Che Dail

As I understand it, the LL did not have a choice to go PPG - it was required of them. The EoS did have a choice, and the league's decision has been made with the agreement of the clubs. Any prior agreement to create a new Div 1 and Div 2 simply gets deferred to the season after next, i.e. 2022/23, because 2020/21 did not happen - it is null and void. So next season should be exactly what it would have been if the W Lothian Junior clubs had applied at the start. In my view, by all means nominate a worthy winner for promotion (i.e. Jeanfield to replace VoL), but the structure should remain exactly the same for 2021/22: Premier = 18 First = 3 x Conferences. And for subsequent seasons, you have Premier / First / Second. This approach doesn't over complicate things and doesn't punish anyone. Not least the clubs who didn't believe this season should have started in the first place.

"Please, NO views on side issues like PPG..." Yet the whole post that follows, and the new league structure you propose is calculated on exactly that basis. Null and Void means P0 W0 D0 L0 Pts 0. 12 clubs cannot be relegated to a Division 2 based on a season that basically does not count, as per the agreement.

"There was an agreement in place, 'but...'". But what? But there is an agreement in place - end of story. "it's very unfortunate on the teams being relegated..." has a very 'unfortunate' arrogant reek about it. One possible new proposal / question might be something like: "Answer Yes or No: Should a winner be nominated based on PPG over the past two incomplete seasons?". That way, at least there is one winner and nobody else is any worse off than they would be if the league stuck to the original agreement, which was with all the clubs. What's the problem having another season with 18 teams in the Premier?

Adults ages 18 or older will not be allowed to return to full contact training until Monday, May 17. Allow 3-4 weeks 'pre-season' to start w/c Monday 14th June. Players may be out of contract on 30th June. So 3-4 weeks preparation and cost for just 2 weeks competitive football (?), playing 3 or 4 games a week to get to 50%? It makes no sense at all. If the league can agree upon a winner based on PPG (over the past 2 incomplete seasons) to replace Vale of Leithen in the LL that's one thing - but when it starts to affect everyone else to their detriment, that's quite another.

But it already has been agreed: if the season can't get to 50% of fixtures it is null and void. And that's that - There should be no further discussion or entertaining any proposed changes at this late stage. Almost half the clubs did not believe the season should have started in the first place, and that viewpoint has now been vindicated. It must simply start afresh on exactly the same basis as this season, but with an extra conference. No promotion, no relegation and no penalties for any of the reluctant participants.

Nostradamus Broon... what a difference a pandemic makes.

Not really - is mostly based on probability.

Possibly not the former, but if that happens it wouldn't really harm most clubs. But on the latter point, there certainly is a risk of losing out on the Euros. This would come at a financial cost to licensed clubs at all levels because it will blow a big hole in the SFA profit and reduce the dividend shared out amongst its member clubs. Everyone suffers: we win together and lose together.

I think you're missing my (hypothetical) point, that in all likelihood people on the march will be involved in lower level football and therefore would be putting people at risk if all levels of play were allowed to re-start now. And ultimately that their actions do not help the cause or image of football in any way. So you make representation to the government that football can be trusted to follow the rules and guidance, when evidently it cannot.

Evidence from previous events would suggest otherwise - such as when they invaded the pitch at Hampden. 184 arrests.

I didn't say it was. But chances are some people at the big public gathering would ordinarily play in or be involved with 11 v 11 football club in some capacity. Or work in or visit or shoplift supermarkets, with or without a mask.

Yes, we're all entitled to opinion and to have a different attitude to risk and responsibility, and understanding the difference between needs and wants. Do you accept that there is a risk of transmission in hospitals, shops, supermarkets, public transport, shared car and coach travel, in changing rooms, in sports facilities, in public gatherings?

There's a lot more 'contact' in football than 90 minutes on the park. You have training twice or three times a week, and consequently travel between regions. Often with players, coaches, management, committee members piling in and out of shops and supermarkets and sports facilities before and after. Ground maintenance, cleaning and various other activities associated with putting a game on... all increasing contact and associated risk. Then there's the hospital visits for injuries. And there's folk who must go to the game: hanging off a ladder to peer over a fence or joining a committee to watch their laddie or create a mass march along with thousands of other imbeciles to celebrate a league win. Not a good look, embarrassing, yet some are now waving a Tory rag about saying it's all safe. And of course there's the effect it has on the rest of the population, "I can't go to a funeral, but football is entitled - how's that?". The Government did make an exception for elite and professional sport - which everything below the Premiership and Championship is not. The season for everyone else should not have been allowed to start at all - the decision to do so was a selfish one and damaging for the image of the game. We need to accept that football at this level is not an exceptional case and just fall in line with the rest of the country.

Pedant alert. (Pedant = a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning)

...has Scot Gov released the £30million grant to the SFA yet? Maybe they'll hold onto it a bit longer until it is shown they can act responsibly...

Why would you presume that? Most of the clubs referenced in the articles are asking to postpone matches for January and February, with the season continuing when it is hopefully safe(r) to do so. This is an entirely reasonable and responsible position to adopt. The Scot Gov emergency funding for sport is to help cover lost revenue... and there will continue to be no revenue through those months for football and rugby clubs, albeit with reduced ongoing costs through that period.

Now there's a statement from Maybole Juniors on Twitter proposing a break until February.

Statement from Dalbeattie Star: https://www.pitchero.com/clubs/dalbeattiestarfc/news/statement-2594377.html?fbclid=IwAR2xHoCcb39j05AhjelMEIXcaZu_2X4z7poU6QwgS7sFPFjs-_B3UHsdqBc

Good article - and written by a former 'semi-pro' player who knows the game very well at this level. A lot of what he's written echoes some of the submissions made on this thread last year, whilst all the giddy Scottish Cup anticipation was clouding others' judgement.

...games off but presumably still training twice a week and on days where games are postponed - so the activity has continued right through regardless...

The fact that NHS hospitals are stretched to breaking point is also a problem. What if a player breaks his leg during a game or a committee member crashes their car on the way to a game - they're not going to check into their nearest BUPA or Spire are they? Nairn v Broxburn for example: 2 West Lothian players overnight in a hospital in Inverness in December. I just think it is wholly avoidable and unnecessary. I agree - What harm would it do to stop for January and February until things ease up?

A winter break and extend the season into the summer? Maybe even an opportunity to change to summer football indefinitely. Lots of midweek games, lights not needed to fulfil the fixtures. So leave it from now until March(?) and hopefully supporters are allowed back in by then. It could even be optional, so for those who want to continue through Dec, Jan, Feb they can play fixtures out between them.

You're the one that wants clubs to go bust, or get relegated, and would probably enjoy it. I want clubs to survive this and think we should be looking out for EVERYONE, not just those in a majority vote.

No, because I don't know if they go along with the 'we're professional football, it must be played now at all costs' hypocrisy. You do submit to that, but can't get your pitch playable because you've not invested in it (i.e. costs). Go and speak to Sauchie, or Kelty (pre astro) who installed field drainage on their pitches. Then, once you've paid for that work (to the detriment of the playing budget), come back and tell everyone to 'just get on with it'. Level playing field... or not?