They Can't Relegate Us (Legally)

[Beast Boy]

46 minutes ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

 

 

Except the vote was reported in October 2012

Aye, fair point. That was the date on my Evernote account. Stands to reason it was later. 

[Beast Boy]

43 minutes ago, Last Laff said:

och well shit happens.  You boys still dropped your pants to Celtic as per.  Cheerio. 

 

Edited March 18, 2020 by Special Officer Doofy

[IveSeenTheLight]

52 minutes ago, Last Laff said:

och well shit happens.  You boys still dropped your pants to Celtic as per.  Cheerio. 

while you were a vouyeur peeking through the wardrobe doors,

[Alva-Jambo]

I doubt relegation or even football is on our minds now.  All these people living in tenements in edinburgh, it doesnt bear thinking about. 

[TheBigO]

1 hour ago, Alva-Jambo said:

I doubt relegation or even football is on our minds now.  All these people living in tenements in edinburgh, it doesnt bear thinking about. 

I know. The school closures takes my mind to the fact for many kids school is their only respite from horrible home environments.

 

This is so effed up.

 

I don't think debating football is churlish or anything though. We all love it and it is also effected. What no one should be suggesting is that any public money or govt support should be made available to football because its football. Support as employers, as many other employers will require, yes.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Don't know if this has been mentioned but....

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/03/18/coronavirus-bill-offers-spfl-way-hearts-legal-threat/

 

Forsyth seems to bee keen for it to happen anyway nasally little c u next tuesday.

[Fozzyonthefence]

4 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

Don't know if this has been mentioned but....

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/03/18/coronavirus-bill-offers-spfl-way-hearts-legal-threat/

 

Forsyth seems to bee keen for it to happen anyway nasally little c u next tuesday.

Am I missing something?  How does that reduce the threat of Hearts legal action?  Surely there would still be the same 3 options available - null and void, declare final standings as they are now, or recommence the league at some future point?  How does a bill by the bumbling buffoon change anything?

 

 

[The Treasurer]

Might not be seen as relevant to our situation but I noticed the J-League in Japan have said there will be no relegation from their top division this season

[Bazzas right boot]

On 18/03/2020 at 18:54, maroonlegions said:

 

 

Stupid comparison tbh.

 

 

[Bazzas right boot]

5 minutes ago, The Treasurer said:

Might not be seen as relevant to our situation but I noticed the J-League in Japan have said there will be no relegation from their top division this season

 

 

Chile done the same, crowned champions but no relegation. 

 

It's the easiest way to mitagate the fall out. 

 

 

 

[Beast Boy]

On 18/03/2020 at 19:14, IveSeenTheLight said:

while you were a vouyeur peeking through the wardrobe doors,

No, Aberdeen sided with Celtic this leaving a vote null and void.

 

Out of interest, how do you anticipate this crisis will impact on your £50m+ (😄) stadium? 

[Defender]

Can Hearts even afford a legal challenge if they were to get relegated? Already majorly cutting costs just to keep things afloat...doesn't fill me with much confidence that anything could be done.

[Beast Boy]

58 minutes ago, Defender said:

Can Hearts even afford a legal challenge if they were to get relegated? Already majorly cutting costs just to keep things afloat...doesn't fill me with much confidence that anything could be done.

I am extremely confident the money would be there. When we won the SPFL would have to find the cost of our legal fees too.

[Nookie Bear]

On 18/03/2020 at 18:54, maroonlegions said:

 

Even your shite comparisons are in meme form.

[Deevers]

Hearing from a pretty good source that the powers that be are discussing playing the Scottish Cup games in August as a precursor to the start of the season rather than void the 2020 Cup altogether.  Also that reconstruction is being discussed.

[Rogue Daddy]

2 minutes ago, Deevers said:

Hearing from a pretty good source that the powers that be are discussing playing the Scottish Cup games in August as a precursor to the start of the season rather than void the 2020 Cup altogether.  Also that reconstruction is being discussed.

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/scottish-premiership-shake-up-talks-21722690

 

...us, hamilton, ICT, Dundee UTD, Ross county... all in favour according to DR.... all teams that could, potentially, have something to lose this season, I suppose. But definitely worth considering.

[Jambo66]

If the end result of all of this is the end of the utterly ridiculous 12 team league with a split after 33 games, then I will be delighted.  It is, and always has been, a total farce.

[John Gentleman]

On 13/03/2020 at 21:46, IveSeenTheLight said:

Just found this

 

 

This would suggest that all 38 games need to be played.

Will still look to see if there are any caveat's

Ther are none. People on here are yanking chains.

[IveSeenTheLight]

4 hours ago, John Gentleman said:

Ther are none. People on here are yanking chains.

Didn’t someone post a paragraph defining the season as 38 games unless otherwise determined by the board.

That might cover a force majeure reason to finish the season early.

 

It seems for now, they are reluctant to call a season and appear to be showing a desire to complete the season if they can.

It also seems that there seems to be a line being drawn on the end of June, which seems unlikely.

 

Reading between the lines, my perception is that the government are shitting themselves that they’ve let the Coronavirus get away from them and underneath are panicking whilst trying to keep a calm exterior.

Theyre now talking about social distancing being for the rest of the year, which seems amazing seeing as China appear to have gotten on top of it within 3 months.

 

I therefore cannot see how they can complete the season having considered all impactors, so it leaves null and void, or declare as is.

Null and void apparently cannot be done as it impacts financially on sponsorships and insurances, so it leaves the inevitable.

The only thing that they could do is put through league reconstruction when they finally call the season off, which again they seem to be promoting.

[OTT]

On 19/03/2020 at 17:05, Fozzyonthefence said:

Am I missing something?  How does that reduce the threat of Hearts legal action?  Surely there would still be the same 3 options available - null and void, declare final standings as they are now, or recommence the league at some future point?  How does a bill by the bumbling buffoon change anything?

 

 

 

Yeah, if anything it weakens the argument that the league can be played out at a certain date. 

 

Players from various clubs may be forced to leave and come June 1st, they will (if their contracts are up). That means by the time we get round to actually starting back up we could have a completely new squad. What does that do for sporting integrity? Call the league as is, move to 14 or 16 and leave things there. No need to force relegation or the ensuing legal calamity that would come from it. 

Edited March 21, 2020 by OTT

[frankblack]

24 minutes ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

Didn’t someone post a paragraph defining the season as 38 games unless otherwise determined by the board.

That might cover a force majeure reason to finish the season early.

 

It seems for now, they are reluctant to call a season and appear to be showing a desire to complete the season if they can.

It also seems that there seems to be a line being drawn on the end of June, which seems unlikely.

 

Reading between the lines, my perception is that the government are shitting themselves that they’ve let the Coronavirus get away from them and underneath are panicking whilst trying to keep a calm exterior.

Theyre now talking about social distancing being for the rest of the year, which seems amazing seeing as China appear to have gotten on top of it within 3 months.

 

I therefore cannot see how they can complete the season having considered all impactors, so it leaves null and void, or declare as is.

Null and void apparently cannot be done as it impacts financially on sponsorships and insurances, so it leaves the inevitable.

The only thing that they could do is put through league reconstruction when they finally call the season off, which again they seem to be promoting.

 

There is no way they can complete the season but a mini cup competition for the remaining Scottish Cup teams as a pre-season event in August is viable.

 

August is the very minimum that any league season can start.

 

There doesn't seem any way this season can be completed in the league if government restrictions aren't going to get relaxed until July at the minimum, at which point player contracts will be expiring and the transfer window reopens.

 

Clevid has gone and I don't know who else is due to go not just for Hearts but all the other teams.  Continuing the league in these circumstances when the next season would need to start and finish before the Euro Championships in 2021 is just ridiculous and impractical.

Edited March 21, 2020 by frankblack

[Bellion]

1 hour ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

Didn’t someone post a paragraph defining the season as 38 games unless otherwise determined by the board.

That might cover a force majeure reason to finish the season early.

 

It seems for now, they are reluctant to call a season and appear to be showing a desire to complete the season if they can.

It also seems that there seems to be a line being drawn on the end of June, which seems unlikely.

 

Reading between the lines, my perception is that the government are shitting themselves that they’ve let the Coronavirus get away from them and underneath are panicking whilst trying to keep a calm exterior.

Theyre now talking about social distancing being for the rest of the year, which seems amazing seeing as China appear to have gotten on top of it within 3 months.

 

I therefore cannot see how they can complete the season having considered all impactors, so it leaves null and void, or declare as is.

Null and void apparently cannot be done as it impacts financially on sponsorships and insurances, so it leaves the inevitable.

The only thing that they could do is put through league reconstruction when they finally call the season off, which again they seem to be promoting.

Sort of. The rules say that the season ends after the last game “or otherwise as determined by the board”. That’s potentially unhelpful, because it gives the impression that the board can call the season done whenever they like, especially if you read that definition in isolation. 
 

The “38 game” rule is C14. It says that Premiership clubs shall play 38 games “disregarding any postponed or abandoned matches”.
 

You could try to interpret that as a caveat which means clubs don’t have to play 38 games if certain matches are postponed/abandoned, but I think the more sensible reading is that postponed/abandoned matches don’t count towards the total of 38 which all clubs have to meet (i.e. you can’t just start 38 games, you have to complete them all).
 

I think the club have reached the same conclusion, which is why Ann Budge has been talking about the rules clearly requiring everyone to play 38 games. It’s not absolutely clear cut but I think it works in Hearts’ favour. I don’t think it’s something the SPFL can ignore. 

[OldGorgie]

Excuses, excuses. Maybe we should get Levein to make our case for staying up, he’s good at excuses. Reality is we have been dire all season. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

2 hours ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

I therefore cannot see how they can complete the season having considered all impactors, so it leaves null and void, or declare as is.

Null and void apparently cannot be done as it impacts financially on sponsorships and insurances, so it leaves the inevitable.

 

Is this some sort of legal loophole?  I’m failing to see the difference from a fan, tv broadcaster or sponsor’s perspective between playing 30 games and declaring null and void or positions declared as is.  

Even null and void, as a fan I still watched these games and got the entertainment (or not as the case may be) for all the games I paid for and attended.  The tv broadcaster still televised the games (just the shortfall in the 8 games left which would apply on either 30 game scenario anyway).  Likewise the sponsors still got their exposure at the time the games were played.

 

Sounds like a bullshit argument to me but there is probably some legal difference (which will also be bullshit).

Edited March 21, 2020 by Fozzyonthefence

[Bellion]

21 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Is this some sort of legal loophole?  I’m failing to see the difference from a fan, tv broadcaster or sponsor’s perspective between playing 30 games and declaring null and void or positions declared as is.  

Even null and void, as a fan I still watched these games and got the entertainment (or not as the case may be) for all the games I paid for and attended.  The tv broadcaster still televised the games (just the shortfall in the 8 games left which would apply on either 30 game scenario anyway).  Likewise the sponsors still got their exposure at the time the games were played.

 

Sounds like a bullshit argument to me but there is probably some legal difference (which will also be bullshit).

There might be different consequences for insurance, sponsorship etc., but fundamentally the league will be decided according to what the SPFL are ALLOWED to do - and that comes down to the proper interpretation of the rules, not what’s commercially favourable. 

 

There are good reasons to say, as Hearts have done, that the SPFL rules mandate that all teams play 38 games. I’m not sure there’s anything which unambiguously gives the SPFL the right to end the season after 30 games. I’ve spent a bit more time looking at the rules in the past day or two (sad, but seems like there’s a lot of hours in the day at the moment) and I think the club are on a much stronger footing than when I first looked earlier in the week. 
 

If delaying until later in the year isn’t possible, the authorities might be stuck with null and void. The alternative would be a compromise whereby 19/20 gets called as it stands, but the leagues are reconstructed so that nobody goes down. That’s also not consistent with the rules, but they’d just have to hope that they can get enough support that nobody challenges it. 
 

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2020 by Bellion

[RENE]

19 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Is this some sort of legal loophole?  I’m failing to see the difference from a fan, tv broadcaster or sponsor’s perspective between playing 30 games and declaring null and void or positions declared as is.  

Even null and void, as a fan I still watched these games and got the entertainment (or not as the case may be) for all the games I paid for and attended.  The tv broadcaster still televised the games (just the shortfall in the 8 games left which would apply on either 30 game scenario anyway).  Likewise the sponsors still got their exposure at the time the games were played.

 

Sounds like a bullshit argument to me but there is probably some legal difference (which will also be bullshit).

Have to agree. Can't see BT or Sky trying to get money back for games already shown. Seems to be an easy excuse for those not wanting league voided.

[King Of The Cat Cafe]

2 hours ago, RENE said:

Have to agree. Can't see BT or Sky trying to get money back for games already shown. Seems to be an easy excuse for those not wanting league voided.

 

This.

 

[karipidis]

3 hours ago, OldGorgie said:

Excuses, excuses. Maybe we should get Levein to make our case for staying up, he’s good at excuses. Reality is we have been dire all season. 

Hardly excuses when we’ve still got 8 games to go. 6 of which are against bottom 6 sides (I know that’s not helped us much this season). 

[ramrod]

When it becomes apparent this season can't be completed I think they will call the current seasons positions final and Celtic champions. 

Think  they'll abandon relegation and go for a 14 team league . 

It's probably the only solution that will be acceptable to all Bar Rangers . 

 

[OldGorgie]

1 hour ago, karipidis said:

Hardly excuses when we’ve still got 8 games to go. 6 of which are against bottom 6 sides (I know that’s not helped us much this season). 

Can’t see that is any comfort. My own view is that we would be better playing all games against the top 6. We’ve been dire against the teams in the bottom six.

[Ex member of the SaS]

On 18/03/2020 at 08:58, TheBigO said:

I just don'tt get that awarding titles and relegating teams is mutually exclusive.

 

Why can't Celtic, DUtd etc not be awarded titles? It's arbitrary really.

 

Relegation has real impact, however and should be avoided for as many as poss.

 

The positive move is 2 up from each division, no relegation, 2 up from non league. Even for one season.

 

It's tough for teams in 3rd spot but they're missing out on a very positive thing rather than losing current status.

 

I just can't get past how obvious it is.

The problems start with the teams in 3rd 4th and 5th in the Championship, all have a chance to make second at least. Add then the fact that increasing the league gives other clubs a better chance of winning the Premiership. ( By winning more games against the smaller clubs and playing less games against the bigot twins ) then add in the fact that TV want 4 games between the bigot twins and things get messed up.

However I would void the league, promote the top two in the Championship and financially compensate the others. Not ideal but taking all the other problems probably the best out of a lot of bad options.

[Hectormasson]

On 19/03/2020 at 12:18, Seymour M Hersh said:

Don't know if this has been mentioned but....

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/03/18/coronavirus-bill-offers-spfl-way-hearts-legal-threat/

 

Forsyth seems to bee keen for it to happen anyway nasally little c u next tuesday.

Hope hmfc take it all the way "   and win against the gcfa,    self centred b......s !   If we go down fair enough "     I wouldn't want us to return "    I'd like to see us try and get into the english lower league    , highly unlikely or near impossible,    just the way I personally feel , we would still get decent gates ,not much would change financially,   🇱🇻🇱🇻🇱🇻🇱🇻🇱🇻and brand new challenges,,,,,

[JJ93]

 

[sac]

3 hours ago, ramrod said:

When it becomes apparent this season can't be completed I think they will call the current seasons positions final and Celtic champions. 

Think  they'll abandon relegation and go for a 14 team league . 

It's probably the only solution that will be acceptable to all Bar Rangers . 

 

Sevco will be no more again

[John Gentleman]

9 hours ago, OTT said:

 

Yeah, if anything it weakens the argument that the league can be played out at a certain date. 

 

Players from various clubs may be forced to leave and come June 1st, they will (if their contracts are up). That means by the time we get round to actually starting back up we could have a completely new squad. What does that do for sporting integrity? Call the league as is, move to 14 or 16 and leave things there. No need to force relegation or the ensuing legal calamity that would come from it. 

There might not be enough viable clubs to move to 14 or 16. There might only be 5 or 6 from the whole Scottsh setup, who knows?

[TyphoonJambo]

28 minutes ago, sac said:

Sevco will be no more again

Win, win then. 

[IveSeenTheLight]

8 hours ago, Bellion said:

Sort of. The rules say that the season ends after the last game “or otherwise as determined by the board”. That’s potentially unhelpful, because it gives the impression that the board can call the season done whenever they like, especially if you read that definition in isolation. 
 

The “38 game” rule is C14. It says that Premiership clubs shall play 38 games “disregarding any postponed or abandoned matches”.
 

You could try to interpret that as a caveat which means clubs don’t have to play 38 games if certain matches are postponed/abandoned, but I think the more sensible reading is that postponed/abandoned matches don’t count towards the total of 38 which all clubs have to meet (i.e. you can’t just start 38 games, you have to complete them all).
 

I think the club have reached the same conclusion, which is why Ann Budge has been talking about the rules clearly requiring everyone to play 38 games. It’s not absolutely clear cut but I think it works in Hearts’ favour. I don’t think it’s something the SPFL can ignore. 

My take on the two clauses is that the season is defined as being 38 games, however the board can determine otherwise.

Naturally, there is no need for the board to define the season under normal circumstance, but in exceptional circumstances, they can.

I think everyone would accept these are exceptional circumstances.

 

I think that is why they are delaying to give the season every opportunity to complete but when it becomes apparent they can’t then the call will be made (just my opinion)

[Fozzyonthefence]

8 hours ago, Bellion said:

There might be different consequences for insurance, sponsorship etc., but fundamentally the league will be decided according to what the SPFL are ALLOWED to do - and that comes down to the proper interpretation of the rules, not what’s commercially favourable. 

 

There are good reasons to say, as Hearts have done, that the SPFL rules mandate that all teams play 38 games. I’m not sure there’s anything which unambiguously gives the SPFL the right to end the season after 30 games. I’ve spent a bit more time looking at the rules in the past day or two (sad, but seems like there’s a lot of hours in the day at the moment) and I think the club are on a much stronger footing than when I first looked earlier in the week. 
 

If delaying until later in the year isn’t possible, the authorities might be stuck with null and void. The alternative would be a compromise whereby 19/20 gets called as it stands, but the leagues are reconstructed so that nobody goes down. That’s also not consistent with the rules, but they’d just have to hope that they can get enough support that nobody challenges it. 
 

 

 

 

What about the bit in the rules along the lines of as the Board sees fit - as has been alluded to here and previously?  Sounds sufficiently vague enough to give the SPFL the excuse to call the season over now.

[Italian Lambretta]

2 hours ago, BarneyBattles said:

Did they really get 26 people to touch each other including very young kids For this photo? 
 

That’s madness!

Sounds like something sellick would do. 

[SectionDJambo]

4 hours ago, BarneyBattles said:

Did they really get 26 people to touch each other including very young kids For this photo? 
 

That’s madness!

There’s a frightening number people who are still not getting it. Including the panic buyers who are exposing themselves to mass crowds whilst being so selfish.

My wife showed me a photo taken at a John Lewis, apparently today, showing a store’s staff posing for a big group photo on a stairwell, before they closed up. It’s nuts.

[Bellion]

2 hours ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

What about the bit in the rules along the lines of as the Board sees fit - as has been alluded to here and previously?  Sounds sufficiently vague enough to give the SPFL the excuse to call the season over now.

That's this bit, from rule A4:

 

""Season" means the period of the year commencing on the date of the first League Match in a Season and ending on the date of the last League Match in the same Season or otherwise as determined by the Board and which excludes the Close Season";

 

Like I said earlier, if you read that in isolation, it gives the impression that the SPFL Board can choose to end the season whenever they see fit. But it wouldn't be read in isolation by any neutral party, if it comes to that. They will look at all of the rules and try to work out what's permitted.  

 

Unsurprisingly there are hundreds of references to a "Season" in the rules. For example, C8 and C10.3 say that the club finishing 12th in the Premiership at the end of the "Season" participate in the Championship the next year: "the Clubs entitled to participate in the Championship in any Season shall be...the Club which finished in position 12 of the League at the end of the immediately preceding Season". 

 

Bad for us, on the assumption that the SPFL are entitled to call the season done whenever they see fit.  

 

The problem the SPFL have is that there are rules which - unless you go out of your way to read them unnaturally - explicitly say that 38 games have to be played by each Premiership team before a season is finished.  In particular, C14, which says: "The Clubs for the time being entitled in terms of these Rules to participate in the Premiership shall, disregarding any abandoned or postponed matches, play in 38 League Matches in any one Season." (I don't think the definition of "League Match" has any bearing). 

 

As per my earlier post, you could read the abandoned/postponed games bit as a caveat which means that if games are abandoned, clubs don't have to play 38 games. But if that's what's meant, it's very awkwardly worded: I think it's far more likely that it means that Premiership teams have to play 38 games not including any abandoned/postponed games. 

 

For whatever reason, there's no equivalent provision for any of the other divisions: there's no rule saying League One teams have to play 36 games. It's a bit odd that there's a provision which looks like it mandates that top league clubs play a whole season, but not other teams.

 

I've no idea why it's been written this way, but one possibility is that in the normal course of events, lower league teams are less likely to be able to complete a season for financial/weather/other unanticipated reasons. The SPFL might have wanted the power to call a League Two season done where (for example) two mid-table teams are stuck on 35 games and can't fulfil their last fixture. The SPFL probably can call that done, because in principle they can decide when a season is concluded, and there's no rule saying that clubs in that division have to fulfil all their fixtures.

 

The fact that the SPFL have gone out of their way to specifically include a rule to that effect in respect of the Premiership only makes it very hard to ignore.    

 

There are a few other small things I've noticed which I think help too, but that's enough for now. 

 

Ultimately, I think the SPFL will do whatever they think they can get away with which causes the least hassle. Obviously the last couple of weeks have been about as unusual as you can get - but there's a lot of money at stake, and these rules are not going to get ignored entirely.

 

Clubs are still entitled to certainty and fairness and that's why these rules exist. I'd rule nothing out where the Scottish football authorities are concerned, but based on the way they've drafted their own rules, I think there is a very good case to be made that all Premiership teams have to play 38 games before we're done. 

Edited March 22, 2020 by Bellion

[stuart500]

So the board has the right to pick a date and define it as the end of the season. But a club could argue that if 38 games have not been played between the start and end dates, then no-one can be deemed champions and no-one relegated. 

 

In that case the season would be void. 

 

For clarity I am not a legal expert. These are just my personal thoughts.

[Bellion]

1 hour ago, stuart500 said:

So the board has the right to pick a date and define it as the end of the season. But a club could argue that if 38 games have not been played between the start and end dates, then no-one can be deemed champions and no-one relegated. 

 

In that case the season would be void. 

 

For clarity I am not a legal expert. These are just my personal thoughts.

That’s how I read it, yes. My earlier post was getting too long, but I should also have mentioned that C17 says that the club in position 12 shall be relegated “following completion of all League Matches in the Premiership in that Season”.
 

Read along with the requirement that everyone in the Prem plays 38 games, there’s a good case that we can’t be relegated before those 38 games are done.

[Gilberts Fridge]

Unfortunately, for all the media and those in the SFA / SPFL that would like to relegate us, it then means that all SPFL leagues are now final.

 

Can’t see Falkirk in league 1 being happy with that, one point of Raith with a far better goal difference or East Fife who are two points of the play offs.

 

Partick Thistle are two points off 9^th place in the championship with a game in hand which would take them to two points from safety if they won it, and Dunfermline are 3 points off the play offs.

 

Queens Park are 1 point off the play offs in League 2 as well.

 

The uncomfortable truth for the SPFL and media is that we are not the problem, relegate us (as they would love to do) and there is a whole host of other problems for them. The only solutions are to finish the season or void the season.

 

We shouldn’t be in this position in the first place and as much has Ann has done for the club, the mismanagement of the football side in the last 18 months is why we are in such a perilous state.

[Jamboelite]

34 minutes ago, Gilberts Fridge said:

Unfortunately, for all the media and those in the SFA / SPFL that would like to relegate us, it then means that all SPFL leagues are now final.

 

Can’t see Falkirk in league 1 being happy with that, one point of Raith with a far better goal difference or East Fife who are two points of the play offs.

 

Partick Thistle are two points off 9^th place in the championship with a game in hand which would take them to two points from safety if they won it, and Dunfermline are 3 points off the play offs.

 

Queens Park are 1 point off the play offs in League 2 as well.

 

The uncomfortable truth for the SPFL and media is that we are not the problem, relegate us (as they would love to do) and there is a whole host of other problems for them. The only solutions are to finish the season or void the season.

 

We shouldn’t be in this position in the first place and as much has Ann has done for the club, the mismanagement of the football side in the last 18 months is why we are in such a perilous state.

Dont disagree with that.

 

****ing annoying these gutless wankers couldnt just beat St Mirren and then we wouldnt be concerning ourselves with this but we are bottom for a reason.

[Jambo66]

I think there is a fairly strong argument that the purpose of the rule allowing the board to decide the season has ended early, is to allow a situation where inconsequential matches cannot be played. As an example, a team and is unable to complete its fixtures due to a liquidation event at a point where the games it has left do not impact on final positions. In particular, champions, UEFA places and relegation.

 

In those circumstances, the board could justify saying the season has ended.

 

The problem here is that we are nowhere near that position just now. We don't even know which teams will be top 6 at the split.

 

To determine the season now is against the rules of natural justice and is definitely challengeable.

 

Having said that, I fully expect the SPFL to reach a stupid decision.

[soonbe110]

21 hours ago, Ex member of the SaS said:

The problems start with the teams in 3rd 4th and 5th in the Championship, all have a chance to make second at least. Add then the fact that increasing the league gives other clubs a better chance of winning the Premiership. ( By winning more games against the smaller clubs and playing less games against the bigot twins ) then add in the fact that TV want 4 games between the bigot twins and things get messed up.

However I would void the league, promote the top two in the Championship and financially compensate the others. Not ideal but taking all the other problems probably the best out of a lot of bad options.

Yes but I’m not sure a club finishing 3rd or 4th in the championship have ever got through the play-offs so it’s not a strong bargaining position they have. 

[soonbe110]

3 hours ago, Gilberts Fridge said:

Unfortunately, for all the media and those in the SFA / SPFL that would like to relegate us, it then means that all SPFL leagues are now final.

 

Can’t see Falkirk in league 1 being happy with that, one point of Raith with a far better goal difference or East Fife who are two points of the play offs.

 

Partick Thistle are two points off 9^th place in the championship with a game in hand which would take them to two points from safety if they won it, and Dunfermline are 3 points off the play offs.

 

Queens Park are 1 point off the play offs in League 2 as well.

 

The uncomfortable truth for the SPFL and media is that we are not the problem, relegate us (as they would love to do) and there is a whole host of other problems for them. The only solutions are to finish the season or void the season.

 

We shouldn’t be in this position in the first place and as much has Ann has done for the club, the mismanagement of the football side in the last 18 months is why we are in such a perilous state.

Or r-structure the leagues, which is what I think they will do. 

[Taffin]

I don't get why you would start another season until the previous one was finished. Surely the talk should be around when the next league will be able to start based on when we get this one finished. Whenever we can play again, we finish this season then consider when to start the next one.

[Bellion]

16 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

I think there is a fairly strong argument that the purpose of the rule allowing the board to decide the season has ended early, is to allow a situation where inconsequential matches cannot be played. As an example, a team and is unable to complete its fixtures due to a liquidation event at a point where the games it has left do not impact on final positions. In particular, champions, UEFA places and relegation.

 

In those circumstances, the board could justify saying the season has ended.

 

The problem here is that we are nowhere near that position just now. We don't even know which teams will be top 6 at the split.

 

To determine the season now is against the rules of natural justice and is definitely challengeable.

 

Having said that, I fully expect the SPFL to reach a stupid decision.

There’s a separate rule (C52) directed specifically at this. It gives the SPFL the right to (basically) do whatever they like in the event that an individual club ceases participating or can’t complete its fixtures. That explicitly includes determining league positions, promotions and relegations.
 

The slightly loose definition of “Season” - which gives the impression SPFL can call it done before the last game is played - might be designed to complement that rule. It would prevent nonsense challenges that a season hasn’t technically been completed because someone folded the week before their last game. 
 

There’s no rule allowing the SPFL to do what they like in circumstances like the ones we are encountering, where nobody can complete their fixtures (at least not on time). You could say (and I imagine Hearts will) that means the SPFL doesn’t have the power to make something up/call it as it stands.