Spikethedee

Apparently, these are "exceptional, unprecedented times", so it wouldn't hurt too much to look at some kind of leeway/dispensation for short-term deals to deal with this???

The Leagues/individual clubs should at least be looking in to the feasibility of small, pay-per-view or free-to-air contracts with TV channels for individual matches/packages of matches as a fallback option. You may not be able to look at top flight games due to the SKY contract, but having say, Dundee v ICT, or Dunfermline v Raith on BBC Alba, STV, Premier Sports or whatever might be a big enough draw for TV companies, as I'm pretty sure everyone would be happy to see some kind of live football, even if it's behind closed doors. This is only a stopgap option, to at least provide some kind of extra income if we can't have crowds back to start with - 65% to home team, 25% to away team and the rest into a shared pot for all clubs perhaps???

For next season only, have two divisions in Scotland - current Premiership & Championship as Top League, and current League1 & League 2 as Lower League. Scrap the League Cup and start the season with a playoff between current bottom of Championship & Top of League 1 for right to play in top league next season. The two leagues play out as normal, with top 12 and bottom 10 in the top league making up the top two leagues for the season after, and top 10, bottom 10 in the second lower league making up the two lower leagues for the season after. If the Highland League & Lowland League champions want in on the action, then they and the bottom of League 2 take part in a mini tournament at the same time as the playoff mentioned above.

Just thinking about it a bit more, would a shortened season of a top 12 Premiership with a split after home & away fixtures then top 6 & bottom 6 playing home AND away, be able to be fitted in? My dodgy maths makes that 22 games pre-split, then 10 after the split. Not sure when the season would need to start to accommodate that, but could be worth a look if not losing out on you-know-what is the big thing for SKY???

The fact that Sky have shown that the pandemic has had an impact on the service that they can offer to their subscribers could be argued to have set a precedent that the situation requires a loosening of contractual obligations, at least in the short-term. Taking example figures - Sky, instead of paying £150 million for 3 seasons of SPFL football, could pay £160 million for 3 whole seasons and the shortened season caused by playing this season to a full conclusion. Everyone gets sporting integrity, the SPFL get a guaranteed TV deal, and SKY get an extra 2 Bigot-Bowl matches (rather than 4 for 3 seasons, they get 2 in one season and 4 for the final 3, presuming neither gets relegated or misses the split (which would be fucking hilarious)). ETA maybe even an extra Bigot Bowl, if they still decide to split the top flight after 2 sets of fixtures for the shortened season...

Even so, it would be a monumental risk on Sky's part to renege on a deal of £150 million+ (I think that was the figure I heard) due to medical and governmental advice that football couldn't be recommenced until whatever date is finally agreed. Even Sky Sports subscribers were (eventually) given rebates/discounts on subscriptions due to the lack of live sport, so they would surely be on shaky legal ground cancelling a contract due to a late start/diminished number of matches etc??? I'm sure the SPFL would be happy to agree a further season of the deal at the end of the current one, maybe even at a reduced rate to allow for a better average figure over how many seasons it is???

The SPFL seem to be under the impression that the Sky deal will fall through if the (Premiership League) season doesn't start on the scheduled date of sometime in early August. That appears to be a bit of an odd assumption, particularly if the medical advice/government guidelines haven't changed significantly enough to allow that to happen. Do they seriously think that Sky will bugger off if the league can't be started under these circumstances? If so, then they are deluded. If not, then they must realise that there is flexibility enough to prolong this season and shorten the next one? They can always organise some special Bigot-Bowl matches to make up for the perceived loss of "big games" next season??

If BBCS had any kind of balls, they would simply refuse to cover any ***-related news stories until this ridiculous boycott was completed. Commentate on matches and mention results, but they got no coverage of press conferences, signings etc. Never going to happen, though.

I would suggest 25% wanting to piss off the DABS and 75% wanting a chance to see how the season pans out....

So, the myriad problems with your myriad problems Ad Lib (can't be arsed thinking u a suitably insulting take on your username because I'm not a sad c**t) are that: 1. Sport IS different. You have to have a level playing field when it comes to actual games. You can't have one team starting a match with 18 players, because they have a big squad, against one with 11, that just isn't fair. You can, however, employ as many accountants, customer service advisors etc etc, as you can afford in other companies and have them working all at once. 2. I am not saying that players can't employ other players, they have to only play the players they would have done if the season had ended when it should have done. As I said, any player or club in my scenario can refuse to sign/agree the extended contract, they would just have to accept the consequence - a player couldn't play for anyone else (a club could sign him and pay him, but would be unable to play him), a club would see the player become a free agent and be eligible to sign for a rival club and potentially harm their own chances of winning the remaining matches. 3. I noted that teams can sign free agents, who other clubs have let go because they didn't want to agree to an extended contract. Most teams will have been furloughing players for some time by the time the season could re-start, and may also have had the additional money that other Government schemes allow them to apply for. Some teams even had the foresight to insure themselves against such possibilities. So there you have it, no employment laws broken, people and companies just having to accept the consequences of their actions if they don't want to finish the season as it should have been, which is the very essence of sporting farness, So I shall stay at home and thank my lucky stars that I'm not an annoying p***k like you.

Please see my (excellent!!) post on page 59 which covers all this and proves that playing this season to a conclusion, and having a potentially shorter 2020/21 season is the fairest way forward...

I've been looking back over some of the responses to my earlier post about the best way forward is to delay the start of next season and have a shorter season if necessary. The main issues appear to be about player contracts etc. After a lot of thinking (ie "working from home"), I've got this to add: Sport is different from a lot of other fields of employment. Of course, footballers are subject to employment law and all the rights, responsibilities and protections that ensures. However, sport also exists with what, for the purposes of this post (and also because I can't be arsed looking to see if there is a proper term), I'll call "sporting laws" For example, sporting law means that you can't decide to play for another team in the middle of a season and get a transfer and then decide after a few weeks that you aren't happy there and get a transfer to a third team in the same season. Of course, in the "real world" you can decide to work for McDonalds one week, leave and start and Burger King the next week and then leave and go to KFC the week after. So, in that vein, FIFA/UEFA could issue a sporting law that the current season will last until whatever date is practical to play out the season when the lockdown ends. To keep things simple, I'll suppose that date is 30th September (obviously, any date can be substituted in here). Therefore, all current contracts that are due to end this season (whether that be a set date or not in any individual contract) will be open to be extended until 30th September. The transfer window will remain closed until 1st October. Any player that doesn't wish to extend his contract doesn't have to do so, but, with the window closed, players would have no other teams to play for. If a club doesn't want to extend the contract, the player would become a free agent and be able to sign for another club as per the current set-up if you are without a club at the end of a transfer window. Therefore, any player would, at the worst, be on his current contract for a few months extra, with no loss of money. If his club is unable, or unwilling, to keep him on, he would be able to sign for anyone else, just as he would have been at the end of a regular season. Players would be covered under employment law, as they would either be in the same position as just now, or able to sign a new contract with another team, or barred under sporting law from playing for another team just because they didn't want to stay where they are, as under the current system with transfer windows and the 2 c;ubs per season rule. Please pick the holes in this as you normally would...

Firstly, that's a ridiculously stupid rule - we have a play-off that affects two leagues, but only one of them can vote to cancel/change them? Insanity. Secondly, if the play-off candidates finish the season, and have the play-off games, it would be almost impossible, IMHO, for the top flight clubs to weasel out of the final two games without looking like immense cowards and self-serving p***ks. (Not much of a change there, for Scottish football, I suppose.)

If finishing the season means playing out the remaining games and playoffs as per the schedule at the start of the season, then there should be no logical reason for Ayr, ICT, Dundee, Arbroath & Dunfermline to vote for these proposals. All have a decent to strong chance of finishing in the play-off spots and potential promotion as it stands and it would be almost criminally negligent of them to vote against this (might actually be criminal for boards to vote for something that their shareholders see as detrimental to the club (ie business), but not 100% sure on that).

This appears to have a "worst of all worlds" flavour about it: Finishing some leagues but not all implies that circumstances to complete one league will exist, but not for the other three (5 if you include Highland & Lowland, but don't know if that's specifically included), which is nonsense. Having promotion/relegation but not play-offs is just pushing the legal challenge route down a level or two, not getting rid of it. There is still uncertainty about when and if the season will finish and language such as "looking at possibilities" is just code for "well, we will have to say something, so we will essentially say nothing of consequence". Pretty much as expected, then...

I found a picture of the 2009/10 away kit that I have no memory of, but really liked...

It was actually the earlier Sampdoria style one I had, the Kelly's Copiers one. Although, I think I no longer have it, due to a temperamental tumble dryer. The other tops I had when a kid were the lovely home one with the red and white diamonds down the sleeve (82-ish?), and the plain white away top the season before we had the home top with the red and white band around the middle - mid 80's, probably 84-85? That top with the diamonds on the sleeve I thought was hideous at the time, but it is a bit of a retro classic now. I was just about the only Dundee fan at my school, all the rest were DABS, so would wear every time for PE, just to stand out from the tangerine minks that surrounded me!! My favourite home kit was the Novafone one with the red and white stripes on the shoulders - that was the Tommy Coyne & Keith Wright era.

My favourite strip was the "Argentina style" pale blue & white one. All I've got left now in my collection is the pale blue "j-search" away strip from the cup final, the UEFA cup one from the season after and the Sampdoria style away one. I did also have the hydro-electric away top with "The Dees" on the back of it, but some barstool stole it from my house while I was on holiday in about 2000!! They actually went through my drawers (ooooh, matron) and took it out and nicked it!!!!! At least the burglar had taste.....

Firstly, why wouldn't clubs be able to afford to employ players after their contracts should have ended? Clubs always have players on their books (except in extreme circumstances) and most would be eligible to get the additional loans/grants beyond the furlough scheme if they thought they would encounter difficulties. (Indeed, even if they thought they could afford to pay staff, they could always get the money, put in an account and pay it back later and get at least a little interest.) Secondly, my main point is/was that it may have some problems, mostly around contracts as you say, but they are, IMHO, lesser problems then the total shitshow that would ensue from legal challenges etc from the other scenarios.

This makes completing the season as is, no matter how long it takes, much more likely IMHO (and a good job too!). On a kind of related note, as loan players furloughed by their parent club or the club they are on loan at??

Fair enough, player contracts are usually up at a set date, however, special circumstances are in operation here and most players will be delighted to have the chance to continue playing once football comes back. Not sure many will want to be furloughed for a second longer than necessary. A suspension of the transfer window until each team has finished their season will give clubs and players the chance to extend their contracts if needed and re-draw ones for other players with deals until next year if needed. Not an ideal solution, but much better than going down the other routes mentioned above.

I'm still struggling to see what the major issue is with playing out the season to an end whenever the restrictions are lifted? If it goes into another "year", what does it matter? We can have a shortened next season, or even miss out a season altogether if things go on even longer. It's so much better than either essentially voiding 9 months work (July - March), causing legal arguments with promotion/relegation/play-off/Euro qualification spots or picking some arbitrary cut-off point to look at a league table that never existed (teams having played their halfway or two-thirds game at different times). I wouldn't care less if we got promoted via the playoffs in the 2019/20 season or the 2019/20/21 season, it's the fact that every team had the opportunity to play all their games that they expected at the start of the season that is the important thing IMHO. The appetite for watching any football at all, (yes, even another tedious 1-1 draw with ICT) will mean, I'm sure, that whenever we return to league business, there will increased attendances and a greater appetite for the game across all levels, please don't arse it up by having stupid arguments about voided titles, promotions that weren't justified or non-existent play-offs. Just get back to the football and be thankful.....

BBC Sport site today reporting that, according to the clubs, voiding this season is "not on the agenda" at their latest meeting. Voided season it is, then...

Not sure if that's his trophy cabinet or he's a burglar!!!! Legendary 'tache too...

Sorry to disagree again, but my abiding memory of him is the "save" attempt during the fizzy juice final against the sheep. I was watching in the Uni sports bar with my mates and just laughed out loud at the hilarious awfulness of it...