Left Back
-
Posts
6,711 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Left Back
-
-
7 minutes ago, pipedreamer said:
If there is no time to play out the campaign then the leagues decide how to finish, that will include how to decide a champion club.
Much like the SPFL deciding amongst themselves last season to cancel a playoff that they were only 50% decision on.
There is nothing in the spfl or sfa playoff rules that states how a champion has to be decided to play in the pyramid playoff.
Those same rules also state that the playoff can be modified by the spfl but can’t be cancelled unilaterally by one party of the agreement. The only reason the spfl got away with that shenanigan last season is the Scottish gov suspended all football indefinitely. Right now the games can take place with teams testing as per sfa/spfl rules.
As I said, completely at it. In the post you quoted it stated how the champion was to be arrived at. If I bothered to check the LL rules I guarantee it will state similar.
as for the rest of your nonsense go and dry your eyes and grow up.
0 -
9 minutes ago, Big Dougie said:
The LL called the league without a vote last season, making Kelty champs.. it’s possible they could do the same this season and declare Kelty the champion club?
My understanding is they met and all agreed to end the season last season. It won’t have been arbitrarily handed down by the league body. They also agreed on no relegation which would have helped get the agreement.
0 -
38 minutes ago, pipedreamer said:
The rules only state a champion is provided to the playoff, they don’t detail how that champion has to be decided. The HFL could decide Brora are champions and put them forward and ditto the SLFL for Kelty.
Yes, by calling the leagues, which would require a vote, same as it did last season. Good luck getting those votes through if no more games are played, especially in the HL.
If either/or are null and voided there is no champion. Show me anywhere it states one can be elected (as seems to be another of the big misconceptions being bandied about here).
ETA rule 50 from the Highland League. Anyone that thinks a champion can be arrived at in any other way is at it.
“At the end of each competition the Club scoring the highest number of points will be declared the Champion Club”
Goal difference is also covered under the same rule before people start firing in with that
1 -
14 minutes ago, Tynierose said:
Pro rata and less tax m9. The consultant on 100k got same as front line worker in covid hub on 28k a year. Seems fair.
Its devolved, nhs Scotland can give whatever they want pay wise its not controlled by England.
If you look at AFC pay scales Scotland is slightly higher than England so they have options to do what they want
Doesn't help unions are shite and as a former national board member of Britain's largest nurse union I know they're shite.
SG are making nosies that they will look at it in the weeks ahead.
Are you saying there was a “baseline” of £500 and this increased the more you earned, so the £100k consultant got close to £2k? I remember the £500 announcement but didn’t look at it beyond that.
0 -
20 minutes ago, Thereisalight.. said:
Tbf at least they still have jobs. Thousands are on the job scrapheap right now and it's only going to get worse
Give the unemployed NHS wages.
1 -
2 minutes ago, madwullie said:
I was watching a documentary the other night, and apparently Myanmar has (one of?) the highest road death rates in the world, because one of the generals consulted a shaman, who advised that he change the side of the road they drive on overnight. So now cars drive on the same side of the road that all the cars there have the steering wheel on.
I think they have bigger things to worry about than that right now.
1 -
2 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:
And the other side of that would be that by null and voiding or not declaring a champion before the SPFL Playoff the "HL Champion" fails to meet the membership criteria by default.
If it’s null and void there is no champion and that has nothing to do with membership criteria anyway.
0 -
4 minutes ago, craigkillie said:
There is a clear rule about what would happen if the champions of either league are not participating, and that format would apply. The spirit of the rules would be clear to everyone and I would expect exactly zero challenge to that.
Football clubs are well known for their altruism towards each other right enough. It’s been fully on show in Scottish football since the end of last season.
If it was Brechin I absolutely agree they would meekly accept it and not try and get out of it any way they could. The same Brechin that tried to get the rules changed to allow them into the Lowland league in the event of relegation. No self interest on display there at all.
I’m not singling Brechin out btw. I have no like or dislike for them.
0 -
5 minutes ago, city_gord said:
I would imagine the playoff “semi final” would be skipped and it would just be Club 42 vs LL champions in the “final”.
How does the LL work? Would they need to vote to curtail the season, and if so how many votes are required? Apologies if this has already been mentioned.Already been discussed. No-one has produced anything to cover where this is allowed so would likely be challenged if it was attempted.
0 -
1 hour ago, craigkillie said:
I wasn't saying Brechin would actually be doing this, I was indulging in the weird hypothetical that "Left Back" appears to have fabricated out of thin air about Brechin taking legal action.
So lets hear your alternative of what can happen within the current rules if HL don’t have a champion.
0 -
8 minutes ago, The Resurrection said:
Yes but in each round of games a team would sit out. You could have the ludicrous scenario going into the last week that teams in 3rd, 4th and 5th place are all on the same points with the team in 3rd place finished their regular season. The teams in 4th and 5th could have a week to know that a draw puts them both in the play offs.
Another fine mess.
0 -
1 hour ago, JT1867 said:
What's the thinking behind the 22 game scenario?
18 Games would leave most teams with two or three midweek games and would finish at the same time as the top two divisions.
Also, which two teams would not be involved in the games after the split? Top and bottom?
Everyone would be involved. Two groups of 5 after the split and you play all the other teams so 4 games.
1 -
13 minutes ago, The Phoenix said:
Clubs don't have a vote on the Play Off scenarios that may unfold.
Also, as part of the pyramid, the Play Offs are not the sole property of the SPFL.
Who gets to amend the rules then to ensure the playoffs go ahead if either HL or LL don't have a champion? They also have the same wording in their rules. No person or body has arbitrary authority to make changes.
This should all have been sorted out before the season started as there was always a chance it wouldn't get finished and it's going to lead to the same mess that happened at the end of last season.
1 -
4 minutes ago, parsforlife said:
Eh. There’s clearly an example where There is no HL vs LL play-off.
Not having a direct rule on a situation doesn’t mean that you can’t make a ruling on it. Club 42 aren’t squirming out of this
No-one is empowered to make a ruling. It would have to be a vote. The clubs refused the authority before the season started for anyone to make rulings in scenarios such as these. We all know that votes in Scottish football happen for the good of the game and not in self-interest so I'm sure the League 2 clubs will vote for play-offs to go ahead in this scenario if someone proposes it.
0 -
6 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:
Its their tournament tbf. Well within their rights to tell us to shit or get off the pot
I'm with them. Football, even on the TV, with no fans/atmosphere is not as good as football with fans.
0 -
31 minutes ago, craigkillie said:
Brechin would also be trying to invent their own rule in order to prevent the play-off being played, because there is simply no rule to cover this scenario.
They really wouldn't be inventing a rule. they'd be following the rules as currently written which don't have a scenario where the games can be played without two champions from the HL/LL
0 -
3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:
It was originally meant to be March. Maybe UEFA are sufficiently satisfied that 9 of the 12 venues are likely to have significant numbers of fans and are looking to get a commitment from the other 3 to give time to source 3 alternate venues if required.
They won't want 1 or 2 venues with significantly lower capacity limits than the rest.
it's exactly this. they want to ensure games are played at venues where fans are allowed so they can bring in more revenue.
0 -
1 minute ago, LongTimeLurker said:
It's all been one big populist mess. Cannae allow low risk things like lower league fitba to happen because people will moan about how they cannae do something high risk while the see folk doing something low risk and focus groups are telling them that will cost the SNP votes. These decisions should never have been in the hands of politicians to decide and should have been determined rationally by public health professionals.
Like Devi and Leitch?
1 -
Just now, craigkillie said:
And would be laughed out of the room just like the crack legal teams recruited by Hearts and Partick Thistle.
Totally different scenario. Hearts and Partick were trying to circumvent the documented rules, hence they were laughed out of the room.
0 -
1 minute ago, craigkillie said:
The spirit of the rule would quite clearly supercede any weird legalistic take that you have on it.
I'm sure Brechin's lawyers would argue otherwise if it came to that.
0 -
49 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:
Not ignoring it which is why it's included. We just intrepret it differently.
So where is a club "failing to comply with membership criteria" that makes that rule remotely relevant to the HL (or LL) not finishing their season? I'll give you a clue. they aren't so that rule doesn't apply to this situation
I don't see how the HL can finish their season unless they're given a green light pretty much immediately. I also don't see how they can declare a champion after 3 games. The only logical result would therefore be null and void. The playoff rules explicitly name champions, not candidates (iii a).
There is also no provision in the rules to automatically allow the LL champions to play-off against team 42. You could say that's the fault of the SPFL (or SFA) but in fairness a situation where one league would finish and the other wouldn't was probably never envisaged when the rules were drafted.
I can't see any way within the rules (as they currently stand) that the trapdoor playoffs can take place unless some way is found to allow the HL and LL to finish some kind of a season.
0 -
13 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:
III Team Eligibility and Running of Competition
6. In the event that one of the Champion Clubs in the SHFL or the SLFL fails to comply with the Membership Criteria in circumstances where it is required to do so as the Candidate Club in terms of the SPFL Rules, and the SPFL Board has not granted any waiver, relaxation or period of grace in respect of that club’s requirement to comply with the Membership Criteria, there will be no Play-Off Match in terms of rule Ill(a) [the SHFL v. SLFL portion of the playoff] and, the other Champion Club will automatically go forward to the Pyramid Play-Off Match in terms of rule Ill(b).
I'd guessed you were referring to that but it says nothing like what you implied. the important bit of this rule is in bold which you've conveniently ignored.
0 -
11 hours ago, FairWeatherFan said:
That already exists within the SPFL Playoff. If there's only one eligible champion they go straight to the play-off against Club 42.
Which rule are you seeing this in?
0 -
Vaccines to fight variants can officially be fast-tracked in the same way the flu jag is.
1
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
in The General Nonsense Forum
Posted
In a world with vaccines there's surely far better things to spend another £15bn on than a system that has "marginal" impact.