DoofersDad

Confused messages are in nobody's interest and will cost lives. The Scottish Government says that they had not been consulted over the change of slogan and the UK Government says that the measures they announced were part of a process that involved consultation with the devolved administrations. Someone is telling porkies and whilst I don't really care who it is, it does need to stop. When the Prime Minister or other UK ministers make statements which they know are applicable only to one or some of the nations they need to specify that and to emphasise the different advice that applies elsewhere. These statements are not seen just in England. The impact of the virus is different in different parts of the UK and in Scotland we appear to be a bit behind England's curve. So whilst a consistent UK (or at least, a GB) approach is highly desirable it is entirely reasonable that the devolved administrations should take a different path when justified. But it needs to be seen to be justified. The Scottish mask advice was a serious error of judgement which not only differed from UK advice but from WHO advice too. As Yngwie points out, it has been largely ignored by the public and the worry for me is that it will lead to people continuing to listen to and follow the UK or specifically English advice when a different approach actually is justified in Scotland. We need better clarity from both Governments.

Roy, this is what you said in 2012. “The majority of fans throughout the country are telling us the SPL structure as it stands isn’t working. “The customer is telling us the product isn’t right and interest has started to wane. We need to grow up and do something about that before giving anyone the opportunity to say the game is dying. “We’re doing fine and we’re getting to know the league but I’m more interested in reconstruction. “I have no view as yet on what is the perfect solution, whether it’s to expand the league to 14 or even 16, but we have to take a longer-term view of the SPL.” Don't betray "the majority of fans throughout the country" Roy. Man up and let's have some Highland solidarity here!

If there's one sure way of never getting change, it is to stop debating.

Yes, very predictable but it was a lot more than a distraction. it made the task of planning for the restart of football post Coronavirus even more difficult because clubs simply didn't know in what division they would be playing. It also illustrates the dishonesty of the SPFL for linking their vote to end the season with a promise to look at reconstruction when they knew it was never going to happen. Forget the need for an 11-1 vote of Premiership sides, apparently a majority of Premiership sides have told the SPFL that they are opposed to any change in the 12,10,10,10 structure. The SPFL could have established that with 24 hours weeks ago. They could then have put a clear motion about the end of season to the clubs without any dishonest carrots being dangled. It absolutely stinks.

The club is in an incredibly difficult position at the moment. With discussions going on around restructuring, there is a real possibility that we might be back in the top flight next season. But then there is a real possibility that we won't. The club simply don't know where we will be playing but they do know that the revenue streams from those two options would be very different. In these circumstances it is almost impossible to do any realistic budgeting and to decide who they want to keep and who they don't. It may well be that the best option is to plan for just keeping afloat in the Championship. If we do end up in the Premiership then we would do so on a very low budget and would be hot favourites for the drop. However, a low budget and increased revenue stream would help make us financially stronger and would allow us to be in a much better position to be competitive in the Championship the year after in the likely event of us being relegated next year. Of course, we might not get relegated, in which case we would be in a position to strengthen. The club might expect that if we end up in the Premiership, we will be a more attractive option to out of contract players who may be happy to be on a lower wage if it gives them exposure in the top flight. The club is not really in a position to be making commitments to out of contract players at this time. Once a decision on the possible restructuring is made then the club should be in a better position to make decisions. The continuing Coronavirus situation will, however, continue to impose other very considerable uncertainties for some time to come.

Looks like a 14,14,16 option is what is coming out of the discussions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52545305 Like the 14,10,10,10 it has the advantage that no team would be relegated this season. As pointed out above, the league 2 sides seem keen on a 14, 14, 14. I suppose the devil is in the detail with proposals around splits and play-offs and (for the league 2 sides) the arrangements for teams dropping into the minor leagues. It looks as though the SPFL will put a proposal to the clubs if they have reason to believe that any particular option will receive the necessary support. No doubt there is frantic activity behind the scenes trying to find a way of getting some consensus. Any of these options would have us in the top flight next season.

Not having any reconstruction is also highly problematical. If you do that, do you call the current season null and void or do you you say that final positions are as per the recent controversial vote? If the latter, how do you deal with the play-off places? If you just shelve the play-offs so it is a simple one up, one down between championship and premiership then that is in itself a form of reconstruction as it is applying different rules to those previously agreed. The 14, 10,10,10 idea seems the best to me as it avoids teams being relegated following an incomplete season. The point to remember is that if you do that, it doesn't need to be a permanent solution. It is a sensible solution to the immediate problem and allows breathing space for a more considered look at reconstruction when things have settled down. The real problem here is the voting system and the opportunity should be taken to look at that. Needing the Premiership clubs to vote 11-1 in favour of a motion is patently absurd. Equally, requiring a simple majority would also be absurd because you would end up with constant change due to one or two clubs changing their mind. Most organisations require something like a two thirds majority for change. This is tried and trusted. This would prevent change when there was a temporary change of view of a small number of clubs, but it allows for change when there is a clear majority appetite for change. Until the voting rules are changed then we are not going to get a solution which is in the best interests of Scottish football

I seem to remember eyebrows being raised last year by some folk wondering why Motherwell were signing Polworth when they thought he wasn't good enough to be in our starting line up. Some players just need better players around them to show what they are capable of. Polworth would see the clever ball into space but far too often those around him just weren't on the same wavelength. This season he has been a major reason for Motherwell's good performance in the Premiership. I think White is also an intelligent player and his problem has been that he makes the runs into the space where the midfielders should be playing the ball but all too often, don't. I can see Polworth and White combining pretty well. Despite the frustrations and un-called for criticism from some of the fans, big Jordan always gave 100%. I'll be sorry to see him go but wish him the good fortune he deserves.

I do most of my food shopping in Dingwall and find that wrapping my ICT scarf over my face is an excellent way of ensuring folk keep at least 2m away from me!

Regardless of how well or how badly our Governments North and South of the border are handling this crisis, at least none of our political leaders are suggesting injecting disinfectant into our lungs might be a good idea.

Scot Gardiner has asked me to put this link onto CTO as donations to Mikey's line have been drying up during this period when the need for support for folk has never been greater. This is a great initiative from the manager and it would be great if folk could share this to help make the event a success.

Yes. I imagine that would have been fuel rods and an awful lot of lead lining. The rods themselves weren't particularly radioactive before they went in to the reactor, but what came out of the reactor was a very different beast. The materials which went South to Sellafield for re-processing went by sea.

The Government is adamant that it will always make decisions based on the scientific advice and it is always going on about the fact that we have some of best and most internationally respected scientists in the world. Some of the Government's decisions would suggest it must be other and rather less able scientists who are advising the Government. Take Scotty's point about checking the temperature of travellers. The stated reason for not doing what the Seychelles and Kenya were doing is that people can transmit virus before they are symptomatic and therefore temperature testing is not going to pick those people up, nor will it pick up those who have been infected but are early on in the incubation stage and who only become infectious later. That is true enough, but it is absolutely no reason not to identify those who are symptomatic and who, as a result of the stage of their illness and their coughing, are likely to be shedding a far larger amount of virus than the asymptomatic carrier. There is an argument that the time people would spend in queues caused by the checkpoints would actually increase the opportunity of those with the virus to spread it, but that, of course, depends on how efficient the process is. For instance a quick scan at an airport before you enter the security area at departures or before you enter the arrivals building on arriving should not involve any more queueing than takes place in any case. One can't help but think that all too often, the "scientific advice" is shaped more by the Government's inability to implement the right action than by the scientific evidence or even basic common sense. My guess would be that the Government simply did not have access to anything like enough thermal imaging equipment to do the necessary screening in our complex transport infrastructure.

Death rates in Scotland are lower than the UK as a whole. Unsurprisingly, London has been worst hit because of the level of mixing on the underground etc and because it is such a hub for people from all over the world. Rates are variable in the rest of the UK just as as they are in different parts of Scotland, but in general, the rates are lower where population density is lower. There are loads of reasons why some locations may have more cases than others. An intriguing football related one is that there is a suggestion that some coronavirus deaths in Liverpool may be a consequence of 3000 Athletico Madrid fans coming to the Champions league match when parts of Madrid were already in lockdown. Bottom line is, anyone can catch it. We all now know how to stay safe and how to prevent putting others at risk, so let's keep doing that and keeping the figures as low as possible in our neck of the woods.

There is currently no plan for Livi to be on board with. What they are on board with is their own proposal. I don't like their proposal as it seems to do away with the play offs apart from potentially between the Championship and the Premiership. The play-offs keep the season meaningful to the end of the season for several clubs. I'm not sure why they would want to move away from that.

Theres a separate thread on the restructuring. The details of the panel have been posted there.

Welcome to the forum! The only thing that makes sense to me is that they are playing the long game. I honestly can't see both Rangers and Celtic voting for a restructuring that involves more than 14 teams in the Premiership. If we have a 14 team top flight next season with Hearts not being relegated and Utd and us going up, then Dundee will be best placed to go up the following season. Once up, it will be easier to stay in a top flight of 14 rather than 12 providing the promotion / relegation arrangements stay the same. Next season will be difficult to plan for, what with all the loss of revenue this season and the continuing uncertainty. Dundee will probably be better placed that any other championship to cope with that and it would give them the time to make the necessary plans to ensure they were competitive in the top flight the season after. Compare that with the situation we find our selves in. The priority for the Board is simply survival at the moment. If reconstruction took us back into the top flight we will have neither the time nor the money to strengthen the squad. We would be hot favourites for the drop. After the traumas of coronavirus, Dundee may be planning to rebuild their strength carefully and steadily. If we are in the Premiership next season we may find we overstretch ourselves and end up suffering from post viral fatigue syndrome.

Interesting. Can't help but notice that Dundee are represented after being persuaded (and allowed) to change their vote. Partick too after deciding against taking legal action over the vote. Both the Highland and Lowland Leagues are represented but neither of the big 2. It smacks to me as a sop to some of the smaller clubs to make them think that the SPFL is serious about restructuring and a sop to Hearts and Partick to suggest that the SPFL are doing their best to prevent them from being relegated after an unfinished season. They may come up with some good suggestions which have the support of most of the clubs, but unless Rangers or Celtic support the proposals then any proposal simply won't be carried and we will be back to square one. I live in hope though.

It makes for much greater opportunity for moving through the divisions. For instance, the top four in the Championship could also be the top four in the league of 8 and therefore all get promoted to the Premier Division. That makes it quite appealing and is also why there is absolutely zero chance of 11 of the current Premiership sides voting for it.

Unless there has been some shady deal behind the scenes, I can't see Partick taking the SPFL's acceptance of Dundee's changed vote lying down. There are 3 issues here. The first is the obvious one of whether the rules allow for a club to retract their vote and to subsequently vote differently. The second is whether the rules allow for information about how the vote is going to be released before all clubs have voted. The third is perhaps more intriguing. Remember that the 5pm deadline was merely a request and as per the rules there is actually a 28 day deadline. Dundee submitted their revised vote after the requested 5pm deadline. If Dundee's retraction and subsequent revised vote is accepted by the SPFL as legitimate, then surely it is open to any other club also to inform the SPFL to consider their vote as "not cast" and then subsequently submit a changed vote at any time within the 28 hours deadline. So, for instance, if Ayr United decided that the subsequent discussions were not to their liking and they felt they had been duped by the SPFL, they could change their mind in 3 weeks time thereby causing the motion to fall after all! It follows therefore that given the precedent of the changed Dundee vote, the SPFL should not be taking any actions in implementing the result of the vote until the 28 days are up. The coronavirus pandemic is an unprecedented event and places clubs and their employees in real financial difficulty. The SPFL's failure to apply a bit of basic common sense and separate payments to clubs from wider issues of final positions and possible restructuring is quite mind boggling. There is an easy solution to this which would find the support of the vast majority of the Scottish football community. Instead the SPFL find themselves facing demands for an external inquiry and the possibility of legal challenge.

If the increase in the number of clubs resulted in Rangers and Celtic playing each other less that 4 times a year, then not only would restructuring mean more clubs to share the money, but there would probably be less money to share. The amount of TV money is dependent on viewing figures and the harsh reality is that more people tune in to watch The Rangers play Celtic than ICT play Livingston. In reality I can't see all but one of the current Premiership sides voting for a significant increase in the size of the division although increasing it to 14 might actually work well. If the split occurred after each team had played each other home and away (i.e. after 26 matches) then a top 6, bottom 8 split would allow each team to play the other teams in their sections once more both home and away. This would mean that the top 6 would play a further 10 games for a total of 36 and the bottom 8 would play a further 14 for a total of 40. The beauty of this is that you avoid the somewhat unfair inevitability of the current system where some teams will play one or two teams 3 times away and only 1 at home and vice-versa.Splitting it 7:7 so that all play 38 games would also work but the 6:8 split means that there is less chance of problems with fixture congestion for the top teams who may be involved both in Europe and in the latter stages of the cup competitions. If there is any chance of getting 11 of the Premiership sides to agree to this then surely it is now. The Rangers have come out very strongly indeed that it is morally wrong to vote to relegate a club. By rejecting an increase in the number in the Premiership, they would, in effect, be voting to relegate Hearts. Of course, it is not beyond the realms of possibility the The Rangers would stab Hearts in the back but they would now be under huge moral pressure to support such a proposal. The proposal would mean that no club was relegated following an incomplete season and that, surely is right and proper. There is a real opportunity for some sanity to emerge from all this mess. But this is the SPFL we are talking about and therefore I very much doubt that sanity will prevail.

So Dundee have now voted Yes. We can expect some interesting statements from various clubs and the SPFL.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52262428 This report states "The SPFL say they received a voting slip from Dundee on their ballot to curtail the lower leagues, but only after the club emailed to say their vote should not be considered as cast." Just have a think about that statement. Voting slips were sent electronically. You click a button at one end and, lo and behold, it arrives at the other end within a few seconds. The SPFL seem to be saying that the email was sent after the voting slip but somehow arrived well before it. Or are they saying that Dundee only sent the voting slip after they sent an email to say their vote (which they hadn't actually submitted at that point) should not be considered as cast? It is absolutely absurd. But the detail will be available in the electronic record. There will be proof of when Dundee sent their voting slip and when it was received. Dundee need to produce the evidence of when the slip was sent and the SPFL need to produce the evidence of when the slip was received. It will either show that Dundee were lying through their teeth when they told others clubs that the slip had been sent, or that the SPFL were lying when they said they hadn't received it. Could the slip have been held up in the electronic ether? I don't know, but if it was, it would be the most extraordinary coincidence that such a glitch occurred just at the point when Dundee decided that they had made a mistake in casting their vote the way they had and took the highly unusual (and probably not valid) step of sending an email to effectively cancel their vote. The Sun is now reporting that Dundee had discussions with the SPFL yesterday with a view to linking a Yes vote to league restructuring. And then there's the Rangers' allegations! It looks as though we are in for an interesting week ahead.

What a farce! It seems Dundee have got a few questions to answer and it really is quite disgraceful that they have refused to say anything today other than "no comment". There can be no action on implementing the proposal or looking at alternatives until Dundee have submitted their vote. They have told other clubs they have submitted their vote but the SPFL say they have not received it. But then rather than re-send it they apparently send a message to the SPFL to ask then to consider their vote not sent. I would have thought that if they had actually sent their vote, it would not be appropriate for it to be considered not sent. If the request was accepted then surely it would entitle any other club to send a similar request within the next 28 days! If they actually did send it then the SPFL must be obliged to accept it and therefore the proposal would fall. Something sure stinks here. Good to hear Scot Gardiner explaining our club's principled stance on the matter on Sportsound this afternoon and also detailing precisely what Dundee had told other clubs they were going to do and which they subsequently appear not to have done.

We might lose! Why can this not be played at the start of next season? it is a single one off match between 2 teams who have earned the right to play a final. It is probably also the only round in the whole competition where the clubs might reasonably be expected to make some money.