League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[Sparticus]

This is brutal.Might as well give the rangers resolution another go too eh.

Hearts finished bottom.Get doon.

[welshbairn]

4 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

 How many supporters turns a stupid club into an arrogant one?

I don't know, how many supporters turns a stupid club into an arrogant one?

(can't wait for the punchline! )

[Derry Alli]

2 hours ago, Day of the Lords said:

Hearts getting fucking doon will be one of the most drawn out, mewling and generally pathetic relegations in recent history. You hate to see it.

Depends if 2016 is 'recent', tbqhwy. 

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Coventry Saint said:

Serious response to that, though, because for some reason I'm determined to make you see this: you keep throwing out hypothetical situations with the express aim of proving that we're being hypocritical about this. You're banging on about last season, or if we'd finished bottom, or whatever.

I'm admitting that yes, we would be complaining if we were in your situation. (Though as DJC has pointed out, if we did have the gall to suggest temp reconstruction, it would be treated with the contempt it deserves.)

My point there is that you are being equally hypocritical because you would have no interest in any of this if you were above us in the league. However, unlike us, you're failing to admit to that hypocrisy because doing so would sink your 'fairness' argument utterly stone dead.

I don't accept that for a couple of reasons.

1) My posts on this forum are public record. I think I have a fairly consistent view that football should be, but is not, fundamentally fair. I'd challenge anybody to find one post I've ever made that would hint that my view on this would be any different were Hearts not bottom of the league.

People can say I'm only saying this because it's Hearts, but I think all my opinions on every aspect of football tally with my view of this situation.

2) I actually started this process prepared to accept that Hearts would just have to suck this up. Back when the fitba was stopped. My mind gradually changed as I saw the brain-dead arguments being made for Hearts going down. All the posts are on this forum.

3) Of course, speculalting about St Mirren being bottom this year is hypothetical. Yet last year, there you were. All your posts about what the reaction would be are conjecture. I stand by my fundamental view that relegating any club with 8 games left is wrong.

Anyway, bed time for me.

[Ric]

 

8 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

But it didn't answer my question. We both know that.

Oh, I answered it, what you are having problems with now is your cognitive dissonance colliding head long into the answer that was given.

  

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

I don't accept..

Quelle surprise!

Edited May 16, 2020 by Ric

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Ric said:

 

Oh, I answered it, what you are having problems with now is your cognitive dissonance colliding head long into the answer that was given.

Black is white / white is black.

You're a Green Day, mate. You're a waste of time.

Night night.

[craigkillie]

47 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

It's not my first choice, no.

I think there are numerous options on the table. Or that at least should be. Some of which I haven't heard mentioned.

1) Promote nobody/relegate nobody.

2) A neutral venue / 2-leg play-off between Hearts and Dundee United for promotion. And apply down the leagues.

3) An expanded play-off including all the clubs in play-off/relegation positions with weighting given to current league positions.

4) 14/14/14 based on the consequences for the clubs that lose out. Is Clyde's pain at being put into the bottom flight unfairly as severe as what other clubs are currently looking at? Maybe yes, maybe no, but let's get an answer to that.

5) Any other reasonable regrouping of the divisions.

My point is that there are more options available to us than just saying 'You're bottom with 8 games to go, so you have to go down'. I don't think that's a reasonable thing to do.

ETA: The numbering system in my post does not indicate preference. Just ordering for ease of reading.

 

They will have absolutely considered at least some (probably all) of these, but then discarded them as not being as far a solution for all of the clubs as the current outcome, which punishes the worst teams across the 80% or so of football that we've seen played.

You seem to be making the assumption here that clubs have just gone ahead and opted for this outcome without any consideration, but in reality the PPG outcome that they've gone for is option 6) on this list, and is the option that they've felt is fairest.

1) This shifts the unfairness on to the teams who are top of the various leagues, and asks us to ignore the evidence of 80% of an actually completed season in favour of 20% of hypotheticals.

2) This is not practical given that we can't actually play football. If we could play football then we wouldn't need play-offs, we'd just finish the season. It also brings in some elements described above, where Dundee United, a club who were very clearly going to be promoted, are now instead forced into a play-off.

3) See above.

4) This was rejected by the clubs already, so clearly they felt the current solution is preferable. You are shifting the unfairness to other clubs, clubs who weren't even in relegation places based on the 80% of the season we've played so far.

5) See above.

 

[Ric]

Just now, JTS98 said:

Black is white / white is black.

You're a Green Day, mate. You're a waste of time.

Night night.

I think, your bed is the best place for you. It's clear you are having an absolute nightmare here.

Maybe once the beer has worn off, and you face life anew tomorrow morning, you'll reflect on the utter detritus you have left here.

[Guest JTS98]

6 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

 

 

4) This was rejected by the clubs already, so clearly they felt the current solution is preferable. You are shifting the unfairness to other clubs, clubs who weren't even in relegation places based on the 80% of the season we've played so far.

5) See above.

 

Yes. I've repeatedly said that the clubs should share the unfairness.

Being relegated without finishing the season is unfair. Missing out on promotion is unfair. Missing out on a play-off is unfair. Missing out on Europe in unfair. Missing out on challenging for a title is unfair.

My point is that this is a situation that calls for compromise. Making United win a play-off is no more unfair than denying Hearts the chance to stay up.

The same applies across the board. This is not 3 clubs' problem. It shouldn't be made to be so. That's simple selfishness from the other clubs.

A Hearts - United play-off, for example, would take one day and there's no reason that couldn't be done. That's just one example, but there are ways around other suggestions I made.

You're the last notification I saw this evening and it's time for bed. Good day.

Edited May 16, 2020 by JTS98

[Guest SJP79]

The most important thing in reality is working out a way to get football back on with or without fans. 

Reconstruction is part of the process but there are much bigger challenges ahead on how to restart and how to make it financially viable. 

Edited May 16, 2020 by SJP79

[TonyFerrino]

Just missed the days hilarity it would appear.  There is always tomorrow I guess. 

[djchapsticks]

14 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I think I have a fairly consistent view that football should be, but is not, fundamentally fair. I'd challenge anybody to find one post I've ever made that would hint that my view on this would be any different were Hearts not bottom of the league.

 

1 hour ago, JTS98 said:

 

4) 14/14/14 based on the consequences for the clubs that lose out. Is Clyde's pain at being put into the bottom flight unfairly as severe as what other clubs are currently looking at? Maybe yes, maybe no, but let's get an answer to that.

Good spot by CraigKillie.

So Clyde should be potentially pulled into a situation where they are stuck into the bottom flight but had no danger of doing so, in order to allow Hearts the opportunity not to be dragged down a division for being shite?

Clyde going to the bottom tier from a relatively safe mid-table position would be absolutely more severe than other clubs who were bottom going down from theirs. Total hypocrisy on your part to even speculate that it may not be.

Edited May 16, 2020 by djchapsticks

[djchapsticks]

4 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Yes. I've repeatedly said that the clubs should share the unfairness.

Being relegated without finishing the season is unfair. Missing out on promotion is unfair. Missing out on a play-off is unfair. Missing out on Europe in unfair. Missing out on challenging for a title is unfair.

My point is that this is a situation that is unfair to Hearts

FIFY

[Guest JTS98]

4 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

 

Good spot by CraigKillie.

So Clyde should be potentially pulled into a situation where they are stuck into the bottom flight but had no danger of doing so, in order to allow Hearts the opportunity not to be dragged down a division for being shite?

Clyde going to the bottom tier from a relatively safe mid-table position would be absolutely more severe than other clubs who were bottom going down from theirs. Absolute hypocrisy on your part to even speculate that it may not be.

Except I've answered that and said it's not what I would do.

I don't know what your point is there. The post is above in black and white.

It's only a 'good find' if you haven't actually read the discussion.

Edited May 16, 2020 by JTS98

[Jacksgranda]

33 minutes ago, Ric said:

So, let's nip this in the bud.

Is anyone here annoyed that Hearts are making a strong case in order to cover for their season of failure?

No? Nah, didn't think so. We all agree any of our clubs would do the same.

Are most people just laughing at the painfully transparent way Budge is trying to shoehorn a temporary league reconstruction and threatening legal action if she doesn't get it?

Yeah, I thought so.

Very good.

[djchapsticks]

3 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Except I've answered that and said it's not what I would do.

I don't know what your point is there. The post is above in black and white.

My point, that's clear to see, is that you even suggesting it as a potentially viable alternative blows your whole 'share the pain, we're in this together' argument out of the water.

Had you been upfront and said 'I don't like it simply because it's hurting my club' instead, I'd have at least have had a bit of respect for you.

But here we are. Sweet dreams x

Edited May 16, 2020 by djchapsticks

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

My point, that's clear to see, is that you even suggesting it as a potentially viable alternative blows your whole 'share the pain' argument out of the water.

Had you been upfront and said 'I don't like it, give us less pain' instead, I'd have still found it funny but would at least have had a bit of respect for you.

But here we are. Sweet dreams x

It's the opposite of that.

Did you not read the post?

Read it again. I can't believe I'm still awake and reading this drivel.

You'll find that the gentleman you quoted misrepresented what I said, and you've doubled down on that.

Edited May 16, 2020 by JTS98

[RandomGuy.]

6 minutes ago, djchapsticks said:

 

Good spot by CraigKillie.

So Clyde should be potentially pulled into a situation where they are stuck into the bottom flight but had no danger of doing so, in order to allow Hearts the opportunity not to be dragged down a division for being shite?

Clyde going to the bottom tier from a relatively safe mid-table position would be absolutely more severe than other clubs who were bottom going down from theirs. Absolute hypocrisy on your part to even speculate that it may not be.

Its great fun isnt it?

Hearts fans - "The financial damage from relegation is totally unfair to inflict on a team bottom after 80% of the season was played!!!!!"

Also Hearts fans - "Relegating a team in mid-table and cutting half their income is perfectly fine if it saves Hearts"

[Jacksgranda]

39 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

1) That's an ethically indefensible position. Don't know where to start with that. You're basically saying 'I'm wrong, but ...'

2)  True. But what about if this had happened exactly a year before. If we deserve to be relegated now, then St Mirren should be coming down with us as they also had the sheer gall to be bottom of the league after 30 games. It's a logically indefensible view to take.

3) No idea what that means.

Basically, you're just shouting and making no sense at all. If anything, you're contradicting yourself.

And where were they after 38 games? In your own time.

[Wee-Bey]