SpoonTon

Thing is, if I was playing in a competition with prize money, from the very start I wouldn't have see my numbered league position, I would see the prize money figure I was currently sitting on. Prize money is a big aspect of the competition, and it's an integral part of what we're playing for. I do get what you mean, but the reality is that it's a matter of the season being cut off early, with the playoffs coming after the cut (they simply cannot be played). Morton finished 7th, our annoyingly natural position in recent history. I would still have much rather finished 5th, but I'm happier there than in 9th. I'd like to think we could have made 5th, but 7th has been a fair reflection of our season. In that I'm much happier being declared 7th than having the season declared null and void and not having any position for our efforts. That being said, if the season had been declared null and void, I'd be looking for a much bigger slice of the 'prize' money, as we would have earned precisely the same as everyone else.

I'm sure you wouldn't mind sharing out some of that prize money with clubs lower down in the division, then?

A fundamental problem of a top league of about 18 teams in Scotland is the massive financial gap which would exist between the it and the division below. It would be a bit like going from Premiership funding to League One funding in a single relegation.

By that same token, QotS were about to come up against the last 3 teams that they'd beaten. There are a whole load of unknowns and variables about the missing part of the season. What we do know is that Thistle were the worst team in the league this season at winning points at the time that the season ended. The relegation is both by merit and unfair at the same time, but it's not a massive injustice. It's just massively unfortunate.

What if a club votes for reconstruction, but the motion doesn't pass. Will they be forgiven or stay on the naughty list? Does a club come off the naughty list if it changes ownership? Is there a time limit to the naughty list?

That's a pretty massive 'if,' considering they hadn't won any of their last 10 games. There was no entirely fair solution in this. Thistle were unfortunate to be bottom when play stopped, but they were bottom entirely on merit. And due to the pretty awful situation in which the season had to end, Thistle will be relegated by that merit.

I hate the idea of a 14 team league. It has always been just about my least favourite idea in relation to league reconstruction. But if Budge and co. are going to try to push for this, I think they need to realise a few things very quickly: 1. It should not be a temporary measure. Having a Championship with 3 or 4 relegation places and potentially 4 relegated teams receiving parachute payments, are just two of the problems with this. Imagine trying to convince Ayr and Dundee that ICT should be promoted and they, along with the rest of the Championship clubs, should accept 3 or 4 relegation places next season. There are similar issues to this one in every division. 2. A split should be on a 6/8 basis. Undoubtedly unpopular with some, but it creates fewer problems than a 7/7 split. It allows for a less congested calendar for top teams, an extra two home matches for lower teams, and eliminates the need for a team to have to sit out 2 match days (an 8 split requires the same number of match days as a 7 split). I can already anticipate enough people hating the idea of a 6/8 split (whether that be about selling season tickets for x number of games or whatever else). 3. Automatically promoting teams in only one of three play-off positions is not a thing to be considered without also creating permanent positives outweighing this through reconstruction. Hearts, Thistle, and Stranraer shouldn't be able to pass on their problem to teams being denied a chance of promotion. Not gaining promotion can be every bit as damaging as relegation - this is largely ignored in the self-interest of the teams facing relegation. 4. It's never going to get voted through, however fair you try to be (and it doesn't even sound like their going to try anything other than insist on rectifying the great injustice.

So if they go for a temporary reconstruction - what does that mean for the distribution of prize money next season? Does that mean there will be 3 or 4 sets of parachute payments to deal with after next season? Why not just come up with a different financial settlement now and save us the hassle of the temporary reconstruction? In the temporary 14-10-10-10 scenario, does that mean 3 or 4 relegation places in leagues of 10 teams? How they going to get that voted through?

Which would still be unfair on the clubs in 3rd and 4th place. Reconstruction cannot produce a fair resolution. It might provide a positive path forward, if someone has a worthwhile longer term plan, but it shouldn't be just used as a mechanism to save clubs in relegation positions or automatically promote selected clubs in playoff positions - as if this is somehow fairer.

It could be that they had the rights to pick and choose up to a certain number of games for the completed 19/20 season, and completing the season means that the deal is complete - I don't know what the actual terms are. Voiding it might breach the contract in a way that declaring it complete doesn't. It will be down to the actual terms in the contract of what constitutes the rights of the broadcaster to games and what constitutes a breach of the contract. If the contract simply covers the season without stating what each match means financially, or a certain number of matches per week, then it would be very different to the type of contact the English Premier League has (which I think is to do with a number of matches per round). Without knowing what the contract actually states, it's impossible to say.

Again, why would there be a correlation between two entirely different types of contract?

Whatever flies or doesn't fly, legal speaking, will be down to what is on the contract. The contract between the SPFL and BT Sport is an entirely different thing to the contracts between BT Sport and their customers, for example. What you're suggesting doesn't follow whatsoever. I wasn't suggesting I have an inside knowledge of the actual contracts or reasons, just what my understanding was.

I thought one of the issues was that if it was voided then the current broadcasters would still be due the entire season. Declare it finished and they might claim back the money for unfulfilled fixtures, but declare the whole thing void and the risk is in declaring that none of the season's fixtures were actually fulfilled (since all matches are declared void). Which is an especially big problem considering the SPFL are moving from one broadcaster to another.

In terms of things like the TV deal for the season voided and for attaining European competition places, voiding causes some very major financial issues. I'm not sure the full financial package would there at all if the season was declared null and void. It's not a desirable option, and not an option that leagues around Europe I think will take.

That's not an equivalent situation. A single match is not the same thing as a season. Calling a match an event doesn't give it an equivalence to a different type of event. It is also the precedent in Scottish football because the match can be replayed at a later date. What is the precedent when the match cannot be replayed? In many competitions around the world, a match is not declared void in that situation but completed at a later date. And there are also examples when a result at the time of abandonment has stood especially when, like in this situation, it can't be played at a later date. In any case, the biggest issues surround the financial repercussions of voiding the season. This is where it is important to emphasise that a season is very different to a single match. One creates a relatively small financial issue, the other a very, very big one. The bottom line here is that voiding the season is not an option.

It's a terrible situation. There are three teams well on their way to winning their league and a tight promotion fight. There are a couple of teams well on their way to relegation (or a playoff in Brechin's case). There are plenty of playoff places up for grabs. But none of that can be finished - it just can't. The season cannot be voided either. So it ends the way it is now, with average points per game deciding positive. The playoffs cannot be played, so have been cancelled. Automatic promotion and relegation places are still in place. That's the situation. So clubs either accept that, or they don't. Perhaps clubs who don't accept it will be able to convince the other club to reconstruct the leagues in order to accept their vote. Or negotiate increased parachute payments. I would argue that any change should be made for the longer term, as an actual positive change. Whatever is done, it will be unfair on certain clubs. That's just the nature of it.

How could you play this season to a finish in 10 months time? Most players are out of contact at the end of next month. Accept it, the season is finished. A decision has to be made on that basis.

Do they not do that throughout the season, and then only the final payment is based on the extra amount on the final positions?

What does Dundee's statement mean, exactly? Do they think we can finish this season and then a full following season as well? How do clubs not lose significant revenue at some point?

Interesting point there if you're splitting the season so early, you could end up with teams with free weeks very close together if they are already out the cup. That being said, it would be extra midweek matches you would need to fulfill the extra match days. A 14 team League is an abomination of an idea, and the worst of all worlds.

Reconstruction should only happen if it produces a positive, longer term, way forward. However you draw the lines of reconstruction, without a season's advanced warning, it will be unfair on some teams. You would need a positive vision of a better way forward that a large majority of clubs to be happy with in order for it to be the best way forward. It shouldn't be used as a way to appease clubs in the short term.

McGinty has certainly stood out against Morton as being one of the worst in the league. It's bewildering that we seem to have strengthened a rival team by taking a player they wanted rid of, while taking on a player who hasn't at all looked good enough for this level of football. On the face of it, Thistle have played a blinder here.

We've already had 2 worse centre backs than Grant this season, and arguably a couple last season as well, so I'm not convinced at all by that. McGinty performances against us don't give me any confidence that he'll be any better than Grant.

I think that's the tenth time this season that we've conceded 3 or more goals, and 41 goals that we've now conceded in 16 away games (38 in 11 against full time opposition). We've been a wee bit better recently, but we're always likely to concede a few goals. There's nothing surprising about this result. We concede far too many goals to be at all likely to get a result.

He's still floating about on that lifeboat, stranded in the middle of the ocean of ex-managers.