Jump to content

Null & Void or an 18 Game Season?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, forameus said:

It makes you wonder about the reasoning behind the 22 game idea...has anyone associated with any club come out and said why?  The only thing I could see is certain clubs needing the extra games to catch up, but surely then you'd have other clubs disagreeing?  I would've thought they'd be dead against the idea of pretty much running their players into the ground with an unrealistic schedule.

Only other reason I can think of is to reduce the need to compensate season ticket holders by giving them a few more games to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

Only reason I can think of is that clubs feel that the extra games adds more legitimacy to the season, but I really don't think it makes much of a difference.

Not sure how players playing with no legs left for the last 3 weeks of the season adds legitimacy but I doubt the chairmen really thought it through 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bairn88 said:

Not sure how players playing with no legs left for the last 3 weeks of the season adds legitimacy but I doubt the chairmen really thought it through 

Exactly, probably just thought '22 games feels more like a real season than 18' without taking the logistics fully into consideration, whereas the SPFL seems more realistic about it (for once).

Edited by RossBFaeDundee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s late on Monday and we are due to play on Saturday but still have yet another vote to get through.
Id imagine this is a ratification exercise and will pass, but if it doesn’t we are surely null and void?
I’m not sure Ive got the energy for another debate with the Sergeant about what a laughing stock this makes the SPFL so I’ll leave it there......[emoji23][emoji23]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

Only reason I can think of is that clubs feel that the extra games adds more legitimacy to the season, but I really don't think it makes much of a difference.

 

18 minutes ago, Shadwell Dog said:

Only other reason I can think of is to reduce the need to compensate season ticket holders by giving them a few more games to watch.

It's surely solely down to clubs who want more points available? Partick and Forfar won't want 18 games. Only needs one more club to vote against it and you get this sort of situation. It'll quickly descend into a nonsense and it'll be 18 games, which is what most folk want anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, forameus said:

It makes you wonder about the reasoning behind the 22 game idea...has anyone associated with any club come out and said why?  The only thing I could see is certain clubs needing the extra games to catch up, but surely then you'd have other clubs disagreeing?  I would've thought they'd be dead against the idea of pretty much running their players into the ground with an unrealistic schedule.

They said something about 22 games allowing for a ‘competitive end to the season that fans want to see’ in that joint statement a while ago, but they’ve, to my knowledge, never explained how it achieves that, or how 18 games would fail to achieve that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:

Id imagine this is a ratification exercise and will pass, but if it doesn’t we are surely null and void?

Null & void needs to be voted through as well and that has no chance of passing (right now, anyway...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Null & void needs to be voted through as well and that has no chance of passing (right now, anyway...)

True. But as the days pass if they don’t pass this one then they won’t do 27 games so we could be here in a month agreeing N and V...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, oneteaminglasgow said:

They said something about 22 games allowing for a ‘competitive end to the season that fans want to see’ in that joint statement a while ago, but they’ve, to my knowledge, never explained how it achieves that, or how 18 games would fail to achieve that.

Can't see any more than those two being that desperate for more games though.  Cove are only two points behind and Clyde must realise they'll have enough issues playing the 18 never mind 22. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

Only reason I can think of is that clubs feel that the extra games adds more legitimacy to the season, but I really don't think it makes much of a difference.

To be honest an 18 game season  of 1 home/1 away has more legitimacy than a 27 game  season of 2 home 1 away or 1 away 2 home - an added 4 game split adds even less legitimacy to the season \IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, McBrian. said:

To be honest an 18 game season  of 1 home/1 away has more legitimacy than a 27 game  season of 2 home 1 away or 1 away 2 home - an added 4 game split adds even less legitimacy to the season \IMHO.

I get that, but I'm assuming the boards of the teams are just thinking along the lines of 'more games = more legitimacy'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, roman_bairn said:

It’s late on Monday and we are due to play on Saturday but still have yet another vote to get through.
Id imagine this is a ratification exercise and will pass, but if it doesn’t we are surely null and void?
I’m not sure Ive got the energy for another debate with the Sergeant about what a laughing stock this makes the SPFL so I’ll leave it there......emoji23.pngemoji23.png

 

SPFL have said that if this vote is rejected then they will provide a 27 game fixture list.

 

Presumably once they inevitably ran out of time, it would then resort to PPG like last season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shadwell Dog said:

Can't see any more than those two being that desperate for more games though.  Cove are only two points behind and Clyde must realise they'll have enough issues playing the 18 never mind 22. 

What about another team (full time and has one F in it) that might like the insurance of a few extra games to recover from any daft losses they might have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Phoenix
21 minutes ago, roman_bairn said:


Correct............


If the clubs vote to accept the proposal.

The Clubs have already voted given the Resolution presents what they asked for. 

The Resolution should simply  be a rubber stamping exercise.

If that transpires not to be the case it will make a mockery of the assertion that the 20 Clubs are united as one.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Phoenix said:

The Clubs have already voted given the Resolution presents what they asked for. 

The Resolution should simply  be a rubber stamping exercise.

If that transpires not to be the case it will make a mockery of the assertion that the 20 Clubs are united as one.  

 

 

Vote against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Clubs have already voted given the Resolution presents what they asked for. 
The Resolution should simply  be a rubber stamping exercise.
If that transpires not to be the case it will make a mockery of the assertion that the 20 Clubs are united as one.  
 
 

As I said, I expect them to ratify what they have stated.
Mind you, we all remember Dundee and Raith stating one thing and doing another.
I expect it’ll go through, but It wouldn’t exactly come as a massive shock to me anymore if it didn’t....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...