Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Sergeant Wilson]

51 minutes ago, Mexico said:

Temporary reconstruction is definitely the worst option,

There's no other kind in Scotland.

[craigkillie]

57 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said:

Doubt anyone will be overly interested in this, but on the off chance there is:

 

 

This lot must be the most supine boot-licking supporters association in the country. If a plan for reconstruction "was not on the table in the original resolution" then why did the announcement of that resolution include the phrase "If the resolution is approved, the SPFL has also committed to consulting with Clubs over the possibility of League restructuring ahead of Season 2020/21."

 

30 minutes ago, ScottyG said:

Just listened to Sportsound and something came to mind that I hadn't considered before. Have the SPFL f***ed over a lot of players by calling an end to the season. If the lockdown goes on much longer and the government extends the furlough scheme again, will football clubs be able to extend contracts to take advantage of this? Hopefully clubs have looked into this before voting.

(just realised that I posted this in the Partick Thistle forum by mistake so apologies for that)

The players (via PFA Scotland) are the ones who completely ruled out the notion of playing behind closed doors, and said that they'd need 6 weeks training after the lockdown ends before they could play again. That ruled out any possibility of football until late July, and probably actually well into 2021 if they stick to their guns on behind closed doors. Those were both major contributing factors in the SPFL deciding to call the season early rather than holding off.

So if the players do end up fucked over by this, they basically only have themselves to blame.

[Parttimesupporter]

42 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

This lot must be the most supine boot-licking supporters association in the country. If a plan for reconstruction "was not on the table in the original resolution" then why did the announcement of that resolution include the phrase "If the resolution is approved, the SPFL has also committed to consulting with Clubs over the possibility of League restructuring ahead of Season 2020/21."

 

The players (via PFA Scotland) are the ones who completely ruled out the notion of playing behind closed doors, and said that they'd need 6 weeks training after the lockdown ends before they could play again. That ruled out any possibility of football until late July, and probably actually well into 2021 if they stick to their guns on behind closed doors. Those were both major contributing factors in the SPFL deciding to call the season early rather than holding off.

So if the players do end up fucked over by this, they basically only have themselves to blame.

Out of interest is the bit in bold based on a statement from the SPFL, or commentary in the media?  Genuine question - I must admit I hadn't realised that the PFA Scotland view was so strong. 

I agree that it wasn't helpful for them to come out with such a strong view at this early stage.

Thanks

[GiGi]

If clubs extended the expired contracts on a month-to-month basis while the pandemic rolls on would that not then entitle the players to a furloughed income while not impacting the clubs? If it worked that way then it would be the right thing to do.

Edited April 18, 2020 by GiGi

[Ludo*1]

Billy Dodds on John Nelms after not getting the job at Dundee:

“John Nelms, after speaking to him yesterday, he's a good lad and what you see is what you get. And that's the way I found him.”

Billy Dodds when given the opportunity to stick the boot in:

"I wouldn’t like him in the trenches with me. I couldn’t trust the guy."

He's one of BBC Scotland's leading pundits.

[Ad Lib]

11 minutes ago, GiGi said:

If clubs extended the expired contracts on a month-to-month basis while the pandemic rolls on would that not then entitle the players to a furloughed income while not impacting the clubs? If it worked that way then it would be the right thing to do.

The issue is the Clubs cannot unilaterally extend a contract (or for that matter vice versa) unless the original contract has some sort of option clause.

ETA: and the furlough scheme only gives players the lower of 80% of their wages and £2500 a month. I’d imagine that means cutting the wages of most players in the Premiership and quite a few in the Championship by more than 20%. And that assumes their contract isn’t heavily bonus based either.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Ad Lib

[GiGi]

3 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

The issue is the Clubs cannot unilaterally extend a contract (or for that matter vice versa) unless the original contract has some sort of option clause.

ETA: and the furlough scheme only gives players the lower of 80% of their wages and £2500 a month. I’d imagine that means cutting the wages of most players in the Premiership and quite a few in the Championship by more than 20%. And that assumes their contract isn’t heavily bonus based either.

80% is something is better than 100% of.. yada yada. If lower pay is the alternative to unemployment I'm sure it would still be appreciated if it was possible under the scheme rules.

[weirdcal]

Two leagues of 22, promote the Highland league and lowland league champions. End of season split back out to
12-10-10-10 bottom 2 of second league automatically demoted, 3rd bottom are play off.
Top 3 of second league promoted bottom 3 of top league demoted

1 season absolute free for all and rearrange all leagues as per one season performance.

If they are talking one season reconstruction might as well go baws oot

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Parttimesupporter said:

Out of interest is the bit in bold based on a statement from the SPFL, or commentary in the media?  Genuine question - I must admit I hadn't realised that the PFA Scotland view was so strong. 

I agree that it wasn't helpful for them to come out with such a strong view at this early stage.

Thanks

The SPFL have stated publicly (and told their clubs) that the earliest they could start playing would be August*, based on the lockdown being predicted to continue until 10th June, and the clubs players needing 6 weeks to get ready for games.

They haven't been public on this part, but I have it on good authority that they were originally preparing for behind closed doors matches when the disease first hit, and/or to finish the season that way after the lockdown ended, prior to the PFA coming out and saying that they didn't want them.

Nonetheless, if it ends up being behind closed doors games or no games (and no income), I'd expect the PFA to back down on this, particularly given that they are perhaps the weakest, most spineless union in the whole country anyway.

 

*6 weeks from 10th June would actually take them to 22nd July, so they were a bit off with that tbf.

[Skyline Drifter]

33 minutes ago, GiGi said:

If clubs extended the expired contracts on a month-to-month basis while the pandemic rolls on would that not then entitle the players to a furloughed income while not impacting the clubs? If it worked that way then it would be the right thing to do.

It would, but football rules do not allow for continual month renewals so they would need changed for that to be workable.

[Parttimesupporter]

6 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The SPFL have stated publicly (and told their clubs) that the earliest they could start playing would be August*, based on the lockdown being predicted to continue until 10th June, and the clubs players needing 6 weeks to get ready for games.

They haven't been public on this part, but I have it on good authority that they were originally preparing for behind closed doors matches when the disease first hit, and/or to finish the season that way after the lockdown ended, prior to the PFA coming out and saying that they didn't want them.

Nonetheless, if it ends up being behind closed doors games or no games (and no income), I'd expect the PFA to back down on this, particularly given that they are perhaps the weakest, most spineless union in the whole country anyway.

 

*6 weeks from 10th June would actually take them to 22nd July, so they were a bit off with that tbf.

Thanks, and agree that given a choice of closed doors games or no games it will be the former.  I find the PFA's view a bit odd as it is hard to see how closed doors games could go ahead without the SPFL getting approval from the health authorities, insurers etc.  

[Skyline Drifter]

2 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The players (via PFA Scotland) are the ones who completely ruled out the notion of playing behind closed doors, and said that they'd need 6 weeks training after the lockdown ends before they could play again. That ruled out any possibility of football until late July, and probably actually well into 2021 if they stick to their guns on behind closed doors. Those were both major contributing factors in the SPFL deciding to call the season early rather than holding off.

So if the players do end up fucked over by this, they basically only have themselves to blame.

 

2 hours ago, Parttimesupporter said:

Out of interest is the bit in bold based on a statement from the SPFL, or commentary in the media?  Genuine question - I must admit I hadn't realised that the PFA Scotland view was so strong. 

I agree that it wasn't helpful for them to come out with such a strong view at this early stage.

Thanks

News to me. Not saying that isnt the case but I heard nothing about that. I also cant see any reason why the PFA would object to playing without fans. Nothing in the playing contract requires a crowd for performance of duties. It sounds really unlikely to me. Although very little the PFA decide out of left field should surprise now.

Edit - I guess they might claim if its too risky for fans, its too risky for players. I think you would need to take medical advice on that though.

Edited April 18, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[eez-eh]

They definitely did. It might just have been in tweet form but I remember seeing something.

Their argument was that if there were no crowds allowed then why should the players be putting themselves in danger. Which strikes me as a spectacular missing of the point.

[craigkillie]

3 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

News to me. Not saying that isnt the case but I heard nothing about that. I also cant see any reason why the PFA would object to playing without fans. Nothing in the playing contract requires a crowd for performance of duties. It sounds really unlikely to me. Altgough very little the PFA decide out of left field should surprise now.

Edit - I guess they might claim if its too risky for fans, its too risky for players. I think you would need to take medical advice on that though.

They released a statement about it in the middle of March, about a week after the league stopped. https://pfascotland.co.uk/items/PFA-News/coronavirus-statement

[jagfox]

5 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Go wind up Monkey Tennis directly. 

Please don't

[DA Baracus]

26 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

They definitely did. It might just have been in tweet form but I remember seeing something.

Their argument was that if there were no crowds allowed then why should the players be putting themselves in danger. Which strikes me as a spectacular missing of the point.

What? Surely they're spot on with that. Why should they risk themselves?

I'm afraid I don't follow you when you say that they're spectacularly missing the point. Perhaps I'm being dense and missing something obvious. 

Edited April 18, 2020 by DA Baracus

[Skyline Drifter]

21 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

They released a statement about it in the middle of March, about a week after the league stopped. https://pfascotland.co.uk/items/PFA-News/coronavirus-statement

Fair enough, although thats slightly different to what I thought you were saying. Thats objecting to continuing to play closed door without crowds at the start (which I think they were entirely correct about). I think thats a bit different to refusing to restart with no crowds once medical opinion says it is safe to do so (presumably if all participants can be tested first), which is what I thought you were saying. I think that would be unreasonable.

[lowland star]

[emoji810]I have looked at this thread and a couple in premiership can I say I hope the league reconstruction fails if it is only for Ann budge and hearts to fail . She is only interested in hearts a temporary change for one or two years unless hearts are still bottom . She looks like a old teacher of mine and she was a old ba...rd as well .
Scottish football needs change and help but the people running it are no better than our old chairman Wullie Harkness ( qos) he was only interested in his own opinion.
I once heard him say he would get knighted if scotland done well in World Cup .
Yes it was Argentina 1978
Time for fans to say enough is enough why can’t fans have a say in scotland football future

[Honest_Man#1]

1 hour ago, DA Baracus said:

What? Surely they're spot on with that. Why should they risk themselves?

I'm afraid I don't follow you when you say that they're spectacularly missing the point. Perhaps I'm being dense and missing something obvious. 

Not just you, I'm also confused by that statement.

[DA Baracus]

1 minute ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

Not just you, I'm also confused by that statement.

Thanks, thought I was missing something really obvious!