League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[DA Baracus]

1 minute ago, TheScarf said:

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?

Some folk think Dundee struck a secret deal that would see them promoted in a reconstruction.

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

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.

@JTS98In the straw boater.

[Coventry Saint]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

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.

But you're saying Dundee were only missing out on something that they had potential access to - a place in next year's top flight.

Exactly the same goes for Hearts.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

@JTS98In the straw boater.

I'm on a mission to civilise in a thread full of logical fallacies and unethical positions.

Not my fault if lots of posters have never read a book.

[Sparticus]

2 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

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

Same as saying its wrong to promote Dundee utd who hadnt mathematically won the division yet.

[Granny Danger]

13 minutes 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.

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.

If the season had been stopped after, say, 40%, of the games had been played and if there was no possibility of football resuming prior to the following season then voiding the league would have been reasonable and I think it probably would have been the decision taken by the SPFL.

Such a decision would have been unfair on some teams but it would have been the correct one within context.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Coventry Saint said:

But you're saying Dundee were only missing out on something that they had potential access to - a place in next year's top flight.

Exactly the same goes for Hearts.

No.

Let's do this again slowly.

Hearts will lose status as a Premiership club. Hearts will lose a lot of income. Hearts will attract a lower standard of player. Hearts will have to lay off staff.

Dundee will remain in the same position. Dundee's income won't suffer. Dundee's staffing levels probably won't change much. Dundee will attract the same level of player they do now.

If you don't understand the concept of harm, then I can't make that clearer to you.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

If the season had been stopped after, say, 40%, of the games had been played and if there was no possibility of football resuming prior to the following season then voiding the league would have been reasonable and I think it probably would have been the decision taken by the SPFL.

Such a decision would have been unfair on some teams but it would have been the correct one within context.

So where's the line?

45%? 50%? 75?

How many points adrift are too many? 5? 4? 3?

As soon as you say that you would not justify relegation early in one part of the season, you're on very difficult logical ground justifying it at any stage before the end.

[Sparticus]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

No.

Let's do this again slowly.

Hearts will lose status as a Premiership club. Hearts will lose a lot of income. Hearts will attract a lower standard of player. Hearts will have to lay off staff.

Dundee will remain in the same position. Dundee's income won't suffer. Dundee's staffing levels probably won't change much. Dundee will attract the same level of player they do now.

If you don't understand the concept of harm, then I can't make that clearer to you.

Thats what happens whena club is relegated though?

[Zing.]

10 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

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.

Not relevant. What is relevant is the current situation, which has never happened before. As I said, the SPFL board and it’s member clubs can decide how long a season is and in these exceptional circumstances they’ll most likely confirm it’ll be 30 games.

Hearts have had plenty chances to drag themselves out of trouble and they sit four points adrift, which is no different to where they sat months ago. I admire you trying to find any possible way to make it seem like Hearts don’t deserve this but they very much do.

Edit: Your only hope is some ridiculous reconstruction which will be unfair on a number of different clubs on various levels.

Edited May 8, 2020 by Zing.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Sparticus said:

Thats what happens whena club is relegated though?

Yes. But usually a club has the chance to save itself from relegation. That's the whole point here. Hearts are being denied that chance, so applying that level of harm to Hearts is unfair.

I get the feeling you're willfully missing the point, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

[RossBFaeDundee]

7 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

No.

Let's do this again slowly.

Hearts will lose status as a Premiership club. Hearts will lose a lot of income. Hearts will attract a lower standard of player. Hearts will have to lay off staff.

Dundee will remain in the same position. Dundee's income won't suffer. Dundee's staffing levels probably won't change much. Dundee will attract the same level of player they do now.

If you don't understand the concept of harm, then I can't make that clearer to you.

Whereas Hearts will be harmed financially - not by some unfair arbitrary punishment randomly imposed on them though, but because they were the worst team in the league when the league literally HAD to stop. It is far from ideal I will grant, as it would have been far preferable for teams to finish the full season.

Trust me, I would've liked to have seen Dundee give the playoffs a crack. But we can't though, because our season had to be called. Could I claim that was unfair and has had or will have some potentially negative effect on my club? Absolutely. But I know that there is no other viable option.

Edited May 8, 2020 by RossBFaeDundee

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Zing. said:

Not relevant. What is relevant is the current situation, which has never happened before. As I said, the SPFL board and it’s member clubs can decide how long a season is and in these exceptional circumstances they’ll most likely confirm it’ll be 30 games.

Hearts have had plenty chances to drag themselves out of trouble and they sit four points adrift, which is no different to where they sat months ago. I admire you trying to find any possible way to make it seem like Hearts don’t deserve this but they very much do. 

That is a post devoid of logic.

1) Exceptional circumstances indeed. All the more reason to protect clubs from them rather than imposing relegation with 20% of the games left to play, wouldn't you agree?

2) You can repeat that Hearts 'deserve' it as many times as you like. But it is simply irrelevant. A team is relegated when they can no longer get enough points to finish 11th. A club denied the opportunity to do that do not deserve relegation.

That's just a post straight out of Hibs.net. There's a reason I avoid Kickback. You might want to give .net a miss.

[Sparticus]

Just now, JTS98 said:

Yes. But usually a club has the chance to save itself from relegation. That's the whole point here. Hearts are being denied that chance, so applying that level of harm to Hearts is unfair.

I get the feeling you're willfully missing the point, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

They are not being denied anything though,the season was only 30 games long and has been completed,there is no more games.You had 30 matches in which to not be the worst team in the league.

 

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, Sparticus said:

They are not being denied anything though,the season was only 30 games long and has been completed,there is no more games.You had 30 matches in which to not be the worst team in the league.

 

Yip. In a competition where everyone started believing they had 38.

Having 30 games to get off the bottom was never the deal. You know that fine well and I'm now pretty sure you can be dismissed as a troll.

[Guest JTS98]

3 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

Whereas Hearts will be harmed financially - not by some unfair arbitrary punishment randomly imposed on them though, but because they were the worst team in the league when the league literally HAD to stop. It is far from ideal I will grant, as it would have been far preferable for teams to finish the full season.

Trust me, I would've liked to have seen Dundee give the playoffs a crack. But we can't though, because our season had to be called. Could I claim that was unfair and has had or will have some potentially negative effect on my club? Absolutely. But I know that there is no other viable option.

As I mentioned to the Hibby above, the very exceptional nature of the circumstances are all the more reason to refuse to further impose harm on a member club by relegating them.

Hearts, like all clubs, have already lost income from this. The league should do the right thing and acknowledge that inflicting more harm by imposing a relegation Hearts have not been given the chance to avoid is unethical and it shouldn't happen.

[RossBFaeDundee]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

Having 30 games to get off the bottom was never the deal. You know that fine well and I'm now pretty sure you can be dismissed as a troll.

I'm pretty sure a crippling pandemic virus shutting everything down for months if not a year or so was also 'never the deal'.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

I'm pretty sure a crippling pandemic virus shutting everything down for months if not a year or so was also 'never the deal'.

Yip. And that exceptional circumstance is not one Hearts should be punished for.

Hearts have been denied 20% of the season to keep themselves up.

[Coventry Saint]

8 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

No.

Let's do this again slowly.

Hearts will lose status as a Premiership club. Hearts will lose a lot of income. Hearts will attract a lower standard of player. Hearts will have to lay off staff.

Dundee will remain in the same position. Dundee's income won't suffer. Dundee's staffing levels probably won't change much. Dundee will attract the same level of player they do now.

If you don't understand the concept of harm, then I can't make that clearer to you.

The respective level of financial harm inflicted on a club really shouldn't be coming into this, though. You should have been prepping for possible relegation in December. But, like I said before, the pervading arrogance of Hearts fans about suddenly becoming decent is the underlying thread here.

Yes, you will lose more than Dundee, but only in a financial sense, not in a sporting sense. Which brings us back to Budge claiming you should be saved because you've spent loads. Which is obviously arse.

[Sparticus]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

Yip. In a competition where everyone started believing they had 38.

Having 30 games to get off the bottom was never the deal. You know that fine well and I'm now pretty sure you can be dismissed as a troll.

Quote

Of course it wasnt the deal.I'm trying to get through to you but you just wont listen.Its not just me,everyone on here is telling you.

if anything hearts have been slightly unlucky, but still deserve to go down.