SpoonTon
-
Posts
1,723 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by SpoonTon
-
-
I don't see any real chance of the type of bail out which would allow clubs to skip a season. There always a chance of some sort of additional funding for the SPFL or SFA to help in specific ways, but it won't prop clubs up.
The bottom line is that the SPFL as a whole, and all the individual clubs, are going to have to find a way of operating without fans at games for a period of time, and perhaps then a period with restrictions on crowds. This certainly isn't impossible, but a hell of a lot of work is going to have to be done to get there - and all of the clubs' efforts need to be focused on doing this.
0 -
2 hours ago, Alibi said:
How can you play games when the players aren't allowed close enough to each other to put in a tackle? Are squads expected to be tested regularly for CV19 and to live in isolation? What happens when the inevitable CV19 outbreak occurs amongst players? I can't see football at our level happening until at lest August 2021. It doesn't stack up either financially or in terms of basic health and safety for the players, to whom the clubs and the league have a duty of care. Any of you that have had CV19 other than a very minor case will know that it absolutely wipes you out physically for a long time (or in extreme cases wipes you out permanently). No responsible club could ask players to sign up to that.
If there is no football until August 2021 at our level, how will there be any clubs left to resume playing? You'd need some sort of government bailout to prop clubs up for a year.
Society will need to live with test, trace, isolate for the foreseeable future, and football will need to do the same. If football cannot be played until August 2021, then I'm going to be home-schooling until August 2021 as well.
0 -
47 minutes ago, TheScarf said:
I said effectively.
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.
3 -
47 minutes ago, TheScarf said:
Effectively now, the season has been declared finished for Hearts, Partick, Stranraer, Cove, Raith, United and Celtic, but Null and Void for every other club as there’s no play offs.
I'm sure you wouldn't mind sharing out some of that prize money with clubs lower down in the division, then?
2 -
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.
2 -
2 hours ago, Nightmare said:
We’ve got a 100% record against Caley this season (somehow) so I’d disagree that it’s a “pretty massive if” that we’d beat them again.
We’re also the only team to have played Dundee United four times, and had that shambolic officiating decision against Queens which would have given us the three point swing required to be ahead of them right now. I do agree in principle that we’ve been the poorest team this season, though, and have said for months that we deserve to go down (I think if this season were played to a finish both us and QotS would have), but at the same time we’ve been very unlucky with how it’s all played out.
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.
3 -
13 minutes ago, Sting777 said:
Every penny of my “football money” will be spent at my club from today onwards unless a favourable reconstruction comes through. Joined Centenary Draw last week, will get a season ticket tomorrow (haven’t had one since the 80s) No more away games for me. Might be detrimental to the support of the players at away games but afraid I cannot give my money to certain teams. Exceptions are ICT, East Fife and all other NO voters.
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?
4 -
1 hour ago, BairnBrainBrian said:
What is 'sporting' about relegating a team that has played fewer games and would not be bottom if they won the game in hand.
I know the situation has to be resolved sometime, but the whole thing stinks. The Dundee fiasco is extremely suspect, who knows how many pieces of silver they have been promised.
I can picture the crooked boards trying to find a way to keep Hearts up too.
If reconstruction happens, we can be sure it will be a dug's dinner.
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.
3 -
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.
3 -
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?
0 -
22 hours ago, Ad Lib said:
The proposal isn't 14-14-14, it's 14-10-10-10.
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.
3 -
4 hours ago, bad chad said:
Because it's fundamentally the same - I can't ask BT to return my cash for the services theyve provided - and that I've consumed - up to this point.
BT also cant do this to the league - IN MY LIMITED OPINION.
It's a good faith issue. We've supplied, they've consumed.
You may be a Contract lawyer, and will therefore be far more knowledgeable than me on this, if so fair play.
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.
0 -
11 minutes ago, bad chad said:
I'd be shocked if that would be the case - heads would have to roll if they've signed a contract that provides product without renumeration.
I've been looking at some of my supplier contracts due to this, and there's no remote possibility that I would be able to claim money back for a product or service I've used.
And it DOES fly - TV companies are already providing pauses and credits due to the situation, as they know that they wouldn't have a hope of winning a legal case.
Again, why would there be a correlation between two entirely different types of contract?
0 -
5 minutes ago, bad chad said:
That'll never fly legally - they've had the 'benefit' of the product up to now, so can't ask for a refund on it.
Otherwise they'd have to start paying back THEIR sponsors and the customers that pay their monthly subscriptions.
Things cannot be unwatched. I'm a Thistle supporter - I've tried.
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.
0 -
29 minutes ago, bad chad said:
I might be asking a stupid question(!) here, but why would broadcasters and sponsors ask for their money back if the season was voided, but not if the season was called to a close?
Both lead to the same outcome from their point of view.
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.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Dee Man said:
What about voiding the season but working out a financial package for each team similar to what they were going to get from the current proposal?
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.
0 -
31 minutes ago, Fifespud said:
Why can’t it be? As I’ve said several times if you’re 5 up in a midweek game and there’s a total power failure the match is null and void - that’s the football precedent when an event is incomplete.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.
5 -
7 hours ago, m4d said:
True, and a fair point. Either it’s a non starter or everyone accepts that squads will be a bit different when we eventually start again. It just doesn’t sit right that the season is decided on 3/4 of the games or that it is just wiped from existence. Those appear to be the most likely options though.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.
4 -
18 minutes ago, m4d said:
Bottom line is it was far too early to vote to end the season. Who knows when football will be able to return. We could be 10 months in which case we could then just play this season to an end.
Financially that may not pan out but, if we end the season now, we could be in a position to start playing again with not enough time to play even half a season.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.
0 -
8 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:
What's stopping the SPFL just voting to hand out the minimum payments for each league to clubs - or whatever proportion of that they have right now?
Do they not do that throughout the season, and then only the final payment is based on the extra amount on the final positions?
0 -
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?
0 -
1 hour ago, stewartyftd1 said:
Yeah a one week break won’t cause too many issues I don’t think. Clubs have free weeks throughout the season if knocked out of cup competitions so one extra free week wouldn’t be an issue.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.
0 -
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.
2 -
35 minutes ago, thistledo said:
You've arguably added one of the worst in the league. For any team signing our defenders I'd be seriously concerned, we've not kept a clean sheet in the league all season and a number of games we've been absolutely ridiculed. Even Penicuik should have scored against us.
What a transfer window this has turned out to be.
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.
0
Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship
in Scottish Championship General Chatter
Posted
That depends on the particular situation of each club.
The idea that there would 'zero income' is incredibly pessimistic.