The Hypothetical Roadmap to Getting Fans Back in the SPFL Grounds Discussion

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Given the shambles around finishing the season early a couple of years ago some kind of contingency planning should really have been set out in advance just in case.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Given the shambles around finishing the season early a couple of years ago some kind of contingency planning should really have been set out in advance just in case.

The clubs voted against it repeatedly last season, I doubt that will change.

Edited December 17, 2021 by craigkillie

[lubo_blaha]

Given the shambles around finishing the season early a couple of years ago some kind of contingency planning should really have been set out in advance just in case.

It’s simple, if you’re bottom of the table when the league ends then you get relegated.

If clubs aren’t happy with that then they should consider maybe not being bottom of the league.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

1 hour ago, lubo_blaha said:

It’s simple, if you’re bottom of the table when the league ends then you get relegated.

If clubs aren’t happy with that then they should consider maybe not being bottom of the league.

That's ducking the issue of how much of the league needs to be played before you can create the legal fiction that it's complete

We now have a precedent that 29 or 30 games is enough but would it be OK to award titles and such now after teams have only had 17 or 18 games? How about a dozen? Ultimately you've got to draw a line somewhere or you end up arguing that a season that never got past opening day would still be valid. This was characterised as a yes/no debate at the time but there's actually 38 different points of view.

And that's what I was getting at. Obviously I didn't like the outcome last time but I appreciate that there was never going to be an outcome that everybody liked. Should this kind of problem repeat it's not liable to have a big impact on Hearts, apart from possibly a European  place, but it would be good for everyone to have the whole situation resolved in a manner other than SPFL making it up as they go along.

For example if lots of clubs have a massive fixture backlog because of Covid it might make sense to cancel the post-split games to create space for a 33 game season. But of course clubs that don't have a big backlog would be being penalised for others misfortune so they wouldn't like the idea. Clubs with small squads would be happier with it, bigger clubs wouldn't etc...

If the principles for dealing with that kind of contingency had been agreed before the season started then the decision would become a  easier and uncontroversial. Otherwise it becomes complex and dirty 

 

[PauloPerth]

10 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

That's ducking the issue of how much of the league needs to be played before you can create the legal fiction that it's complete

We now have a precedent that 29 or 30 games is enough but would it be OK to award titles and such now after teams have only had 17 or 18 games? How about a dozen? Ultimately you've got to draw a line somewhere or you end up arguing that a season that never got past opening day would still be valid. This was characterised as a yes/no debate at the time but there's actually 38 different points of view.

And that's what I was getting at. Obviously I didn't like the outcome last time but I appreciate that there was never going to be an outcome that everybody liked. Should this kind of problem repeat it's not liable to have a big impact on Hearts, apart from possibly a European  place, but it would be good for everyone to have the whole situation resolved in a manner other than SPFL making it up as they go along.

For example if lots of clubs have a massive fixture backlog because of Covid it might make sense to cancel the post-split games to create space for a 33 game season. But of course clubs that don't have a big backlog would be being penalised for others misfortune so they wouldn't like the idea. Clubs with small squads would be happier with it, bigger clubs wouldn't etc...

If the principles for dealing with that kind of contingency had been agreed before the season started then the decision would become a  easier and uncontroversial. Otherwise it becomes complex and dirty 

 

You’re spot on. Loads said it on here at the time hearts were relegated that rules need to be put in place in case of a re-occurrence.

The running of sport is so shambolic it’s a joke.

I’m not even overly concerned that it would be us on the receiving end, what will be will be. We’d deserve it for what we’ve done this season so far.  But what if the season is pulled and clubs vote against Saints/ Dundee getting relegated as they can’t be arsed travelling to Inverness a couple of times a season?  It’s just open for clubs to look after themselves rather than do the right thing.
 

The lack of a clear and transparent set of rules being implemented simply highlights the disregard the clubs (owners) have for supporters in Scottish football.

[RandomGuy.]

The best approach would be ending the season now with no relegation/promotion.

Watching the meltdown from everything Hearts related would be far more enjoyable than suffering through another 5 months of watching Saints.

[ropy]

You have to use precedent here.  Relegate Hearts.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

The best approach would be ending the season now with no relegation/promotion.
Watching the meltdown from everything Hearts related would be far more enjoyable than suffering through another 5 months of watching Saints.

I doubt you’d hear any of that

Not above the noise of Celtic fans reactions anyway

[RandomGuy.]

20 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

I doubt you’d hear any of that

Not above the noise of Celtic fans reactions anyway

Oh, we definitely would. No doubt Partick "not cuddly anymore" Thistle would have a couple of bleats aswell.

The OF squabbling over the title, with roles reversed, would be hefty fun too considering the arguments they made last time

[bennett]

10 hours ago, PauloPerth said:

You’re spot on. Loads said it on here at the time hearts were relegated that rules need to be put in place in case of a re-occurrence.

The running of sport is so shambolic it’s a joke.

I’m not even overly concerned that it would be us on the receiving end, what will be will be. We’d deserve it for what we’ve done this season so far.  But what if the season is pulled and clubs vote against Saints/ Dundee getting relegated as they can’t be arsed travelling to Inverness a couple of times a season?  It’s just open for clubs to look after themselves rather than do the right thing.
 

The lack of a clear and transparent set of rules being implemented simply highlights the disregard the clubs (owners) have for supporters in Scottish football.

I believe it's closer to the truth to say that Hearts were demoted rather than relegated.

 

Probably more down to teams owners not trusting the spfl and the sfa boards to implement rules transparently and fairly. 

 

 

 

[craigkillie]

No it isn't. Teams are demoted for non-footballing reasons. Hearts were relegated because they finished bottom of the league when the season ended.

[bennett]

2 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

No it isn't. Teams are demoted for non-footballing reasons. Hearts were relegated because they finished bottom of the league when the season ended.

Hearts were demoted because of a suspicious delay in one teams vote being registered.

[craigkillie]

No they weren't. They were relegated on the basis of finishing 12th in the league.

Even if Dundee had rejected that proposal, the league would have remained in limbo until another vote was held. The Dundee vote didn't even relegate Hearts, that decision was made unanimously by the Premiership clubs a month or so later.

[gannonball]

Just went from seeing Bennett getting his arse handed to him on the Banter kings thread to the same again on this one.

He may be an idiot but he is a relentless idiot I will will give him that.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

No it isn't. Teams are demoted for non-footballing reasons. Hearts were relegated because they finished bottom of the league when the season ended… for non footballing reasons

FTFY

it’s a moot point now because things are more or less back where they should be.

And given the perilous state of Dundee United’s finances it’s probably better that we took that particular bullet

[ropy]

1 hour ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

 

FTFY

it’s a moot point now because things are more or less back where they should be.

And given the perilous state of Dundee United’s finances it’s probably better that we took that particular bullet

 

As much fun as I had over the situation, and I still chuckle, I always believed in your last sentence, not specifically about United but that Hearts were big enough to ‘take the hit’.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

As much fun as I had over the situation, and I still chuckle, I always believed in your last sentence, not specifically about United but that Hearts were big enough to ‘take the hit’.

Killie are the real losers in all this because they’ve ended up playing Accies both last season and this one. They have my sympathy

[craigkillie]

I have a feeling we might not see them again next season even if we don't get promoted.

[RandomGuy.]

The Universe has already decided that Hamilton will keep Falkirk down next season.

[DMCs]

All English Prem games off today except one and a few outbreaks at SPFL Premiership clubs currently. I wouldn't be surprised if the games after this weekend get called off now.