SPFL and Covid ( Leagues 1 and 2 to restart )

[jock _turd]

Just now, Fozzyonthefence said:

BBC report I’m reading is saying 11 Premiership clubs need to vote for it now. 🤷‍♂️

 

I think we need a definitive on the voting because clearly 11-1 will not carry 9-3 has a chance at least.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

6 minutes ago, Ricardo Shillyshally said:

If this goes to a vote, when will it be for all 41 clubs?

 

Dundee can obvs suit themselves

 

Dundee being left down in the Championship after all their nonsense will be a nice bonus if this all happens.

 

[David McCaig]

6 hours ago, Paolo said:

They should withdraw from the league if they cannot fulfil fixtures.  That could open up opportunities for other clubs who may be able to.  
 

If they feel hard done by, they can sue the SPFL too  

Ann Budge is on The Nine in a couple of minutes

[gashauskis9]

3 minutes ago, Squirt said:

Yeah just seen that too

 

If that’s the case, it’s a non-starter IMO.

The clubs will vote the way Doncaster and Celtic tell them.

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, DC_92 said:

 

It shouldn't have mentioned Hearts at all. One of the central arguments of the proposal is about sporting fairness, but that gets obscured by the "Premiership needs Hearts..." stuff. The size of the clubs involved should be irrelevant to that argument.

 

I can see people drawing (inappropriate) comparison to the Rangers situation in 2012 because of the language used. St Mirren, Ross County, etc. will vote against citing this as their reasoning.

To be honest I think the time for being upset about the use of language is long gone. AB has laid it on the line. She’s effectively said we can survive in the Championship (5 year backing from benefactors, FOH, etc) can you (some clubs) survive in the Premiership? especially if we take money away from you through parachute payment and compensation (and legal fees).

 

AB has been very clever. At a time when clubs are losing money hand over fist she has given them an option of saving money, no parachute payment, non profit use of facilities, assisting with costs of testing, etc.

 

If clubs want to vote against it because they don’t like the language being used, or they can’t face the reality of the situation, then that’s up to them. They can vote against it, but they’ll vote against it at their peril.  

[Jambo66]

25 minutes ago, luckydug said:

What's your opinion on how a court action from Hearts would affect the ability of the top two leagues to commence ?

Or would they have to wait until legal proceedings are completed ?

It depends on timing, which is not a helpful response I know. It could be that we start by seeking a preliminary hearing on the initial resolution. It is possible that could result in the court effectively indicating that it is likely they will overturn that decision. That would stop everything until the SPFL went back to the clubs.

 

The other argument is that the new season should be allowed to start. Then it becomes just about compensation.

 

The question is whether or not the court would put an interim interdict in place. Given that there is obviously a prima facie case, the court would have to decide on the balance of convenience whether or not to stop the new season starting. That is a tricky one - especially if we are seeking reinstatement. The general view is that the courts should not countenance something that would be irreversible should the other side win.

 

At the moment, the new season is some distance away and there is a distinct possibility that might nudge to court towards granting an interim interdict. To be honest, I think it is too close to call, and that is another reason why I think the proposal will get enough support.

[Fxxx the SPFL]

1 minute ago, Ethan Hunt said:

To be honest I think the time for being upset about the use of language is long gone. AB has laid it on the line. She’s effectively said we can survive in the Championship (5 year backing from benefactors, FOH, etc) can you (some clubs) survive in the Premiership? especially if we take money away from you through parachute payment and compensation (and legal fees).

 

AB has been very clever. At a time when clubs are losing money hand over fist she has given them an option of saving money, no parachute payment, non profit use of facilities, assisting with costs of testing, etc.

 

If clubs want to vote against it because they don’t like the language being used, or they can’t face the reality of the situation, then that’s up to them. They can vote against it, but they’ll vote against it at their peril.  

spot on

[kila]

4 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

I think we need a definitive on the voting because clearly 11-1 will not carry 9-3 has a chance at least.

 

Maybe there will be two votes? One for reconstruction, the other on whether to change the prize monies.

 

Given this is just for 2 years to combat the effects of everything, changing the prize monies not really needed.

 

[Hearts1975]

5 minutes ago, Squirt said:

Yeah just seen that too

 

If that’s the case, it’s a non-starter IMO.

 

5 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

 

I think we need a definitive on the voting because clearly 11-1 will not carry 9-3 has a chance at least.

I thought it would be 11-1 for the proposal for introducing the 2 non league sides and 9-3 for not - in essence the other way around from how the article has it ?

[Jambof3tornado]

I cant see this getting the support it needs but hope that clubs take time to weigh up the options, doing nothing simply is NOT a path clubs can go down.

 

No matter what this doesnt end tomorrow.

[Guest ToqueJambo]

2 minutes ago, jock _turd said:

 

I think we need a definitive on the voting because clearly 11-1 will not carry 9-3 has a chance at least.

 

Not sure. Only Hibs maybe which would be sweet! Aberdeen has come out in favour as have several others. Celtic it seems could go for it. The other clubs would be encouraged to fall in line to avoid the court hassle, uncertainty and financial hit that would go with the court case. If Sky are indeed in favour that seals the deal as the Doncaster and co would then be in favour.

 

The way Budge has laid it out, there appears to be zero financial risk to expanding the league for any club and financial gain for every club. In addition for clubs like St Mirren, Hamilton and County it not only makes them money but potentially reduces their risk of relegation next season.

 

To vote against it, you'd have to be mad, or Hibs. And you'd have to have a VERY compelling reason because everyone would ask why they voted against it. "Not the time" won't wash again. "Money worries" seems to have gone as a reason against. "TV deal" doesn't seem to be an issue. The only reason would be spite and a desire to see one or more clubs suffer.

[MCW1976]

37 minutes ago, KillieMitch said:

From an outside point of view that seems an entirely reasonable proposal. Killie were already in favour of reconstruction and I'd be surprised if Bowie opposed that. 

 

I think the crucial thing might actually be that it makes games in the Championship more likely next season by keeping more larger teams in there. And ensures there is no risk of Hearts and Inverness bring marooned if that league can't play - that might tip it over the line. 

 

Agree with the posters saying the language is a mistake. Its like all of those rambling statements. The specifics are usually right, it's great that Budge wants to communicate, but everything gets buried in waffle and things get taken out of context. An editor the only thing missing from that proposal. 

What club CEO will vote to cost their club money, and then tell their fans, ‘Aye, but we really showed those Hearts cants’.

 

Money is beyond scarce!

[JimmyCant]

4 minutes ago, Jambo66 said:

It depends on timing, which is not a helpful response I know. It could be that we start by seeking a preliminary hearing on the initial resolution. It is possible that could result in the court effectively indicating that it is likely they will overturn that decision. That would stop everything until the SPFL went back to the clubs.

 

The other argument is that the new season should be allowed to start. Then it becomes just about compensation.

 

The question is whether or not the court would put an interim interdict in place. Given that there is obviously a prima facie case, the court would have to decide on the balance of convenience whether or not to stop the new season starting. That is a tricky one - especially if we are seeking reinstatement. The general view is that the courts should not countenance something that would be irreversible should the other side win.

 

At the moment, the new season is some distance away and there is a distinct possibility that might nudge to court towards granting an interim interdict. To be honest, I think it is too close to call, and that is another reason why I think the proposal will get enough support.

We will not get an interim interdict which would have any possibility of delaying the start of the season or more importantly threatens the Sky TV deal. 

[Beast Boy]

30 minutes ago, true-jambo said:

Unfortunately yes, as has been stated on here most sports commentators/journalists will just read the headlines.

It would have been good to think the various chairmen could see what she is trying to point out, but given recent performances on national radio, pragmatism is a stretch too far

The Chairmen etc have already received letters explaining to them in no uncertain terms, what is coming financially, from the SPFL. They are also aware of their potential liability if Hearts win compensation. 
 

This really is ‘an offer that can’t be refused’ for some of them. As in it’s original meaning, when it was used to make people make the desired decision. Agree with this and:

 

1) We will support you, help you, and have your back in these dangerous times.

 

2) Not compound your perilous state by taking action to protect ourselves, that will have a damaging material effect on you.

 

 

[MCW1976]

11 minutes ago, tynewater said:

Given that Ann has put in most of the work involved in creating this proposal, I think it's absolutely right that she gets an opportunity to plug the case for Hearts staying in the Premiership as part of it. Bit like one of those free apps that pumps advertising at you, like Facebook. The directors running the other clubs are mostly business people, so they would expect nothing less than a sales pitch for Hearts being part of our proposal. It would be bizarre if Ann hadn't been banging the drum for us in this.

Being nice just gets you ignored, anyway.

[Hungry hippo]

5 minutes ago, kila said:

 

Maybe there will be two votes? One for reconstruction, the other on whether to change the prize monies.

 

Given this is just for 2 years to combat the effects of everything, changing the prize monies not really needed.

 

 

That sounds like the sneaky kind of way the SPFL likes to get votes through. Will depend how much the board and Celtic want it to pass.

[GorgieRules22]

I’d love to know the reason why a club wouldn’t vote this through.

[jock _turd]

Just now, ToqueJambo said:

 

Not sure. Only Hibs maybe which would be sweet! Aberdeen has come out in favour as have several others. Celtic it seems could go for it. The other clubs would be encouraged to fall in line to avoid the court hassle, uncertainty and financial hit that would go with the court case. If Sky are indeed in favour that seals the deal as the Doncaster and co would then be in favour.

 

The way Budge has laid it out, there appears to be zero financial risk to expanding the league for any club and financial gain for every club. In addition for clubs like St Mirren, Hamilton and County it not only makes them money but potentially reduces their risk of relegation next season.

 

To vote against it, you'd have to be mad, or Hibs. And you'd have to have a VERY compelling reason because everyone would ask why they voted against it. "Not the time" won't wash again. "Money worries" seems to have gone as a reason against. "TV deal" doesn't seem to be an issue. The only reason would be spite and a desire to see one or more clubs suffer.

The more I try to be positive about a possible outcome the more I think that it will fail essentially because some would rather do nothing to improve their lot down to dislike of who is trying to improve the situation! If it comes down to a need for 11-1 I really don't think it will pass. However it will be interesting to hear the reasoning of the naysayers should it fail.

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, Hungry hippo said:

 

That sounds like the sneaky kind of way the SPFL likes to get votes through. Will depend how much the board and Celtic want it to pass.

Doncaster definitely wants it to pass. I reckon Celtic do too.

[Simmo]

6 minutes ago, gashauskis9 said:

The clubs will vote the way Doncaster and Celtic tell them.

Why can't Doncaster and his Cronies just tell all the clubs that this is the way we are going. No vote needed in these unprecedented circumstances. Show some semblance of leadership for a change. After all, this blueprint was discussed at length by the original Reconstruction group of 15. Ann has put it all into a superb document which, indeed, should have been done by Doncaster as CEO of the SPFL.

[Fozzyonthefence]

15 minutes ago, eyesandears said:

Yes, because it's a redistribtion of the money. 

That’s how I interpreted AB’s proposal too but BBC was saying 9-3 earlier apparently.

[MCW1976]

7 minutes ago, Hearts1975 said:

 

I thought it would be 11-1 for the proposal for introducing the 2 non league sides and 9-3 for not - in essence the other way around from how the article has it ?

Its 75%.

 

This 11-1 has been misunderstood by the media for weeks. That’s how low a bar they have set for themselves. They can’t even get the basics right.

[jock _turd]

Just now, Special Officer Doofy said:

Doncaster definitely wants it to pass. I reckon Celtic do too.

 

It would be a get out of jail card for him... and the tic don't care anymore they have 8.79 in the bag.

[MCW1976]

4 minutes ago, GorgieRules22 said:

I’d love to know the reason why a club wouldn’t vote this through.

15 minutes of fame ... followed by 15 months of financial catastrophe.

 

 

[David McCaig]

2 minutes ago, MCW1976 said:

Its 75%.

 

This 11-1 has been misunderstood by the media for weeks. That’s how low a bar they have set for themselves. They can’t even get the basics right.

Presumably the vote stays open for 28 days until the requisite number of Yes votes are received.

[Guess The Crowd]

4 minutes ago, Simmo said:

Why can't Doncaster and his Cronies just tell all the clubs that this is the way we are going. No vote needed in these unprecedented circumstances. Show some semblance of leadership for a change. After all, this blueprint was discussed at length by the original Reconstruction group of 15. Ann has put it all into a superb document which, indeed, should have been done by Doncaster as CEO of the SPFL.

 

This. This is what should have happened from day one. 

[annushorribilis III]

1 hour ago, milky_26 said:

you sure he is not away for a fish supper

The chippy went tits up years ago 😄

[busby1985]

Not happy that this is being painted as an exercise to save Hearts however at this stage it’s beyond all that now. Nearly 1000 new pledgers or increased pledges etc etc shows jay we have the fan base and backing to survive what ever comes our way, how many other clubs can say the same? This is the last opportunity for Scottish football to save its face and by doing so potentially save a few clubs. If this fails, which it will, this will head to court and am not sure Scottish football can afford it, literally. I’ve given Budge it tight on occasions but I think she’s played a the long game very well here, better than she is getting credit for. 

[Ricardo Shillyshally]

Paul Barnes on The Nine started off by saying this is all about saving Hearts FFS

[MCW1976]

2 minutes ago, David McCaig said:

Presumably the vote stays open for 28 days until the requisite number of Yes votes are received.

Not sure?

 

Dundee might have some idea of timescales!

[MCW1976]

Just now, Ricardo Shillyshally said:

Paul Barnes on The Nine started off by saying this is all about saving Hearts FFS

It was a disgraceful comment!

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, AHS51 said:

And so it begins.....

 

Robert Grieve and Robert Thomson trying to create the narrative of it being a to save hearts resolution. Just focusing on the "SPL needs Hearts" angle. Blatantly not read Anns proposal properly. It's not just our governing bodies that hold back the game is this county but our press are just as much to blame. 

Ignore the noise.

[Hearts1975]

3 minutes ago, MCW1976 said:

Its 75%.

 

This 11-1 has been misunderstood by the media for weeks. That’s how low a bar they have set for themselves. They can’t even get the basics right.

Sorry mate. I am getting myself confused now

Reason I said was that i thought I had read another article where they spoke around if any reconstruction proposal was put forward and it meant introducing new teams to the league (from the lower leagues) and that the prize revenue distribution would be affected that it was 11-1. It was 75% if the afore mentioned 2 things never changed (prize money and introducing teams) 

its a flawed failure of a system - no doubt about that 

 

 

[Ricardo Shillyshally]

Stenny chairman called part of it a fudge from budge. Not helpful

[Fozzyonthefence]

3 minutes ago, MCW1976 said:

Its 75%.

 

This 11-1 has been misunderstood by the media for weeks. That’s how low a bar they have set for themselves. They can’t even get the basics right.

Are you sure about that? It’s 11-1 if the financial distribution is changed which AB seemed to be suggesting.  Although she did mention using the £300k parachute payment to help fund the increases to 13th and 14th but I thought it still sounded like a change in % splits but I was assuming it would cost more than £300k to do that but maybe not. She must know it has to be 9-3 to stand any chance.

[Sooperstar]

On the vote my opinion is that it would be 11 for Prem. Whilst overall prize money is staying the same and I assume finishing 14th will be the same money as a current 2nd place Championship finish, there is still a change in that the minimum amount a Prem team will be guaranteed is lower.

[Jambo66]

9 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

We will not get an interim interdict which would have any possibility of delaying the start of the season or more importantly threatens the Sky TV deal. 

As I said, the decision is based on the balance of convenience. Part of that relates to the likelihood of success.

[Hearts1975]

Just now, Fozzyonthefence said:

Are you sure about that? It’s 11-1 if the financial distribution is changed which AB seemed to be suggesting.  Although she did mention using the £300k parachute payment to help fund the increases to 13th and 14th but I thought it still sounded like a change in % splits but I was assuming it would cost more than £300k to do that but maybe not. She must know it has to be 9-3 to stand any chance.

That’s what I thought as well

she has put forward 2 proposals - the second one where she introduces the 2 non league sides has to be 11 clubs but the other one 9 clubs 😖. It’s a cluster... of a system 

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

I have to say that the only negative from the statement is putting Hearts so prominently in it - the proposals are perfectly good, and selfless when it comes to sharing our facilities but yoy just know the overwhelming feeling amongst other clubs is to say "Aye, you would say that in your position"

What, the position of having benefactors backing us for the next five years and 8500 and rising FOH pledgers? I’ll settle for that over any position, St Mirren, Hamilton, et al have.

 

 

[MCW1976]

1 minute ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

Are you sure about that? It’s 11-1 if the financial distribution is changed which AB seemed to be suggesting.  Although she did mention using the £300k parachute payment to help fund the increases to 13th and 14th but I thought it still sounded like a change in % splits but I was assuming it would cost more than £300k to do that but maybe not. She must know it has to be 9-3 to stand any chance.

My take is that it’s 14-14-14 to guarantee a 75% carry.

 

Otherwise, 14-10-10-10 would have been the altruistic proposal, as there would have been nothing to lose.

 

Happy to be corrected, if I’ve misunderstood.

[soonbe110]

20 minutes ago, kila said:

 

Maybe there will be two votes? One for reconstruction, the other on whether to change the prize monies.

 

Given this is just for 2 years to combat the effects of everything, changing the prize monies not really needed.

 

Yes she explained that. The parachute money we would receive wont be needed and can be used to give clubs 13 and 14 more money next season. No need to change the prize money distribution for all other clubs. 

[Beast Boy]

4 minutes ago, Ricardo Shillyshally said:

Stenny chairman called part of it a fudge from budge. Not helpful

My local former junior side butt-****ed them in the Scottish Cup last season. Good to see he’s crawled out from hiding.

[Beast Boy]

1 minute ago, MCW1976 said:

My take is that it’s 14-14-14 to guarantee a 75% carry.

 

Otherwise, 14-10-10-10 would have been the altruistic proposal, as there would have been nothing to lose.

 

Happy to be corrected, if I’ve misunderstood.

Members resolutions are 75%, it says so in the proposal. 

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, Riccarton3 said:

Well, I don't go along with the top league needs Hearts either. If she stated that I can't see any context that it wouldn't piss people off. 

 

Ironically, a similar contention from 2012 that the press would do what they do best with as it concerned Rangers: play dumb.

 

Roll up. Roll up to a world of hypocrisy and rancour

 

 

Have you read the resolution she has put forward?

[Don Dan]

From Posts on here I garner the proposal put forward by AB is workable. I haven’t read it because I see no way it will gain the necessary votes to pass muster. 
It’s been a waste of time for AB but when she takes these scum buckets to court she will be able to hold her head high and say well I gave them every opportunity to come to a workable agreement but they refused. Now pay Hearts £3m plus so we can move on. 
 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Dannie Boy
Predictive text 😡

[jambopilms]

A quick look on Pie and Bovril shows what other clubs think and what we are up against. No chance this will go through.

They can't see past its only about saving us, the media won't, the club's won't , the supporters won't.

I would happily take a season in the championship if it means killing off a few clubs on the way. Too many clubs think they will be leaching off us in the championship, they can all get fecked.

[Ricardo Shillyshally]

Just now, Special Officer Doofy said:

My local former junior side butt-****ed them in the Scottish Cup last season. Good to see he’s crawled out from hiding.

He came across as a bit childish. 

[1971fozzy]

28 minutes ago, Ethan Hunt said:

To be honest I think the time for being upset about the use of language is long gone. AB has laid it on the line. She’s effectively said we can survive in the Championship (5 year backing from benefactors, FOH, etc) can you (some clubs) survive in the Premiership? especially if we take money away from you through parachute payment and compensation (and legal fees).

 

AB has been very clever. At a time when clubs are losing money hand over fist she has given them an option of saving money, no parachute payment, non profit use of facilities, assisting with costs of testing, etc.

 

If clubs want to vote against it because they don’t like the language being used, or they can’t face the reality of the situation, then that’s up to them. They can vote against it, but they’ll vote against it at their peril.  

bang on mate. 100%

[kila]

4 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Yes she explained that. The parachute money we would receive wont be needed and can be used to give clubs 13 and 14 more money next season. No need to change the prize money distribution for all other clubs. 

 

 

75% then, not the 11-1 the BBC are reporting

 

[Ethan Hunt]

1 hour ago, Diadora Van Basten said:

Bit disappointed that Ann hasn’t tried to get Brora and Kelty into the leagues as both are far more deserving than Brechin.

 

We are most likely going to fail anyway so we might as well do the right thing rather than play politics.

She addressed their situation. Neither are members of the SPFL so it would be difficult to argue a case other than leave it on the table for clubs to discuss. In my opinion both Kelty and Brora would bring lots to the league. They have a bigger support than a number of the lower league clubs for starters.