Coventry Saint

Yeah, 100%. SPFL board completely at the mercy of its own members and official voting procedures.

They'll pipe in that one sweary guy that they always have to apologise for.

It seems the legal challenge with the most legs (still no legs, but it's all relative) is the restriction of trade thing. Has anyone pointed out the irony that making this claim could restrict the trade of all the other clubs (it won't, but hypothetically), thus opening Hearts up to an identical counter claim?

A 408-page thread distilled to three words, ladies and gentlemen.

State of this Fawkirk guy You didn't get the memo: Partick were about to go on the same winning streak that Hearts were, despite them only having won 8 (eight) league games since the start of 2019.

Oh Partick. Partick, Partick, Partick. You haven't always 'kept your counsel', have you? If you recall correctly, you also said this, in April. So, they're not taking legal action, they live in the real world, and they're not looking for sympathy because they don't need it. Right-o.

I'm 'only' 41 so honestly can't remember the ins and outs of the time. However, I do know we went down not long after anyway. Some things are just meant to be, and sometimes it's pointless fighting them.

If reconstruction had been introduced on that occasion purely because we finished bottom, and we were the ones who suggested reconstruction because we finished bottom, and we threatened legal action if it wasn't implemented, then it might be a vaguely comparable circumstance.

I realise it's not a personal injury claim, but in that world there is such a thing as contributory negligence. Ie a settlement figure is agreed based on damages, but then only a percentage is awarded if the injured party was partly responsible. (A cyclist not wearing a helmet is a typical example.) So the question here would be, how much responsibility, as a percentage, would fall on Hearts for the fact that they were bottom of the league when Covid made it impossible to play any more games. I'd put that at about the 100% mark, personally.

In Leith, if you finish bottom, you get down.

What was the plan for relegation under normal circumstances? Genuine question.

She really needed to work on the wrist he used to control the ball, tbh. Five million losses for relegation. I'd be very concerned about the way Hearts are run, if I gave a f**k about them.

That'd be an ok compromise, IMO.

On a scale of inevitability, from 1 to Were Hearts Going Down Anyway, it's about a 9, sadly.

They put the 'dow' in 'going down'.

Aye, that'd be bonkers with white shorts.

That, to be fair, is magnificent.

That is brilliant. See, Joma? This shit doesn't need to be difficult.

This is correct, to be fair. I'm quite glad they chopped off the eight dead rubbers at the end of last season.

My point was more that they're voting in a way that harms their own chances of promotion next season. That's magnificent.

As I pointed out several pages ago - though it was lost in a sea of premature smugness - there's no way County and Hibs are voting to promote their rivals. And I still hope St Mirren will do the right thing.

There's something quite magnificently Scottish - and I mean this in the most complimentary way - about Championship clubs voting against something that will make their league easier to win, just to get it right round Falkirk, Thistle and Hearts.

Obviously I don't think it should be the responsibility of St Mirren to stop Scotland's worst-run team from getting relegated yet again, and if we vote to that effect it'll be entirely out of self interest. Nice to know how badly Hearts need us onside, though. We've got Hearts and Budge by the (wobbly chin) testicles.

My understanding is that relegation will remain the same, based on the fact there will be no reconstruction.

f**k knows what their plan was for when they were getting relegated after 38 games.