League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[Aim Here]

9 minutes ago, Lyle Lanley said:

And this too

This is another one of gashauskis9's fantasies that looks like coming true, except with the actors shuffled. This time it'll be Claire Whyte who'll be clicking her fingers and it'll be Hearts who'll be doing the dying...

[johnnydun]

16 minutes ago, Lyle Lanley said:

 

 

[theauldyin]

TICK TOCK !! JAMBO C***S

[Guest JTS98]

17 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

I realise the thread has moved on about 20 pages, but this remains relevant.

You think clubs should be 'sharing the burden' so all clubs take a manageable hit rather than the clubs who finished bottom getting hit. How exactly was the burden being shared under any of the reconstruction proposals which failed?

You say you think it would fairer for clubs to 'all suffer a bit', but even if we were all to accept that premise, what share of the burden do Hearts and Partick take on under reconstruction? You're talking about proposals in which Hearts and Partick don't suffer at all; they would benefit by being bailed out of relegation while everyone else bears the cost. That's not sharing the burden, that's you benefitting at the expense of others.

Looks like we're back to you just wanting something that allows you to satisfy your own self-interest, not caring about the impact on other clubs as long as yours gets everything they want - exactly what Hearts and Partick are accusing others of.

As for the idea that I'd have a different stance if another club was bottom, yeah, I'd definitely be howling about the injustice of it all and holding a candlelit vigil if St Mirren were in Hearts' position.

It's a global pandemic. Read the papers. All clubs are struggling. Add in that Hearts, like everyone else in the top flight, would have lost a small slither of tv money and what more do you want, exactly?

That's what sharing the burden means. Other clubs join us in taking a small hit rather than insisting that we take a huge hit while they take a small one. It's a very simple point and one I can only assume you are pretending not to understand.

In the short-term, it could also have been good for several other clubs. If they get relegated in next season's play-offs and end up doing a spell in The Championship, St Mirren or Ross County may have cause to pause and consider whether a 14-team top league might have worked out better for them.

While I don't doubt you'd enjoy seeing St Mirren suffer, that's simply a point-dodging glib response. I think we all know Scottish football well enough to see a scenario where Ross County/St Mirren/Accies were bottom after 30 games and this forum is full of posts like "It's a disgrace what's happening to Accies, you can bet your life they'd be bending over backwards to reconstruct the league if it was Hearts/Aberdeen etc". Instead it's 'Get dooooon'.

Edited June 19, 2020 by JTS98

[Lebowski]

It's a global pandemic. Read the papers. All clubs are struggling. Add in that Hearts, like everyone else in the top flight, would have lost a small slither of tv money and what more do you want, exactly?
That's what sharing the burden means. Other clubs join us in taking a small hit rather than insisting that we take a huge hit while they take a small one. It's a very simple point and one I can only assume you are pretending not to understand.

Every club has taken a massive hit already. What you're proposing is for that financial hit being compounded so the worst clubs in their leagues aren't relegated, and also making the league worse. Which is not coincidentally why it failed to gather support.

[Guest JTS98]

21 minutes ago, Lebowski said:

39 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

It's a global pandemic. Read the papers. All clubs are struggling. Add in that Hearts, like everyone else in the top flight, would have lost a small slither of tv money and what more do you want, exactly?
That's what sharing the burden means. Other clubs join us in taking a small hit rather than insisting that we take a huge hit while they take a small one. It's a very simple point and one I can only assume you are pretending not to understand.

Every club has taken a massive hit already. What you're proposing is for that financial hit being compounded so the worst clubs in their leagues aren't relegated, and also making the league worse. Which is not coincidentally why it failed to gather support.

What I'm proposing is

1) Yes, compounding the financial hit taken by other clubs, but by a relatively tiny amount. Not a game-changer. Especially as the new tv deal is starting. Clubs wouldn't have noticed that hit, in broad terms.

2) Hearts would also be subject to that hit.

3) Clubs who did not get their chance to play their way out of relegation on the pitch would not take a massively disproportionate hit.

I think that's as fair a solution as there was available. As it is, a very small number of clubs are being punished for finding themselves in trouble with a fifth of the season still to play. That's a nonsense. If it was another club in this situation, I'm pretty sure you'd agree.

Edited June 19, 2020 by JTS98

[Lebowski]

What I'm proposing is

1) Yes, compounding the financial hit taken by other clubs, but by a relatively tiny amount. Not a game-changer.

2) Hearts would also be subject to that hit.

3) Clubs who did not get their chance to play their way out of relegation on the pitch would not take a massively disproportionate hit.

I think that's as fair a solution as there was available. As it is, a very small number of clubs are being punished for finding themselves in trouble with a fifth of the season still to play. That's a nonsense.

Hearts would be subject to a minimum of double the prize money they could get in the division they were relegated to. That's not a hit. If crowds are allowed back Hearts would get much higher crowds than in the Championship. That's not a hit. The league couldn't be finished, the positions were set from points per game. The outstanding Rangers St Johnstone game saw 3.4 points awarded from it meaning my club lost a league position and a couple of hundred grand in prize money.

 

And you've entirely ignored the other financial repercussions from the proposed reconstruction outwith prize money. Clubs in the top 6 would have 1 less home game. Clubs in the bottom 8 would see way lower crowds as 40% of their season was played amongst themselves and likely without many large away supports. This is without going into relegation places being increased if its temporary, or never being able to change it if it was permanent due to the voting structure. If there was a decent reconstruction proposal put forward clubs would have said yes to it. But the hit Premier clubs would have taken from the proposed reconstruction would have been bad for years down the line.

 

So why should clubs have voted for that?

 

The one which would have passed and met your criteria of sharing the pain a bit would have been a 12 team Championship. But oddly that was never proposed by Anne Budge despite it solving the issues for Partick, Falkirk, Stranraer, Edinburgh City, Brora Rangers, and Kelty Hearts.

 

[Guest JTS98]

14 minutes ago, Lebowski said:

1) Hearts would be subject to a minimum of double the prize money they could get in the division they were relegated to. That's not a hit. If crowds are allowed back Hearts would get much higher crowds than in the Championship. That's not a hit. The league couldn't be finished, the positions were set from points per game. The outstanding Rangers St Johnstone game saw 3.4 points awarded from it meaning my club lost a league position and a couple of hundred grand in prize money.

2) And you've entirely ignored the other financial repercussions from the proposed reconstruction. Clubs in the top 6 would have 1 less home game. Clubs in the bottom 8 would see way lower crowds as 40% of their season was played amongst themselves and likely without many large away supports. This is without going into relegation places being increased if its temporary, or never being able to change it if it was permanent due to the voting structure. If there was a decent reconstruction proposal put forward clubs would have said yes to it. But the hit Premier clubs would have taken from the proposed reconstruction would have been bad for years down the line.

So why should clubs have voted for that?

3)The one which would have passed and met your criteria of sharing the pain a bit would have been a 12 team Championship. But oddly that was never proposed by Anne Budge despite it solving the issues for Partick, Falkirk, Stranraer, Edinburgh City, Brora Rangers, and Kelty Hearts.

1) Because Hearts were robbed of more than 20% of their games to avoid that fate. People seem to just write that off, but it's of fundamental importance to the point.

The rest of your paragraph actually argues my point. Your club will lose a couple of hundred grand and under reconstruction would only have lost a tiny bit more, which may end up being balanced out by the new tv deal anyway. Certainly not far off. While my club is left with losses of millions of pounds based on a season where we had 20% of our games cancelled and games we had already played recontextualised after the fact. Good draws became bad draws etc.

2) No. I've addressed this point several times. Of course clubs would have lost a bit. But, as mentioned above, the new tv deal would pick up some of that slack and the overall losses would not be at a catastrophic level for anybody. Basically equivalent to a bit of a drop in crowds due to bad form. That's what sharing the burden means. Also, as pointed out previously, clubs in the lower half would benefit from a few season of it being easier to stay up. That's a much bigger deal than a slight drop in crowds. If St Mirren go down in the play-offs next season, they may reflect on whether a 14-team league was a good idea for them or not.

3) I don't disagree with you here. I think there are lots of decent arguments about how the lower leagues should/could be restructured. However, in a situation with so many moving parts, I think asking any one person to get the whole thing right is unrealistic. I've mentioned before that for this reason I think reconstruction should have been temporary for 3-5 years to allow nobody to be disproportionally punished by this situation while giving Scottish football a window of a few years to properly sit down and work out how to organise the leagues long-term (with the option of going back to what we already had on the table along with anything else). I think that's clearly the solution that makes most sense and does least undue harm.

You can argue it all you like, but no club is ever going to quietly accept being relegated with over 20% of the season to play. We had a way out of this scenario, but clubs have chosen not to take it.

Edited June 19, 2020 by JTS98

[Lebowski]

1) Because Hearts were robbed of more than 20% of their games to avoid that fate. People seem to just write that off, but it's of fundamental importance to the point.
The rest of your paragraph actually argues my point. Your club will lose a couple of hundred grand and under reconstruction would only have lost a tiny bit more, which may end up being balanced out by the new tv deal anyway. Certainly not far off. While my club is left with losses of millions of pounds based on a season where we had 20% of our games cancelled and games we had already played recontextualised after the fact. Good draws became bad draws etc.
2) No. I've addressed this point several times. Of course clubs would have lost a bit. But, as mentioned above, the new tv deal would pick up some of that slack and the overall losses would not be at a catastrophic level for anybody. Basically equivalent to a bit of a drop in crowds due to bad form. That's what sharing the burden means. Also, as pointed out previously, clubs in the lower half would benefit from a few season of it being easier to stay up. That's a much bigger deal than a slight drop in crowds. If St Mirren go down in the play-offs next season, they may reflect on whether a 14-team league was a good idea for them or not.
3) I don't disagree with you here. I think there are lots of decent arguments about how the lower leagues should/could be restructured. However, in a situation with so many moving parts, I think asking any one person to get the whole thing right is unrealistic. I've mentioned before that for this reason I think reconstruction should have been temporary for 3-5 years to allow nobody to be disproportionally punished by this situation while giving Scottish football a window of a few years to properly sit down and work out how to organise the leagues long-term (with the option of going back to what we already had on the table along with anything else). I think that's clearly the solution that makes most sense and does least undue harm.
You can argue it all you like, but no club is ever going to quietly accept being relegated with over 20% of the season to play. We had a way out of this scenario, but clubs have chosen not to take it.

1. The new TV deal is higher than the current one. But it's not by that much. And it is with a backdrop of likely catastrophic drop offs in other income like sponsorship (both for league and individual clubs) corporate/hospitality sales, and also potentially crowds. There's going to be a fucking enormous revenue drop for everyone as there's going to be a hard global recession. Just waving that away isn't realistic.

And yes the season finished early. But final positions were done on points per game which was about the fairest solution available. There weren't points left to play for. I'm not moaning about Hibs dropping a position because I accept that the reason that happened is because the remaining fixtures couldn't be fulfilled.

2. Overall losses are already catastrophic. Hibs seem likely to announce a large wave of redundancies amongst non playing staff by all accounts. Aberdeen seem to be on a similar path. You can't just handwave away asking them to take further drops in income and likely having to increase the number of people they are having to make redundant because Hearts feel hard done by. Clubs are going to try and protect their revenues. I think Hearts fans are completely oblivious on the consequences of revenue dropping for the 41 clubs without benefactors.

3. Budge didn't get any part right. She was given the responsibility to come up with something because if it was someone outwith Hearts and it didn't pass there would be accusations of a lack of effort. Consultation was non existent. She was told no to start with. She then presented the same plan another twice with the only changes being it was a fortnight later. A cynic might suggest she knew it wouldn't pass but dragging it out for as long as possible would maybe give a bit of leverage as it could interfere with the start of the league when beginning legal action.

[Guest JTS98]

18 minutes ago, Lebowski said:

1. The new TV deal is higher than the current one. But it's not by that much. And it is with a backdrop of likely catastrophic drop offs in other income like sponsorship (both for league and individual clubs) corporate/hospitality sales, and also potentially crowds. There's going to be a fucking enormous revenue drop for everyone as there's going to be a hard global recession. Just waving that away isn't realistic.

And yes the season finished early. But final positions were done on points per game which was about the fairest solution available. There weren't points left to play for. I'm not moaning about Hibs dropping a position because I accept that the reason that happened is because the remaining fixtures couldn't be fulfilled.

2. Overall losses are already catastrophic. Hibs seem likely to announce a large wave of redundancies amongst non playing staff by all accounts. Aberdeen seem to be on a similar path. You can't just handwave away asking them to take further drops in income and likely having to increase the number of people they are having to make redundant because Hearts feel hard done by. Clubs are going to try and protect their revenues. I think Hearts fans are completely oblivious on the consequences of revenue dropping for the 41 clubs without benefactors.

3. Budge didn't get any part right. She was given the responsibility to come up with something because if it was someone outwith Hearts and it didn't pass there would be accusations of a lack of effort. Consultation was non existent. She was told no to start with. She then presented the same plan another twice with the only changes being it was a fortnight later. A cynic might suggest she knew it wouldn't pass but dragging it out for as long as possible would maybe give a bit of leverage as it could interfere with the start of the league when beginning legal action.

1) Again, here we've got the false conflation of Hibs dropping a league position and Hearts being relegated. You're not remotely comparing apples with apples. Take a step back and consider that.

Also, I've accepted that clubs are losing money. Relegation aside, that applies to Hearts as much as anyone else. Look at our immediate reaction in terms of pay cuts etc. Why add millions to Hearts' losses based on a season with 20% to go? Saying 'We dropped a league position' doesn't really cut it here. There was an opportunity to basically look out for each other as clubs and share this around. The extra damage to other clubs would have been limited. The idea Hearts would have strolled off smoking a cigar is nonsense. We're already fighting the financial fire. And we've not even touched on the potential implications for Thistle of being fired off to a league with negligible away supports, low revenues, and an unsure start date. That's scandalous.

2) You seem to be on the same horse here. And you're misrepresenting my argument and misrepresenting the financial impact of reconstruction. It was going to be bad either way. Look at what's happening to Hibs anyway. It's not as if reconstruction would have closed the doors. Hearts have already had to cut salaries and are now looking at taking another hit of millions of pounds.

3) I just disagree with you here. I don't think any part of that stands up.

Edited June 19, 2020 by JTS98

[Romeo]

Good to see Drinky didn't want the hearts lads looking like s bunch of seething baw bags on their own and decided to help out.

[Lebowski]

1) Again, here we've got the false conflation of Hibs dropping a league position and Hearts being relegated. You're not remotely comparing apples with apples. Take a step back and consider that. Also, I've accepted that clubs are losing money. Relegation aside, that applies to Hearts as much as anyone else. Look at our immediate reaction in terms of pay cuts etc. Why add millions to Hearts' losses based on a season with 20% to go? Saying 'We dropped a league position' doesn't really cut it here. There was an opportunity to basically look out for each other as clubs and share this around. The extra damage to other clubs would have been limited. The idea Hearts would have strolled off smoking a cigar is nonsense. We're already fighting the financial fire. And we've not even touched on the potential implications for Thistle of being fired off to a league with negligible away supports, low revenues, and an unsure start date. That's scandalous. 2) You seem to be on the same horse here. And you're misrepresenting my argument and misrepresenting the financial impact of reconstruction. It was going to be bad either way. Look at what's happening to Hibs anyway. It's not as if reconstruction would have closed the doors. Hearts have already had to cut salaries and are now looking at taking another hit of millions of pounds. 3) I just disagree with you here. I don't think any part of that stands up. 

 

 

 

1. The millions it will cost Hearts will be identical to the millions it would cost Hearts if the pandemic had hit 2 months later and you'd finished bottom. That's just relegation and it happens every season. I'm not going to deny that Hearts can consider themselves unlucky.

 

2. I'm saying that there are real world impacts based on what Hearts proposed for reconstruction. Ones that Hearts fans seem to be wilfully ignoring because it doesn't suit them.

 

3. You're obviously not very cynical. I am. And that's exactly what it looks like. I'm pretty sure that the new TV deal contractually must begin in early August based on the actions of the SPFL and the urgency for the decision regarding ending the season.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Lebowski said:

1. The millions it will cost Hearts will be identical to the millions it would cost Hearts if the pandemic had hit 2 months later and you'd finished bottom. That's just relegation and it happens every season. I'm not going to deny that Hearts can consider themselves unlucky.
2. I'm saying that there are real world impacts to what Hearts proposed for reconstruction. Ones that Hearts fans seem to be wilfully ignoring because it doesn't suit them.
3. You're obviously not very cynical. I am. And that's exactly what it looks like. I'm pretty sure that the new sky contract contractually must begin in early August based on the actions of the SPFL and the urgency for the decision regarding ending the season.

1) Yes. And that is the very point. My goodness, you've just made my point. It did not hit later. Hearts did not finish bottom. Yet we are being punished as if we did, as well as taking the pandemic hit like everyone else. Can you see that you've just made Hearts' argument here?

2) Yes. But reconstruction would not really change that. How much worse would it get for Hibs if they shared tv money 14 ways instead of 12? It's not comparable to Hearts losing millions of pounds. It's a very obvious point. Also, let's not forget that the impact on Hibs' first team remains to be seen. You may end up wishing you'd been playing in a 14-team league.

[Romeo]

1) Yes. And that is the very point. My goodness, you've just made my point. It did not hit later. Hearts did not finish bottom. Yet we are being punished as if we did, as well as taking the pandemic hit like everyone else. Can you see that you've just made Hearts' argument here?
2) Yes. But reconstruction would not really change that. How much worse would it get for Hibs if they shared tv money 14 ways instead of 12? It's not comparable to Hearts losing millions of pounds. It's a very obvious point. Also, let's not forget that the impact on Hibs' first team remains to be seen. You may end up wishing you'd been playing in a 14-team league.

When the league finished hearts were bottom.

Saying it wasn't the case won't make it true.

[Lebowski]

1) Yes. And that is the very point. My goodness, you've just made my point. It did not hit later. Hearts did not finish bottom. Yet we are being punished as if we did, as well as taking the pandemic hit like everyone else. Can you see that you've just made Hearts' argument here?
2) Yes. But reconstruction would not really change that. How much worse would it get for Hibs if they shared tv money 14 ways instead of 12? It's not comparable to Hearts losing millions of pounds. It's a very obvious point. Also, let's not forget that the impact on Hibs' first team remains to be seen. You may end up wishing you'd been playing in a 14-team league.

1. Hearts did finish bottom. It was a truncated league, but you finished bottom of it. The penny will drop when you rock up to Recreation Park next season maybe.
2. It's not just about prize money. That's my point. A 14 team league would be worse than what we currently have financially, and football wise.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Romeo said:

When the league finished hearts were bottom.

Saying it wasn't the case won't make it true.

Yes, but it also misses the point of the discussion completely. We can read. We can see the league table.

There's no discussion to be had if people pretend to not understand things that they understand. The whole point is the 30-game season.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Lebowski said:

1. Hearts did finish bottom. It was a truncated league, but you finished bottom of it. The penny will drop when you rock up to Recreation Park next season maybe.
2. It's not just about prize money. That's my point. A 14 team league would be worse than what we currently have financially, and football wise.

1. Backing away from your previous post, I see. It was interesting to see that deep down you actually fully agree with Hearts' argument.

2. I think the footballing argument comes second to the financial argument in times like these. We can take an imperfect league on the chin for a couple of years if it helps the game overall.

[Sparticus]

Budge is a crazy woman saying she only wants fairness when she has her fairness, hearts finished bottom.

[Sparticus]

7 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

The JKB drip-feed onto P&B of their most deranged moon units continues unabated, I see. 

Send over Gashauskis next, please. I want him to answer to this. 

I'd vote to have the jambos and thistle expelled.What they're doing is worse than bringing the game into disrepute.This benefactor money has gone to their heads.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Sparticus
spel

[Sparticus]

Funny thing is, if there was a vote to expell hearts, Partick would have voted yes had they not bent over.