from Prem/Champ?

I just think it is a bit unfair to be potentially imposing different sanctions for the same offence(not finishing games) when proposed league finish formats(split) between the prem and L1/2 will be practically the same and I don’t understand why this seems to be a sticking issue and has stopped it moving forward as much as it should have.

Edited by South Lanarkshire Jag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If they are to be sat about for a fortnight that will have an impact on sharpness etc (there's nobody to play friendlies and tick over fitness).  Will be a nightmare for whoever finishes there, they'll almost certainly be relegated along with Ayr. 


Teams have 2 week gaps all throughout the season through cup/weather/Covid postponements and not and don’t lose that following game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.


The statement from the SPFL centres around the possible inability of part time clubs completing the season.

The L1 & L2 clubs should ask what the plan is for the Championship, if there are any Covid interruptions and let them consider if that works.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
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.


But the basis of it is that part time teams are more likely to suffer covid postponements - where is the evidence of that ?

I am not actually saying I am in favour of the split, just that the obstacle that is being put up is that part time players have had Covid more than full time players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The clubs are probably just keen to give their season as much legitimacy as possible. An 18 game season looks like nullandvoid plus 1. Even though the SPFL seem happy enough with it. PPG is a good contingency to be agreed on in advance.

Take it that teams in fifth and sixth at the time the league splits will be scheduled to sit out the final round of fixtures. As they're least likely to be involved in meaningful games. Bit of a pickle if they need PPG to decide where the split falls too. Oh dear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, theboke said:

The clubs are probably just keen to give their season as much legitimacy as possible. An 18 game season looks like nullandvoid plus 1. Even though the SPFL seem happy enough with it. PPG is a good contingency to be agreed on in advance.

Take it that teams in fifth and sixth at the time the league splits will be scheduled to sit out the final round of fixtures. As they're least likely to be involved in meaningful games. Bit of a pickle if they need PPG to decide where the split falls too. Oh dear.

 

Why would they need ppg to see where the split falls?

Everyone will have played 18.

Share this post


Link to post
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...