DC92

There's something in all of these posts but, on the other hand, there's also the fact that getting relegated is very, very embarrassing.

Calm down lads, you're arguing against a straw man. I've said plenty of times, including in the post you're all quoting, that there was no way to finish the games and ending the season is the only course of action. To summarise (again): playing 38 games was the only completely fair way to finish the season. Any other option is unfair, but unfortunately the fair option is not available.

Sorry, but those are literally the rules. "The Clubs for the time being entitled in terms of these Rules to participate in the Premiership shall, disregarding any abandoned or postponed matches, play in 38 League Matches in any one Season." Disregarding the abandoned and postponed matches, we have only played 30 games, not 38. I get that you're absolutely desperate for an argument going by your last two replies, but I'm not sure why given that I'm not arguing that we should play those games.

That's pretty much what my post said, yeah. I don't blame Budge for trying but she's on a hiding to nothing. If Hearts weren't caught up in this, I wouldn't necessarily expect them to care about saving the bottom team in the interests of "fairness" either. We had 8 games scheduled to play, which we were entitled to play according to the league rules, and now those have been cancelled. It's pretty obvious what I'm talking about unless you're being wide. And before anyone starts, I'm not saying they shouldn't have been cancelled. It's what had to happen, but it doesn't mean it's fair - a completely fair outcome isn't possible.

Even trying to be as objective as I can, I don't see how relegating teams with 8 games to go is more fair than reconstruction. The argument is that the teams in 3rd/4th place have as much a claim as the teams in 2nd, but those teams are being denied promotion by the current proposal anyway and they'd have a theoretically better chance of promotion next season with an expanded top league. If your argument is that we shouldn't have reconstruction because the current model is better then that's fair enough, but it's a different argument. What's happening now isn't happening because it's the fairest way, it's happening because it's the least inconvenient. That was always going to be the case because the SPFL is a members-run organisation and clubs will vote for their own interests, not out of altruism. We're one of the few getting shafted out of it and I don't necessarily blame Budge for trying to stop that, but it's a waste of time. I wouldn't expect us to give a f**k if it was someone else. I do blame Budge for making a catastrophic arse of running the club for the last 5 years, but that's another matter.

What's the prize pot for next season? I've seen £32m somewhere, which would be an increase of £7m (28%). That would leave a fair bit of room to bump up the percentages positions 13 and 14 (and add money for positions 43 and 44 if that's part of it) while still representing a significant increase in cash on this season for all clubs. Still, why would you vote for a 22/23% increase when you can have 28%? Now that the season's been resolved, there's zero incentive for most Premiership clubs to go for this, which is why Dundee's motivations are suspicious here. The only way league reconstruction had any chance was with a no vote, meaning clubs might have to compromise. If Budge's track record is anything to go by she'll make an arse of these proposals anyway.

There are two options at either end of the spectrum here: null and void or declare the season as is. Cases can be made for either of these options but both result in unfair outcomes for certain teams. For whatever reason, the SPFL have decided that the second option is the way it must be. To push this through, they have tied it to the distribution of money to clubs. This allows people to conflate the entirely reasonable protestations of some clubs with reckless selfishness. If the SPFL were pushing the "void the season" option instead with similar tactics then we'd have the same situation but with Celtic, Dundee United, Raith Rovers and Cove (entirely reasonably) pushing against it. You're kidding yourself on if you think otherwise. If the SPFL released the funds to clubs then this wouldn't be the case and clubs would be allowed to make the decisions without a gun to their head. Would this make it harder to find a consensus? Most likely, which is why the SPFL are doing it this way, but clubs having to reach some sort of compromise probably wouldn't be a bad thing.

I have no idea. As I've said before, the idea won't be entertained and we're doomed to get shafted here, but I presume it would involve Dundee United being promoted into a temporarily expanded top division. To avoid being relegated again, they simply have to avoid 12th, as they would if they're just swapped with Hearts. Prize money for each place would presumably remain exactly as it would otherwise. I'm not sure why any scenario which sees Dundee United promoted despite not having actually finished the season is a negative anyway.

How would Dundee United be negatively affected by a temporary reconstruction?

Am I missing something here? The WhatsApp screenshots appeared on Twitter at 14:06 today, before Gardiner's Sportsound interview. The content of the messages and the timestamps match up exactly with Gardiner's account (he quoted them verbatim).

A 1-0 win would have done it. Funnily enough, this would have meant St Mirren getting relegated on goal difference effectively because of a heavy defeat to Celtic a few days earlier. Trust this risible squad to squander such a glorious banter opportunity.

It would most certainly be fairer to actually play the games that all clubs are entitled to than to end the season without playing them and we already have a mid-season transfer window which theoretically allows teams to sign completely different squads. That rarely turns out well for them anyway. I agree there was never any chance of this season finishing, but the other option you mention of decoupling the prize money from the "football" decisions is entirely sensible because it allows clubs to make those decisions without a gun to their head. Anyway, regardless of what Dundee do, this seems like the option that's closest to a consensus and it's inevitably going to be pushed through at some point. I've already accepted that we're going to get shafted here.

Never mind the player recovery time, a 2-4 week turnaround between seasons is never going to happen because it gives teams no time to prepare for playing in a new division. Relegation clauses in contracts might mean they have to assemble an entire team in that time. Promoted teams also won't have time to adjust (see Dundee 2012/13) and will end up playing with a team of lower division players. Unless the season can restart in the next few weeks, which seems extremely unlikely, there aren't any "fair" options.

What is there to be subtle about? I don't want us to be relegated. Nor is there any reason we should accept relegation, given that the season didn't finish and survival was still in our own hands. Who knows what'll happen, but thankfully, Hibs fans' definitions of what we "deserve" don't really come into it. Also, given that we've finished in the top half every season apart from this one since appointing Cathro, that's a pretty daft conclusion anyway.

Semi-interestingly, there is some precedent for this in Yugoslavia in 1999. The 98/99 season was ended after 24 games and Partizan Belgrade were awarded the championship, but no-one was relegated. Instead, they promoted 4 teams from the league below and temporarily expanded from 18 to 21 teams for season 99/00. 5 teams we're relegated and 2 promoted at the end of the year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998–99_First_League_of_FR_Yugoslavia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999–2000_First_League_of_FR_Yugoslavia

Unless the league can restart by May, which seems unlikely, I can't see this season being finished. Player contracts, prize money and the knock-on effect it'll have on future seasons makes it a non-starter IMO. Voiding the season would be unfair, but so would relegating teams when there's still plenty of time to go. Either scenario opens up the possibility of legal challenges. To me, the least unfair scenario is a compromise between the two. The league table is taken as final and Celtic are declared champions*, teams are given 80% of the prize money based on league position and the rest is distributed equally. No-one is relegated from any division and the top league is (temporarily or otherwise) expanded to accommodate two more teams. This solution rewards clubs based on their current position and also protects them from the most severe consequences. It isn't ideal, but in the absence of actually being able to finish the season, I think it's the least bad option.

Relegation would be a disaster that could set us back years. Given that none of the outcomes are "fair" anyway, I heavily favour the "get out of jail free" option, thanks. In sure 99% of football fans would say the same in our situations.

What's with Hearts fans saying "I don't care if we're relegated because of this" or "I'd rather we finished the season and got relegated than stayed up because of this"? Liars and weirdos.

Another utterly minging performance and result against a bottom 6 team. As I said at the weekend, we have no idea how to win these games. We're 100% going down and thoroughly deserve to do so. The "play shite, go behind and then chuck 5 people up front" tactic is wearing thin too. Fucking clueless from Stendel.

Maybe, but we failed to win again. It's the mentality that I'm worried about more than the quality of the players. There just seems to be a mental block there that stops us winning the run-of-the-mill games when we're expected to. As the margin of error gets smaller, the pressure's only going to get bigger. Wednesday will be a big test of whether we've actually turned a corner. Another draw is no good.

Not having a go, but I'd be a lot more encouraged by this fact if we'd won more than one game all season against the bottom six. We have no idea how to beat teams that sit in against us and that's the situation we're probably going to face in almost all of our remaining games. Wednesday is absolutely huge. Arguably our biggest game for years. If we win, we'll be level with St Mirren and within striking distance of Hamilton and Ross County*, with Ross County to come at home before the split. If we lose, we're pretty much fucked, barring a miracle. * Making the fairly massive assumption that Rangers don't f**k it up again tomorrow.

A one goal defeat will do it. Let's be honest, though, that's not happening. We're doomed.

Back to playing like brainless idiots then. Good stuff.

This is literally just a description of three normal goals. Penalties are lucky. Worldies are lucky. Breakaway goals featuring non-existent deflections are lucky. What actually qualifies as a legitimate, non-lucky goal in your eyes? The two "half-chances" in the first half were far better chances than anything you created until the 89th minute, as was the sitter Naismith missed near the end. I genuinely have no idea what the "early chances" you're talking about are. We put three goals past you on your own park and could have scored more, despite the fact you avoided a very obvious red card in the first half. Now you're claiming it's embarrassing for anyone to say your team got pumped and humiliated. What a fucking brass neck.