themillerman1979

Of course Malty. Can you define “sensible” ?

Point well made Allan ... haha. But it’s not like we’ve got anywhere else to be!! The sooner we all get back to watching football instead of talking about it the better!

I think words like “in all likelihood” leave it a little open. They also say “a final decision will be made by the board”. Nothing the EOSFL have come out and said lately seems to unequivocally state null and void will be the outcome. I think it looks more like they have given themselves some breathing space to evaluate everything and give the leagues the best possible chance to conclude in some format. In fact, reading that it seems that Null & Void is the absolute last thing the EOSFL board want and any viable alternative to conclude the season will correctly be considered.

No problem. Enjoy you’re evening. Certainly hope I’ve not caused any offence and wish you and Blackburn the best going forward. Regardless of how all this pans out, hopefully everyone realises getting back to playing football in front of fans is a success regardless of what the leagues look like.

I’d say Leith, Luncarty and Jeanfield to name 3. And that’s just on a PPG basis. If they can conclude the season which I think should be a priority. Then Tranent would be up there as favourites given points are in the bag. Heriot Watt likewise. There’s also an argument to say teams such as Musselburgh, Linlithgow, Broxburn etc may prefer to play Vale of Leithen in the next season as they would view them as weaker than Tranent, Jeanfield or Penicuik. (Note, I’m using examples of the best PPG based teams. Not intending on offending any teams I’m not throwing into the promotion mix)

Desperate is wanting to end a league to save your skin. I understand it but you are not going to have a balanced discussion when it’s so obvious that you’d rather the majority suffer to preserve your teams Premier League status. Equally, arguing blindly that PPG is the solution would obviously be wrong. Options being tabled that are workable would be considered sensible by level headed people. Surely even you would agree that concluding the season that’s currently underway is the fairest way to crown champs and relegate the poorest performers? If possible why not consider it if it is the best solution for the majority? The so called “best league in the world” paused their season and then restarted it and allowed teams to finish a season and crown champions and relegate the lowest points scorers. They then had a short break and restarted with a new season. The pause option here is similar. I personally would hate to see Tranent/ Jeanfield/Penicuik etc miss out in an opportunity to take a Lowland League spot because of a narrow minded viewpoint that preserves the poorer teams in leagues but fails to reward the best performers.

But surely that’s unfair to everyone Burnieman? if your teams been good you are punished. If you’re team has been poor you’re rewarded/reprieved.

That’s incorrect. you can’t have contact training until 17th May. Teams can implement training methods that work players with the ball. Fitness, shooting, passing, crossing etc can all be worked on. the 17th May date is for contact training as I read it and for organising inter club matches. if teams were to spend 3/4 weeks working in fitness, touch, shooting, passing etc prior to this then come 17th May straight into a couple of warm up games then competition, SFA/government relaxations permitting of course.

Place them in a tier below the current conferences? Top gets promoted or top 2? Easy enough to establish the permutations for that I’m sure.

Would this not have been known at the outset? In agreeing null and void they would be ineligible to declare a champion club surely? If so, they’ve changed the rules to adapt to the current situation. A change which, from what I read, was voted on but the members and passed. So again, why is it ok for the LL and HL to do so and match their clubs ambitions but not for the EOSFL to do so?

It’s a strong point. Decisions are made and I agree only exceptional circumstances should merit changing them. Whether these circumstances are exceptional is what the discussion will centre around at the EOSFL. What is different from these circumstances and those experienced in the Lowland / Highland however? They are voting to change rules and keep the pyramid moving. The argument could be that they’ve not completed a season so how can they be promoted and Brechin (example purposes) be relegated if they win a playoff? the HL and LL committee have reviewed the options and decided that a mistake was made in saying they’d null and void if 50% of games weren’t completed. Exceptional circumstances which could be to the detriment of Vale of Leithen and circumstances which mirror the situations Jeanfield, Luncarty and Leith are currently in.

Malty, something we agree on! Another potential option for concluding a season tabled. Please don’t let me down and tell me that you’ve investigated this and it preserves your team! (That is meant jokingly and rhetorical). And whilst null and void was the plan, not sure we can call it a legal position unless you’re Ann Budge in disguise??

Not a bad shout either. The Null and Void option was made without the knowledge of any other available options. If this debate has served to do anything it’s show that there are other viable alternatives out there and there is an appetite from most to see the pyramid find it’s true form and move the conferences into tiers.

Not a bad suggestion to restart where we left off. Only question mark will be what to do with new entrants which could be overcome. Doesn't adversely punish anyone and gives the players who are concerned about having to play too much plenty free time as one game a week should suffice for the whole season. Poor performing teams don’t get a full reprieve but do get an opportunity to play their way safe, and better performing teams are left with their advantage intact.

I take on board your points, but tend to disagree. Over a length of time I’d actually agree. but we’re talking about the worst affected teams needing to play a maximum of 8 games. That’s 4 weeks of 2 games per week. I do agree with you however that if some players decide against playing it does disadvantage teams. So that point is entirely valid and would suggest that clubs are canvassed along with their playing staff to discuss this. I suppose the difficulty again is trying to get honest answers as opposed to clubs looking at self preservation.