League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[Lofarl]

So is the vote today then?

[Guest JTS98]

40 minutes ago, The Great Stagsby said:

This has to stop.

You're saying there's no justification for one club to be punished in such a severe manner - if so then you surely also can't extravagantly award teams who "have not won the title", or award 4th place prize money to teams who still might have finished 7th, or keep teams up who still might have been relegated, or vice versa, or so on, or so on. If you can't relegate Hearts you can't call any other team in the country's final positions either, unless they were already guaranteed. In other words you have to void the season - which we know isn't happening.

Your language of "no justification for one club to be punished" makes it sound like everyone else is making up one rule for Hearts and other rules for everyone else... Actually, this is exactly what you are trying to do to get your club out of a relegation which, if reconstruction fails and it happens, will be justified entirely by them having been the worst team in the league this season.

That's a use of the word 'justified' that I've never encountered in my life before.

Of course, your post makes no ethical sense.

I'm talking about applying different levels of harm to clubs in this position. The example of a team finishing 8th rather than possibly 5th or 6th is certainly unfortunate, but they're not losing out relative to any other club who could improve their position. It's hard to make a case that they're being actively and seriously harmed.

Hearts will see income cut by around a fifth, will lose staff, will be denied an avenue to European competition via the league for at least a season, will find it much harder to attract players. The harm inflicted on Hearts far overshadows your glib comparison with other teams in the division.

There is no ethical justification for one club to carry the burden like that. Being bottom of a 38-game competition after 30 games is not justification for demotion, however you try to spin it. It just is not.

You do have a fair point about United (and Celtic) potentially being awarded things they have not won. There is a problem there, of course. I can see room for argument either way on the United issue. They haven't actually won the league just as Hearts have not been relegated. But this merely strengthens the logical and ethical position of arguing in Hearts' favour here.

If one of Hearts or Dundee United are going to be in the Premiership next season, there is no justification for it being the club that has not won promotion ahead of the club that has not been relegated.

Edited May 8, 2020 by JTS98

[Sparticus]

9 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I'm talking about applying different levels of harm to clubs in this position. The example of a team finishing 8th rather than possibly 5th or 6th is certainly unfortunate, but they're not losing out relative to any other club who could improve their position. It's hard to make a case that they're being actively and seriously harmed.

The teams who were second ,third and fourth in the championship are though.

Going by your wisdom Dundee should be promoted because they still had a chance of promotion and thats probably cost them millions too.

No team has a right to be in the premier league.

[Zing.]

If the season is declared as finished then Hearts deserve their relegation. It’s really quite simple, get the f**k doon.

[Lebowski]

That's a use of the word 'justified' that I've never encountered in my life before.
Of course, your post makes no ethical sense.
I'm talking about applying different levels of harm to clubs in this position. The example of a team finishing 8th rather than possibly 5th or 6th is certainly unfortunate, but they're not losing out relative to any other club who could improve their position. It's hard to make a case that they're being actively and seriously harmed.
Hearts will see income cut by around a fifth, will lose staff, will be denied an avenue to European competition via the league for at least a season, will find it much harder to attract players. The harm inflicted on Hearts far overshadows your glib comparison with other teams in the division.
There is no ethical justification for one club to carry the burden like that. Being bottom of a 38-game competition after 30 games is not justification for demotion, however you try to spin it. It just is not.
You do have a fair point about United (and Celtic) potentially being awarded things they have not won. There is a problem there, of course. I can see room for argument either way on the United issue. They haven't actually won the league just as Hearts have not been relegated. But this merely strengthens the logical and ethical position of arguing in Hearts' favour here.
If one of Hearts or Dundee United are going to be in the Premiership next season, there is no justification for it being the club that has not won promotion ahead of the club that has not been relegated.

Hearts will lose a fifth of their income and still have a turnover of around 10m a year higher than any of their opponents in the championship. Are you suggesting that they should get reimbursed by the rest of Scottish football to keep around a 5/1 ratio of money rather than a 4/1 advantage against their best funded opponents next season?

Every side which gets relegated loses money. Its because they got relegated.

[Coventry Saint]

35 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

 

Hearts will see income cut by around a fifth, will lose staff, will be denied an avenue to European competition via the league for at least a season, will find it much harder to attract players. The harm inflicted on Hearts far overshadows your glib comparison with other teams in the division.

stifledlaughter.gif

 

Edit, because I can't stifle the laughter after all: honestly, this Hearts narrative that you were just on the cusp of becoming a decent side again is what's driving all of this fucking whining. Citing a lack of access to Europe via the league next season is a crystal clear example of how collectively delusional you are.

Get down.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Coventry Saint

[Guest JTS98]

20 minutes ago, Sparticus said:

The teams who were second ,third and fourth in the championship are though.

Going by your wisdom Dundee should be promoted because they still had a chance of promotion and thats probably cost them millions too.

No team has a right to be in the premier league.

Again, there's an absence of logic there.

It's not comparable since Dundee are missing out on something they only had potential access to. Their current situation will not change. They will be no worse off as a result of covid-19 than they were before it. There's no absolute harm there.

That is not the case for Hearts. That's a very simple thing to understand.

There is no need or ethical justification for the brunt of this to be carried by clubs arbitrarily in the wrong league position at the wrong time during the season.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Lebowski said:

Hearts will lose a fifth of their income and still have a turnover of around 10m a year higher than any of their opponents in the championship. 1) Are you suggesting that they should get reimbursed by the rest of Scottish football to keep around a 5/1 ratio of money rather than a 4/1 advantage against their best funded opponents next season?

2) Every side which gets relegated loses money. Its because they got relegated.

1) Hearts' position relative to their opponents is irrelevant in this discussion. It is harm that is being discussed. Just because Hearts will still be richer than Dundee, that is not reason to penalise Hearts for being bottom of the league at the wrong time.

2) Exactly. They get relegated because they finish last over a full season. Hearts have not done that.

 

[Dunning1874]

19 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

If one of Hearts or Dundee United are going to be in the Premiership next season, there is no justification for it being the club that has not won promotion ahead of the club that has not been relegated.

It is downright glib and facetious to argue that promoting and relegating on the sporting merit of current standings would be a punishment for Hearts but scrapping promotion and relegation would not be a punishment for Dundee United.

Hearts are bottom on sporting merit, Dundee United are top on sporting merit, if the season was to be completed the team which finishes bottom would be guaranteed relegation while the team which finishes top would be guaranteed promotion. The season cannot be completed, so you have a choice between calling it on the season to date or pretending it hasn't happened.

One approach still takes into account the sporting merit of the games played to date, in which Dundee United were the best team in their league and Hearts were the worst in theirs. The other just launches sporting merit out the window and says tough, it doesn't matter how good or bad teams have been, you're denied any reward for success or punishment for failure.

One approach punishes the sides who are bottom of the league, who had the opportunity to avoid this punishment by not being the worst team in their division over the season to date. The other punishes teams who have been the best team in their division, who had no opportunity to avoid that  punishment.

The idea that you're somehow doing greater harm to Hearts because they'll be losing revenue when the alternative would deprive Dundee United of that revenue just because Dundee United aren't currently getting it is simplistic nonsense. You know this.

Anyone who seriously believes that scrapping promotion and relegation would be fairer than calling it on the merit of current standings is at it.

[Zing.]

3 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

1) Hearts' position relative to their opponents is irrelevant in this discussion. It is harm that is being discussed. Just because Hearts will still be richer than Dundee, that is not reason to penalise Hearts for being bottom of the league at the wrong time.

2) Exactly. They get relegated because they finish last over a full season. Hearts have not done that.

 

Please show where it states in the rules that a season MUST be 38 matches? The SPFL board can decide how many matches any season consists of, which is what’s going to happen.

[Dunning1874]

6 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Again, there's an absence of logic there.

It's not comparable since Dundee are missing out on something they only had potential access to. Their current situation will not change. They will be no worse off as a result of covid-19 than they were before it. There's no absolute harm there.

That is not the case for Hearts. That's a very simple thing to understand.

There is no need or ethical justification for the brunt of this to be carried by clubs arbitrarily in the wrong league position at the wrong time during the season.

Hearts aren't arbitrarily bottom of the league. They weren't placed there by a random draw, they're there because they've been the worst team in it.

[Sparticus]

3 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Again, there's an absence of logic there

All your doing is making out hearts have some special case which they dont have.Its sport.You go up you make money,you go down you lose money.

Look it doesnt matter if you argue black is white,hearts are going down,theyve been the worst team this season,finished bottom and will swap places with promoted Dundee utd.

There's zero chance of the leagues being reconstructed as we already have our best structure.no one wil vote to change it.

Why dont you turn your attention on the people who run your club? Ultimately they are why you have been relegated.

 

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Dunning1874 said:

It is downright glib and facetious to argue that promoting and relegating on the sporting merit of current standings would be a punishment for Hearts but scrapping promotion and relegation would not be a punishment for Dundee United.

 if the season was to be completed the team which finishes bottom would be guaranteed relegation while the team which finishes top would be guaranteed promotion. The season cannot be completed, so you have a choice between calling it on the season to date or pretending it hasn't happened.

One approach still takes into account the sporting merit of the games played to date, in which Dundee United were the best team in their league and Hearts were the worst in theirs. The other just launches sporting merit out the window and says tough, it doesn't matter how good or bad teams have been, you're denied any reward for success or punishment for failure.

One approach punishes the sides who are bottom of the league, 2) who had the opportunity to avoid this punishment by not being the worst team in their division over the season to date. The other punishes teams who have been the best team in their division, who had no opportunity to avoid that  punishment.

3) The idea that you're somehow doing greater harm to Hearts because they'll be losing revenue when the alternative would deprive Dundee United of that revenue just because Dundee United aren't currently getting it is simplistic nonsense. You know this.

Anyone who seriously believes that scrapping promotion and relegation would be fairer than calling it on the merit of current standings is at it.

1) Yes. But with 20% of the season remaining. What would your view be if we had 25% remaining? Or 50% remaining? What about if we'd only played five games?

You do not get relegated for being bottom of the league at a certain point in the season. You get relegated for finishing last.

If the season isn't finished as per a 38-game season, there is a clear point that Hearts have been denied the chance to save themselves and should not have to face the consequences of relegation.

That's a very simple point to understand and nobody has yet provided an argument for why Hearts should suffer this. Not one based on anything other than 'yooz ur rubbish so deserve to go down', which is a position devoid of logic.

2) That is not, and has never been the deciding factor for relegation. As well you know. What if the league had stopped in December with someone else bottom? Relegate them?

3) It's not simplistic nonsense. It's ethically sound. Hearts will unfairly lose. Losing something is a worse outcome than not getting something you never had. That's a very simple point. Dundee United are a Championship club with Championship income. If they don't go up, they remain so. Hearts lose. That's not the same thing.

[Guest JTS98]

5 minutes ago, Zing. said:

Please show where it states in the rules that a season MUST be 38 matches? The SPFL board can decide how many matches any season consists of, which is what’s going to happen.

They can. But they shouldn't.

I think it's a perfectly easy thing to understand.

It's not the right thing to do.

[Guest JTS98]

5 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

Hearts aren't arbitrarily bottom of the league. They weren't placed there by a random draw, they're there because they've been the worst team in it.

The end point of the season is arbitrary.

You know fine well what I was referring to.

[Zing.]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

They can. But they shouldn't.

I think it's a perfectly easy thing to understand.

It's not the right thing to do.

It’s very easy to understand. The remaining matches cannot be completed. Hearts are bottom of the league on sporting merit. They go down as the season has been completed according to the SPFL board and it’s member clubs.

[TheScarf]

Why are Dundee getting mentioned so much here?  They had next to zero chance of promotion. 

They would’ve had to beat Ayr/Dunfermline over 2 legs, then The Caley over 2 legs, then Hamilton/County/St Mirren over 2 legs. 

Have any of you fucking seen Dundee play?

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Zing. said:

It’s very easy to understand. The remaining matches cannot be completed. Hearts are bottom of the league on sporting merit. They go down as the season has been completed according to the SPFL board and it’s member clubs.

Sporting merit is a useless phrase in this point.

We never relegate teams on their league position after 30 games.

Have Hearts had easier or more difficult fixtures than their opponents? No idea. But the absence of balance renders any talk of sporting merit pointless.

[Coventry Saint]

15 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Again, there's an absence of logic there.

It's not comparable since Dundee are missing out on something they only had potential access to. Their current situation will not change. They will be no worse off as a result of covid-19 than they were before it. There's no absolute harm there.

That is not the case for Hearts. That's a very simple thing to understand.

But to simplify it to that extent is to treat as fact the idea that you were going get enough points to stay up, and I think there's very little basis for that assumption.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Coventry Saint said:

But to simplify it to that extent is to treat as fact the idea that you were going get enough points to stay up, and I think there's very little basis for that assumption.

No, it's not.

It's to say that it's wrong to relegate a team that hasn't been given the chance to avoid it.

Predictions of future results are irrelevant.