Ric

You've misspelled Budge's persistent whining..

I'm all for 4 down in an 18 team league. It won't happen but I'd be interested to see how it went.

The 4 times a season for me is a nonsense because it's not just league games, if you include Bet Fred groups, then possible replays later on in that competition, then possible replays in the Scottish Cup it could be easily double that. It's unlikely, of course, but not impossible. Then there is the fact that 4 times a season, in general, helps the OF dominate. You might take the odd game or two off them, but it's unlikely you'll take all 4. Again, not impossible. So, aside from the tedium, there is the possible repetitive nature and the benefit it gives the bigger clubs (esp the OF). As it's 11v1 and both OF clubs won't vote to make things easier for "lesser" competition, then add in the pressures of the broadcasters who really couldn't care less so long as they have enough OF derbies to fill their schedules, it will always be that way. It's so annoying we have painted ourselves into a corner here.

Could it be argued that Scottish teams were at their most successful in Europe when we had an 18 team league, and (although I would need to check this as it might equal the mid 80s) I believe it delivered the most diverse number of teams to win the title? Is that correlation? Oh, sure it is, you could perhaps argue that there is now far greater competition in Europe so maybe Celtic (Porto) and Rangers (Zenit) getting to finals rather than winning them (Inter Milan / Dynamo Moscow) was a more impressive task.

I see you are in no way bitter at being proven wrong the other day. You need to let go with the anger, it'll consume you you know.

You say, justified, I say no they are not, you say why, I tell you why. There is nothing obtuse about that.

Which is why they would not be justified in halving their payment if it's half the number of OF games. We all know the realities of the situation of course and they have a far greater weighting than they should.

Aren't you meant to sound a horn? It's been a while, so maybe things have changed around here.

Because it's assuming that the entire package is solely based on OF games.

Er... no.

Anyone agreeing with a temporary reconstruction is simply admitting that it's purely in place to allow Hearts to avoid the drop. I doubt many Hearts fans themselves would agree to it.

You just keep on clutching at this particular straw. There is no way I can prove to you that my comments are not based on self interest. Even if you totally ignore everything I have written so far, it's a Cartesian argument and thus unresolvable. What's more it's almost irrelevant. The facts of the matter are very clear. You are bottom of the league, you are bottom of the form league for 6 games, you are below us in the form league for the last 10 games. In this season you have have failed to beat the club directly above you, you have failed to beat the club 2 places directly above you and your manager has failed to put out a team that is capable of beating us, a team 3 places above you. But, hey, of course all that would have changed if only you had the chance to prove it. Well the facts don't lie, there is not a single shred of evidence to back up your claim of some Lazarus like survival. Is it a fair situation? Of course it's not, I've never said it was. Are Hearts fans annoyed? Clearly they are, but perhaps turn your ire to your club who have abjectly failed you and not onto others who are, rightly, pointing out the realities of the situation.

League is finished. You finished 12th. There are 12 teams in the league. You finished last. Accept it, failing to do so only makes you look childish.

This is the problem Hearts fans think this is all about them, it's so self absorbed. It's whoever was in the last position at the time.

You absolutely completely did, and to deny it is just pathetic.

Seriously, what has that got to do anything? Are you playing the same card as some have in that "Hearts are too big to go down". Let's look at it, they have had a massive advantage over all the other clubs around them. They have a bigger budget, they can afford to sack a manager mid season (and continue paying both) they have a bigger squad, they have a bigger game day revenue, they have a "sugar mommy" and a foundation that is pumping millions into their club. They have had all the benefits clubs like ours have not, yet they still found themselves at the bottom of the league. They have failed, and that is the simple fact of the matter. Have you forgotten that for decades their fanbase has castigated our club for their previous failure? Is it unfair to relegate them? I'd argue it's unfair NOT to relegate them, yet through their persistent whining they seemed to have manipulated themselves into a position where they won't be. If we were bottom of the league now, I can guarantee you reconstruction wouldn't even be close to a topic being discussed. What's more I am on record multiple times saying that if the positions were reversed I would have accepted that relegation was expected. Would I be happy? No, but then I have a grasp on reality.

Sorry fellow bud, but that, quite frankly is nonsense.

Maybe you should ask Sky as ultimately they will be the ones that decide the matter.

Not necessarily. I've got used to Hearts fans whining like children about 1986 so I think I'm more immune to that. The club though has seemed to be working on the premise that they are too important for bad stuff to happen to them even. It's touching on a Rangers delusion.

I don't think many clubs have come out of this well, but Hearts have effectively sounded like a spoilt child. Imo, of course.

Hearts fans complaining about the conduct of other teams is, I believe, "a minter".

I'm sure that's just someone "at it", as (a) UEFA wouldn't allow it, and (b) the English don't want them.

It's just embarrassing, isn't it?

I have to apologise here, I was using the blanket term of juniors when it's clearly not the right one. Does it all just come under the banner of amateur?