Ludo*1 Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 More and more it's looking like Hearts don't have a leg to stand on. The fact that this is because Ann Budge couldn't keep her fucking mouth shut is glorious. 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghPar1975 Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 Just now, Pet Jeden said: you saying they couldn't have found the money for a few play off games? Was this even given cursory consideration? That's exactly what i'm saying. For most teams the Anderson money would just about keep them running till football starts (and even then probably not). If Cowden were to get to the play off final then that's a load of games at £5k a pop...and if they didn't then get up it's got an even bigger impact. For Championship teams it would mean taking players of furlough and paying them full wages for 4-6 weeks before a game to get them fit, re-signing/ signing players they maybe don't want just to play some game to 'maybe' get them into a better place or in the case of the relegation threatened team - stay exactly where they are. Any club taking part would then need to retain all players brought back on full salary until the league starts. So, Ayr do the play off and get to the final. Fork out on player wages, testing, signing up new players etc...then possibly lose and have to retain all that squad till mid-Oct....? It wasn't going to happen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Golden Gordon said: It can be pared down to the fact that through their court action, Hearts are looking for a bail out from the consequences of coronavirus. If they block promotion, they avoid the sporting consequences of coronavirus. If they are awarded £8 million, they avoid the financial consequences of coronavirus. I'm struggling to see any element of fairness in this. If promotion is blocked, then Dundee United et al. are required to take sporting consequences of the outbreak. If £8 million is awarded, then the SPFL teams are left with the additional financial consequences of the outbreak. This is at a time where clubs like Aberdeen and Hibs are having to make significant cuts. Where is the fairness in this? 1. You have to assume the £8m is the estimated loss after taking account of curtailed income from a Premier campaign versus the very curtailed income from a 27 game Championship campaign. Otherwise it would indeed be an unfair amount. 2. Hibs and Aberdeen cutbacks? Is this a satirical post you've made? Whatever you choose to criticise AB for, she at least got on with needed cuts at Hearts 2 months ago - and was absolutely slaughtered for it. Were you posting defending her in April? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, Golden Gordon said: It can be pared down to the fact that through their court action, Hearts are looking for a bail out from the consequences of coronavirus. If they block promotion, they avoid the sporting consequences of coronavirus. If they are awarded £8 million, they avoid the financial consequences of coronavirus. I'm struggling to see any element of fairness in this. If promotion is blocked, then Dundee United et al. are required to take sporting consequences of the outbreak. If £8 million is awarded, then the SPFL teams are left with the additional financial consequences of the outbreak. This is at a time where clubs like Aberdeen and Hibs are having to make significant cuts. Where is the fairness in this? " the sporting consequences of coronavirus " I've seen that this phrase has been starting to do the rounds on social media, no team should be made to suffer negatively due to this virus. Hearts have bent over backwards trying to accommodate a solution, we should have been able to find a solution. Hearts have made cutbacks, most fans on here thought it was a great laugh at the time. I'm guessing that very few teams have avoided having to make cuts. -3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Day Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 6 minutes ago, EdinburghPar1975 said: That's exactly what i'm saying. For most teams the Anderson money would just about keep them running till football starts (and even then probably not). I wonder if all clubs have actually applied for and successfully spent the Anderson money yet? Bear in mind that it was specifically not just to be used for wages, but was for a CV19 related or community initiative. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 7 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said: Arbroath potentially had 16 games still to play. And if you're on about just playing the play-offs, then Hearts would have to be relegated, so I doubt you're arguing for just the play offs being played. This is what I was saying - I would have still been unhappy, but a lot less unhappy if there had even been an attempt to play those games. I just can't see the logic and consistency to the decisions. They look like they were guided by Doncater (SKY 2020 and my bonus?) Celtic (clear the decks for 2020-21 CL start) and all aided and abetted by a fortuitous majority of board member clubs who would do quite well thank-you-very-much out of calling the leagues. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 23 minutes ago, Aim Here said: Sadly, the main rule breach has a maximum penalty of £500k, or £1 million, depending on whether they win on the relegation issue or not. One fun scenario is Hearts win and successfully halt relegation only to be expelled from the SFA and SPFL altogether, mooting the case entirely. Solves everything that, the vacant position means not only that the promoted clubs stay promoted but Partick and Stranraer can avoid demotion. Maybe a straight one match play off for Brora and Kelty at Hampden too? At last, Scottish football united again! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 2 hours ago, JTS98 said: Covered this weeks ago, but, yes, I think in principle they shouldn't stand. If UEFA insist we send clubs to UEFA competitions next season (not a given, imo) then I think the prize money should be pooled and a percentage of it distributed to the other clubs in the SPFL as a goodwill solidarity gesture and recognition that clubs were given access to competitions and prize money that they never actually fully earned. It is a given, based on the fact that they have literally done so and the fact that they have already provisionally scheduled next season's tournaments. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghPar1975 Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, bennett said: . Hearts have bent over backwards trying to accommodate a solution, we should have been able to find a solution. Hearts have made cutbacks, most fans on here thought it was a great laugh at the time. I'm guessing that very few teams have avoided having to make cuts. Sorry, don't believe that's entirely true. Hearts made a reconstruction argument that benefited them (no issue with that) but they didn't fully pad out the idea and from what I've read haven't fully taken into consideration the impacts further down the leagues with regards future relegation or taken the time to call round the clubs to gain support for their idea and explain why they felt this was the right thing for all clubs to do - they've not bent over backwards but did make an attempt to try something. In terms of cutbacks the one thing I think (IMHO) that was correct was furloughing as opposed to wage deferrals. Given no-one knew how long this could take the decision to defer wages might be the worst thing clubs can have done unless players agree to the deferred amounts being spread over the remainder of their contracts. As you say, every club has had to make cutbacks and will need to next season as well, we won't see the full impact until things properly start up again and clubs have to get squads ready 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Gordon Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: 1. You have to assume the £8m is the estimated loss after taking account of curtailed income from a Premier campaign versus the very curtailed income from a 27 game Championship campaign. Otherwise it would indeed be an unfair amount. 2. Hibs and Aberdeen cutbacks? Is this a satirical post you've made? Whatever you choose to criticise AB for, she at least got on with needed cuts at Hearts 2 months ago - and was absolutely slaughtered for it. Were you posting defending her in April? Yes, but what you are pointing out is universal, not just specific to Hearts. All Premiership clubs are affected by the curtailed income of the season being called as a result of coronavirus. Similarly all Championship teams will experience the same financial hit from a 27 game season. Why should Hearts receive special dispensation? Again, cutbacks are a universal issue as evidenced by Hearts, Aberdeen & Hibs having to make them. Again, why should Hearts receive special treatment? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag Nation Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 10 hours ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said: The SPFL are a member of the SFA. That is an indisputable fact. Did you know the English FA are also full members of the SFA. The SPFL is not a member, it's a "Recognised League". The FA is not a member. "Affiliated National Associations" are deemed to be members, but the FA is not affiliated. See the SFA Handbook, page 21. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 1 minute ago, Pet Jeden said: This is what I was saying - I would have still been unhappy, but a lot less unhappy if there had even been an attempt to play those games. I just can't see the logic and consistency to the decisions. They look like they were guided by Doncater (SKY 2020 and my bonus?) Celtic (clear the decks for 2020-21 CL start) and all aided and abetted by a fortuitous majority of board member clubs who would do quite well thank-you-very-much out of calling the leagues. Well considering Championship sides still cant afford to start testing and training, and the top flight starts in about 6 weeks, try and figure out why the play offs arent being held. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 2 hours ago, San Starko Rover said: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/hearts-partick-thistles-plight-depresses-22216589 Kelty were not "denied promotion". They were denied a play off with Brora Rangers, the winner of which would have played Brechin City for a spot in League 2. It seems fair for Kelty to be handed the league title but not for Hearts to be relegated? That article was so bad, I think Barry may have written it himself. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 23 minutes ago, EdinburghPar1975 said: There's no way the play offs could've happened here given the costs for testing etc. needed to complete the fixtures. If Big Don F (QC) was right and it's @£5k a game per team then how could the L2 teams here, such as Cowden potentially fork out money for testing at this time never mind the players out of contract scenario (and also that most/all will be p/t never back to training etc)....play off's were never going to happen up here. I think the English L1 play offs are quite contentious as one team (Peterborough?) dropped out by the use of PPG and Wycombe (I think) have got in....bit of teeth grinding going on with that but nothing like up here with the 'standard' relegation places Heard the chairman of one of the English clubs on the radio yesterday saying that it was costing them something like £125k to go ahead with the play-offs, and that's only for three matches across 12 days. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 11 minutes ago, EdinburghPar1975 said: That's exactly what i'm saying. For most teams the Anderson money would just about keep them running till football starts (and even then probably not). If Cowden were to get to the play off final then that's a load of games at £5k a pop...and if they didn't then get up it's got an even bigger impact. For Championship teams it would mean taking players of furlough and paying them full wages for 4-6 weeks before a game to get them fit, re-signing/ signing players they maybe don't want just to play some game to 'maybe' get them into a better place or in the case of the relegation threatened team - stay exactly where they are. Any club taking part would then need to retain all players brought back on full salary until the league starts. So, Ayr do the play off and get to the final. Fork out on player wages, testing, signing up new players etc...then possibly lose and have to retain all that squad till mid-Oct....? It wasn't going to happen Okay. So you are not arguing the sporting merit or fairness of relegation, or no play-offs after 30 games. What you are saying is some clubs would suffer financially if they had to play games. So to avoid that, a handful of other clubs like Falkirk, Partick and Hearts just had to be absolutely clobbered financially? You must see how that is at least open to challenge? And that's before you get into the propriety of how the board advised the clubs and how the vote was carried out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunning1874 Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 31 minutes ago, Lex said: Looks like Hearts legal case is following apart quicker than their defence with Jonathan Obika running at them. I hope the SPFL doesn’t settle out of court for a token amount. The SPFL will surely win any case that goes the distance. Ideally the SPFL win and Hearts & Partick are ordered to cover their legal costs, which are set at a ridiculously high level which no one believes is a realistic figure. £8 million, for example. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jacksgranda said: Kelty were not "denied promotion". They were denied a play off with Brora Rangers, the winner of which would have played Brechin City for a spot in League 2. It seems fair for Kelty to be handed the league title but not for Hearts to be relegated? That article was so bad, I think Barry may have written it himself. Yes, Kelty's case is also complicated by the fact that Bonnyrigg were just behind them with a game in hand. But it still doesn't change the fact that it was not for the SPFL to unilaterally deny the contractual right of the HL/LL league play off winners the chance of a crack at Brechin for entry to L2. Except, of course, that Brechin had a vote on the SPFL board. Not fishy at all... -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 1. You have to assume the £8m is the estimated loss after taking account of curtailed income from a Premier campaign versus the very curtailed income from a 27 game Championship campaign. Otherwise it would indeed be an unfair amount. 2. Hibs and Aberdeen cutbacks? Is this a satirical post you've made? Whatever you choose to criticise AB for, she at least got on with needed cuts at Hearts 2 months ago - and was absolutely slaughtered for it. Were you posting defending her in April?It's obvious from the figures Budge and co never budgeted for a relegation scenario which is incredible. How were Hearts going to survive relegation had it been after 38 games in that instance. Going by the statements coming from Gorgie it appears you would have been heading for administration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pet Jeden Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 Just now, Billy Jean King said: 24 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: 1. You have to assume the £8m is the estimated loss after taking account of curtailed income from a Premier campaign versus the very curtailed income from a 27 game Championship campaign. Otherwise it would indeed be an unfair amount. 2. Hibs and Aberdeen cutbacks? Is this a satirical post you've made? Whatever you choose to criticise AB for, she at least got on with needed cuts at Hearts 2 months ago - and was absolutely slaughtered for it. Were you posting defending her in April? It's obvious from the figures Budge and co never budgeted for a relegation scenario which is incredible. How were Hearts going to survive relegation had it been after 38 games in that instance. Going by the statements coming from Gorgie it appears you would have been heading for administration. Despite a hopeless 2nd half of 2018-19 (ending with a decent effort in the cup final) you are some forecaster if we were your favourites for relegation last summer when the budgets were done. Trust you lumped on big. The odds would have been good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Stubbs Posted June 19, 2020 Share Posted June 19, 2020 45 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said: The point is - they were at least playing the play offs. (Cheltenham btw, not Exeter). There's a desperation on P&B to scream loudly that playing some or all of the outstanding fixtures before starting the next season is now, and was in early April, "utterly impossible". Which is utterly untrue. But it's the crutch that holds up the self-interest clubs in denial and allows them to block out their consciences. Not Hibs btw, who are in that camp for fan giggles and because Ron doesn't understanding that soccer customers don't switch their preferred franchises. Apart from a few nutters, everyone up here seems to recognise that all of the outstanding fixtures can't be played. Likewise, in England's League 1 and 2 which isn't playing the 10 remaining league games. Their approach would also have seen Hearts relegated. What the prospect of playing 'some' of the outstanding fixtures has to do with Hearts, I have no idea. Much like bringing up Covid deaths and getting that wrong, I'm guessing it was just an opportunity to bring some staunchness into your general campaign of greeting. 1 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.