Guest JTS98 Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said: Every club already is sharing the burden of the pandemic: every club is going to deal with the burden of closed door games, restricted attendances and/or truncated seasons. 1) You're conflating two different financial issues, then when anyone points that out you claim that they're actually supporting your argument when they're doing no such thing. Hearts, Partick and Stranraer taking a financial hit from relegation is a separate issue to the financial hit everyone is taking from the pandemic and resultant shutdown. 2) Yes, the season was finished early because of that. No, it's not fair. However no one has been able to present a less unfair alternative, and only those who directly benefit from the proposed alternatives have claimed otherwise. Some of us support clubs who were in more and less the same position regardless of whether reconstruction went through or not so can look beyond self-interest, and while you won't find unanimity there was fairly widespread agreement that this was the least bad way to go. The financial burden of the pandemic needing to be shared does not equate to the financial burden of relegation needing to be shared. We're right back to the same argument we've been having for months. One of these issues is outwith anyone's control and so all clubs deserve the same support to deal with it, which is available to them with the Anderson money. The other was entirely avoidable by not being the worst team in a division over the course of the games which could be played. That's sporting merit and the financial consequences of it are a part of football in every season regardless of the wider financial circumstances clubs face. 3) It's also worth noting that Hearts are now advocating a solution which doesn't 'share the burden' at all, but instead sees Dundee United, Raith and Cove taking a massive hit in their place. Punishing clubs who've performed well on sporting merit rather than punishing clubs who've performed badly on sporting merit. How does that tie into your 'small hit for everyone' line? As for your last point, yes, I'm not disputing that there's more schadenfreude towards Hearts than there would be towards other clubs. I am disputing that people finding it funnier than they would if it was Hamilton or Ross County means they'd be arguing for another solution if it was one of them. People are arguing this is the least bad way of dealing with this because they genuinely believe it is. 1) It's not though. When the pandemic decides the league positions, then the league positions become related to the whole picture. The issues are related. 2) It's my view that Hearts did present a fair alternative. 3) Hearts proposed two different solutions that would have rewarded United. Temporary change and permanent change. Having had both rejected, they've moved on to a new idea. Why not? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, Romeo said: You didn't. "If uefa insist" What teams do you think should complete in Europe? Read the post. It's quite clear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JTS98 Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 I've been quoted by 8 posters in the last hour, I think 10 in the last two hours. I've replied to most of you, not the shouty abusive ones, but I think that's plenty for now. Later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, JTS98 said: 1) It's not though. When the pandemic decides the league positions, then the league positions become related to the whole picture. The issues are related. 2) It's my view that Hearts did present a fair alternative. 3) Hearts proposed two different solutions that would have rewarded United. Temporary change and permanent change. Having had both rejected, they've moved on to a new idea. Why not? Why not present the "new idea" to the clubs to vote on then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 Read the post. It's quite clear.It really isn't. You are avoiding answering it because of your "pick n mix" attitude to the whole situation. If European competition goes ahead, which teams do YOU think should complete? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 1 minute ago, JTS98 said: No. Hearts are arguing that they voted to stop playing, but that vote did not accept the consequence being relegation. That's what the lawyers will be banging on about. Saying that Hearts voted to be relegated is untrue. Yet people keep implying it. You have argued some of your points reasonably, but you need to take a breath. The clubs voted to call the lower leagues at the good friday vote- at that point it was confirmed that Partick and Stranraer had been relegated as a result. In mid May and after much hadwringing the Premiership was halted on the same basis by unanimous vote - clearly including Hearts - the clubs agreed that completing the campaign was unfeasible, Celtic Champions and Hearts relegated. Any suggestion that Hearts were voting on "Celtic champions but no relegation" in May is ludicrous - given that Budge then went away with her taskforce. It will also be covered by the minutes taken by Dave Cormack - and if that is the basis of the legal challenge, it is laughable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 6 minutes ago, Romeo said: It really isn't. You are avoiding answering it because of your "pick n mix" attitude to the whole situation. If European competition goes ahead, which teams do YOU think should complete? He actually implied that the 4 teams in the European spots should compete, but the prize money should be divided up amongst everyone else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 (edited) 50 minutes ago, JTS98 said: Covered this weeks ago, but, yes, I think in principle they shouldn't stand. This argument is not about what you think. In their statement regarding the potential court case on Wednesday, Hearts stated that they accept that the teams in second, third and fourth places take up the European slots. They stated that they are not looking to change the monies that have been paid out to clubs for where they finished in a 30 game season. So they have publicly stated that they accept what every club deserves from 11 of the 12 league positions after a 30 game season. Why? Edited June 19, 2020 by kingjoey 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 He actually implied that the 4 teams in the European spots should compete, but the prize money should be divided up amongst everyone else.That's the point, why should they go if Hearts feel the placings don't stand ?Because "uefa said" isn't good enough.He just can bring himself to post it, implication or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 This argument is not about what you think. In their statement regarding the potential court case on Wednesday, Hearts stated that they accept that the teams in second, third and fourth places take up the European slots. They stated that they are not looking to change the monies that have been paid out to clubs for where they finished in a 30 game season. So they have publicly stated that accept what every club deserves from 11 of the 12 league positions after a 30 game season. Why?This, put better than my post. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacArab Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 54 minutes ago, JTS98 said: Like I said, it's politics. And there's also a difference in outcomes. Which is obvious. I, personally, don't think Celtic should have been awarded the title. But I think it's quite obvious why Hearts aren't expending energy and bargaining power on that one. Anyone can see that. The moment there is a Realistic hint that Hearts are going to stop the new campaign starting on schedule, you will then have to expend significant energy and resources dealing with kind old Uncle Peter. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aim Here Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 29 minutes ago, JTS98 said: 3) Hearts proposed two different solutions that would have rewarded United. Temporary change and permanent change. Having had both rejected, they've moved on to a new idea. Why not? Courts are entitled to look askance when their initial method of proposing their idea is to demand it as an equitable remedy in a lawsuit document. They maybe should have actually proposed it to the leagues first, otherwise the judge might ask Hearts 'If this is really your idea of the fairest solution, why didn't you suggest it at one of the meetings you've been having with the SPFL? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 (edited) 41 minutes ago, JTS98 said: No. Hearts are arguing that they voted to stop playing, but that vote did not accept the consequence being relegation. That's what the lawyers will be banging on about. Saying that Hearts voted to be relegated is untrue. Yet people keep implying it. Hearts own statement says they were aware they would be "expelled" if the season was ended, and they still voted for it. You better hope Hearts lawyers arent basing their case on claiming that didnt happen. Edited June 19, 2020 by RandomGuy. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 (edited) The SFA are finally getting involved, letters out to Hearts and Partick. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8438407/Scottish-FA-set-write-Hearts-Partick-Thistle-10m-legal-case-against-SPFL.html?ito=whatsapp_share_article-masthead Edited June 19, 2020 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 "Hearts and Partick Thistle have breached SFA rules and could face expulsion, it would just take three clubs to start action that could see Hearts and Partick permanently expelled from the league system" "Hearts and Partick have started attempt to prevent Dundee United, Raith and Cove getting promoted" Wonder where we could find three clubs who want to wage war on Hearts and Partick... 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genuine Hibs Fan Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 Why anyone is still engaging with the Jambo Ben Shapiro is absolutely beyond me 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 You could actually take this a stage further and say that Hearts accept that Celtic are champions after a 30 game season and deserve their £3.35m prize money, but that they think that they deserve prize money of £8m for being the worst team in the league after a 30 game season. Let’s hope that the SPFL defence team have their wits about them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Aim Here said: Courts are entitled to look askance when their initial method of proposing their idea is to demand it as an equitable remedy in a lawsuit document. They maybe should have actually proposed it to the leagues first, otherwise the judge might ask Hearts 'If this is really your idea of the fairest solution, why didn't you suggest it at one of the meetings you've been having with the SPFL? This is from April when Hearts had to walk back a car crash interview Budge did on 5 Live (I think). Basically they shat it because it ended up being reported as "Ann Budge wants to stop 9IAR" in the press. Presumably it would have been pointed out that what they seemed to be arguing for - ie: "promotions but no relegations" - would require reconstruction, for which there was no appetite among member clubs (and was proven to be the case). Edited June 19, 2020 by capt_oats 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghPar1975 Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 From the linky a few posts ago to todays papers it said that the Court action lodged is against the SPFL and also the three promoted teams...is that correct? I'd have expected a bit more from those teams if they were directly part of the action being taken? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 7 minutes ago, Genuine Hibs Fan said: Why anyone is still engaging with the Jambo Ben Shapiro is absolutely beyond me It would be amazing if i saw that lad in Section N. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.