Coronavirus - Season on hold

[+snorbens_caleyman]

I think it's grossly unfair to the clubs who will be relegated - eg Partick - and to those which miss out on possible direct promotion - eg Falkirk.

Would be much fairer to declare the season null and void, and distribute the money evenly.  That would upset the likes of Dundee Utd and Cove, but you can't please everyone.

Typical of the shambolic nature of football administration is that nowhere does it say what majority is required to pass this resolution.  Is it a straight majority, a certain percentage, or what?

And there is also this little gem of ambiguity:  "If the resolution is approved, the SPFL has also committed to consulting with Clubs over the possibility of League restructuring ahead of Season 2020/21."

That can only mean that before next season they will talk to clubs about league restructuring.  It cannot mean that the league will be restructured ahead of 2020/21 - because then they wouldn't be able to say who is promoted and relegated!

[Satan]

75% required to carry resolution, according to BBC.

Not a fan of voiding the season, as well as removing the club's results it affects all players stats too.

In these exceptional circumstances I think finishing on current standings is least unfair option.

League restructuring may just be a bone thrown to the dogs to settle them/us for a bit.

[Scotty]

Cant remember who suggested it ... but the fairest I have seen so far is that 2 are promoted from each league to the league above with no relegation. The Premiership is then (temporarily?) expanded to accommodate those two promoted teams. Maybe its personal bias as ICT would go back up, but it seemed pretty sensible .....

In terms of re-org, if it ever happens, I would like to see something quite simple .... 2 leagues only with 20 teams (or thereabouts) in each. You play each other twice in a season, once each home and away with 2 up and 2 down and possibly playoffs for the next 2 positions. Playing 4 times then potentially facing each other in cups has made things really stale. Retain the promotion to/from HFL and LL and maybe even expand that with the latest suggestion from the likes of the NCL to have promotion to/from the HFL/LL from the junior/welfare/amateur ranks. 

I would also like to see the SPFL and the broadcasters come to their senses about streaming or broadcasting content ... I still dont think they are leveraging online content to promote themselves and are focused on monetising the content in a way that is simply not appealling to most. I have said it before, I can legally watch football from all over Europe on my telly on a Saturday morning without anything other than my normal cable package but woe betide me if I want to listen to Open All Mics, which is essentially no more than a discussion programme where they cut to the grounds and do goal notifications. Its not even commentary FFS !!!  When Scottish football is broadcast over here it is on a premium channel from the provider I already have and will always feature one of the twins against someone else. I dont mind paying for the content, but please look at what is in the content, what the entire package is, and how to make it more interesting to more viewers. 

 

 

[+DoofersDad]

10 minutes ago, Satan said:

75% required to carry resolution, according to BBC.

 

It actually says 75% in each division!  Given that there are only 10 teams in each of the bottom 3 divisions, that in practice means 80% or 8 of the 10 clubs in favour.  To me that sounds as though it will only get through if some clubs take the role of turkeys voting for Christmas.  What  the SPFL statement doesn't say is what happens if the vote is not carried.  What's the alternative?  If these are percentages required to carry a resolution then I can't see any suggestion being carried so it will end up being up to the SPFL to impose a solution.  I may of course be wrong.  The SPFL state they have had extensive discussions with the clubs and therefore should have a handle on what might be accepted by the clubs.  It does, after all, seem rather silly to put forward a resolution after consultation when you know it is not going to gain support.  The SPFL wouldn't do anything silly would they?  It will be interesting to see if the club puts out a statement regarding this.

[RiG]

It's 75% of clubs in the Premiership, 75% of clubs in the Championship and 75% of clubs in L1 + L2.

[Jack Waddington]

Only result of this I can see is the SPFL benefiting the Old Firm and saying Stuff everyone else...

[DWH]

Given the history of decision making by the Scottish football authorities, I'm not holding my breath.................................

[hislopsoffsideagain]

Thoughts:

- the SPFL's priority seems to be to get the 2020/21 season starting as close to normal time as possible. This is because of the new Sky TV deal; presumably delaying the implementation of that would cost them more money than paying back Sky/BT for the remaining 2019/20 matches not going ahead.

- there is no plan that is totally fair here - as stated above there are plenty of faults with each plan. Therefore the mostly likely outcome is the one that appeases the most clubs

- relegated clubs - particularly Hearts - are likely to call in the lawyers. Whether they have a case or not, a legal challenge could hold up things for a long time, especially with a backlog in court cases as a result of the current situation. Not being able to start the league at all as a result of this would be a nightmare

- therefore it would seem that the best way to prevent this would be to have promotion but not relegation, therefore expanding the top flight

- the nugget about reconstruction in the SPFL statement suggests they know that reconstruction (at least for 2020/21) will be required to ultimately keep clubs sweet and avoid legal challenges

- I suspect Rangers are bleating mainly to keep their fans happy (they have someone on the SPFL board that put together this plan, after all!) and may try and bargain for Colt teams in exchange for agreeing to this

 

Or, you know, the SPFL could just be making it up as they go along. They do have a bit of a record of doing that...

[Kingsmills]

9 minutes ago, hislopsoffsideagain said:

Thoughts:

- the SPFL's priority seems to be to get the 2020/21 season starting as close to normal time as possible. This is because of the new Sky TV deal; presumably delaying the implementation of that would cost them more money than paying back Sky/BT for the remaining 2019/20 matches not going ahead.

- there is no plan that is totally fair here - as stated above there are plenty of faults with each plan. Therefore the mostly likely outcome is the one that appeases the most clubs

- relegated clubs - particularly Hearts - are likely to call in the lawyers. Whether they have a case or not, a legal challenge could hold up things for a long time, especially with a backlog in court cases as a result of the current situation. Not being able to start the league at all as a result of this would be a nightmare

- therefore it would seem that the best way to prevent this would be to have promotion but not relegation, therefore expanding the top flight

- the nugget about reconstruction in the SPFL statement suggests they know that reconstruction (at least for 2020/21) will be required to ultimately keep clubs sweet and avoid legal challenges

- I suspect Rangers are bleating mainly to keep their fans happy (they have someone on the SPFL board that put together this plan, after all!) and may try and bargain for Colt teams in exchange for agreeing to this

 

Or, you know, the SPFL could just be making it up as they go along. They do have a bit of a record of doing that...

Seldom impressed by our football authorities but, to be fair, right now, we are all making it up as we go along.

Let's wait until the decision is made before being too critical of it.

[Huisdean]

The major criticism I have of the deal is not the actual deal but the fact it doesn't apply to all 4 divisions. It has to apply to all equally. I appreciate that they don't want to call the Premiership for fear of what UEFA have said but they should just do it and show some bottle. I am sure all leagues outside the big 5  will want to do similar. The relegation issue can then be sorted by increasing the leagues by either one season or permanently if the clubs decide. If the ugly sisters want to scupper a deal, boot then out of the league and Scottish football will be all the better.

[Satan]

Rangers and Partick have come out strongly against, expect more clubs to follow,follow.

[Jack Waddington]

1 hour ago, Satan said:

Rangers and Partick have come out strongly against, expect more clubs to follow,follow.

Really only Stranraer that's the other one to go against it. Maybe Falkirk, Airdrie, Montrose, and East Fife in League One (all within touching distance of Raith), and Cove has practically ran away with League Two, so there's not a lot for the rest of L2 to complain about. Assuming playoffs don't go ahead, it's going to be far less than the 75% Threshold required.

[ictchris]

The line on reconstruction sounds pretty non-committal and throwaway to me.  I doubt anything will be done with regards to that - it also might impact the new TV deal if the league expanded to 14 clubs, it would presumably mess with the split.  I'm sure that could be worked out though.

Anyone got any idea what our board think of this idea?  I'd imagine that getting the prize money for second might placate us, we basically live hand to mouth as a club.  I think it'd be a big blow not getting the play off opportunity and also having Hearts come down is a pisser, another club with a massive budget advantage over us (and everyone else in the division).

[CaleyCanary]

22 hours ago, Scotty said:

Cant remember who suggested it ... but the fairest I have seen so far is that 2 are promoted from each league to the league above with no relegation. The Premiership is then (temporarily?) expanded to accommodate those two promoted teams. Maybe its personal bias as ICT would go back up, but it seemed pretty sensible .....

First spotted in an interview Gerry Britton gave to the BBC on 15th March...

"There's a number of scenarios being spoken about," he said. "If the league stops here then okay, teams have to be rewarded. We are into the last quarter, so the teams at the top need to be rewarded.

"It's hard not to be self-interested. When I look at it, the one proposal I've heard of the top two teams getting promoted with no relegation, of Kelty and Brora coming up, that works for me.

"If we did have an experiment with the top tier going up to 14 teams, we might find it works."

Seems to me that this is the fairest option. Nobody goes down, it rewards the teams who were runaway league winners and if it means we start afresh with a new season in August it should keep the TV deals on track. 

[bdu98196]

If they expand then why's only 2 up from the Championship fair? Yes, as an ICT fan its positive news but the play-offs contain 3 clubs from the lower league, therefore although we would right now have 1 round of games less both Dundee & Ayr (as it stands) have every bit as much chance of getting promoted - therefore it has to be 4 teams up from the Championship. This has TV implications with only 2 OF games but otherwise I think there will be too many votes against. From the BBC

The resolution requires 10 of the 12 top flight clubs, eight of 10 in the Championship, and 15 of the 20 clubs in Leagues One and Two combined to pass.

Likely to object

Prem - Rangers & Hearts (there may be one or 2 mid table thinking about top 6, extra prize money & 2 OF games)

Champ - Dundee, Ayr & PT

L1 & L2 - Falkirk, Airdrie, Montrose & Stranraer / Elgin & Cowdenbeath

This will need more transparency around the restructure I think before some clubs will vote to end the season as there will still be some thinking about promotion while others will be delighted based on finances to just get any cash in that they can. Hopefully as fans we will get to see the results as to how all the clubs voted

 

 

[Alan Simpson]

There will defo not be league reconstruction Spl clubs are far to greedy for the OF cash is what it is DUFC deserve the title leAst we'll get the 2nd place money as for the teams at the bottom they're there for a reason they've been gash all season and would likely have continued to be ! Hardest done by team in this if it goes thro is Falkirk who 100% would've took that league ahead of Raith by far the better side 

[Stirling Observer]

By far the better side? The side that is a point behind Raith? Bigger side yes but better no, not at the moment. Every game is a battle, any ICT supporter should know this considering the amount of points we have dropped to part time/lesser teams. You earn every point. It's not like Falkirk were just sitting in the slipstream all season waiting for the moment to pounce. It's just not true. I'm quoting the  'far better' bit, nut. Not having it. 

[Jack Waddington]

For - Livingston, Queen of the South,

Against - Falkirk, Hearts, Stranraer,

Will update when more clubs post related announcements. And it's fair to say, most are as useful with posting updates as our Twitter.

Also, Cove's statement is the one that best describes the situation: http://www.coverangersfc.com/news/spl-clubs-to-vote-on-curtailment-of-season-in-lower-divisions/

[ictchris]

Ayr have said they will vote for it.  So have Raith Rovers.

[RiG]

Aberdeen saying they will vote against it. Rangers claiming that other clubs have been in touch to say they feel like they are being bullied by the SPFL. Pinch of salt etc.

[+DoofersDad]

The Rangers are not exactly my favourite club, but I have to say I think they are making a very good point with their resolution.  It does seem to me that the SPFL proposal smacks of bullying tactics.  It's a sort of "vote for our motion and you'll get your money now and we'll look at league reconstruction."  Although, looking at league reconstruction doesn't mean they have any intention of actually having any reconstruction.  With the current cash flow situation, many clubs will feel they desperately need the money now and will feel pressured into voting for the SPFL  proposal.  Rangers' motion also calls for the money to be paid up front but calls for wider discussion on options and a club statement from them makes the point that "relegating clubs by a vote would be abhorrent".  

If the SPFL are serious about possible league reconstruction next season then it seems inappropriate to put a motion which means that specific clubs will be relegated.  It should also be noted that whilst the SPFL statement says "we have consulted extensively with clubs in all four divisions" it goes short of saying that they have consulted with all clubs.  One assumes that had they consulted all clubs their statement would have specifically stated that.  And if they have not consulted all clubs prior to presenting a proposal to clubs to vote on at exceptionally short notice, then one would have to ask why.

No doubt today will be a day of frantic phones calls between the various clubs.  It would be nice to think that something good could come out of this dreadful coronavirus crisis, and some kind of league reconstruction would be something good.  With football over for the season very prematurely, the Rangers motion provides a golden opportunity for some serious and considered discussion about the introduction of restructuring, and perhaps radical restructuring, for next season whilst avoiding the rather unpleasant spectacle of football clubs voting for fellow clubs to be relegated.  

[+DoofersDad]

Rangers' motion rejected by SPFL as "not competent".  Interesting comments from Ibrox.

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/rangers-football-club-members-update/

[dougiedanger]

Even more "interesting" comments in SPFL's response. What an embarrassment that club is.

 

SPFL STATEMENT

The SPFL Board received a requisition from Rangers, supported by two other clubs, that the Board must issue a further resolution to members. This resolution sought to compel the SPFL to lend money to all 42 Clubs.

The Board took legal advice from a leading QC on the proposed resolution. By law, the members of a private company can require their Board to circulate a resolution, unless such resolution would be ineffective if passed.

The clear and unequivocal legal advice received by the SPFL is that the resolution received from Rangers is ineffective in terms of company law. As a result, the Board determined this morning that it cannot be circulated to members.

We have seen a statement from Rangers that they “sought comment from the SPFL Executive on several occasions yesterday, to ensure [their] resolution was deemed competent”. For the avoidance of doubt, only at 10.18pm yesterday did the SPFL’s lawyer receive an email from Rangers seeking advice on the content of their resolution, which was put before the SPFL Board first thing this morning.

Rangers have expressed a desire to submit a further resolution. The SPFL’s lawyers will work with Rangers, as they will with any other member club, who wishes to put forward a resolution. The offer to help clubs with the drafting of their resolutions was made during the divisional conference calls on Wednesday. Rangers chose to proceed without seeking that help, with the result that their resolution was ineffective.

A spokesman said: “These are extremely difficult times for the people of Scotland and for every club in the land.

“The SPFL Board has worked hard to propose a clear way of quickly delivering much-needed fee payments to the 30 clubs in the Ladbrokes Championship, League 1 and League 2.

“The alternative is further weeks, and possibly months, of uncertainty and financial hardship for dozens of clubs which are desperately looking for a way to survive.”

 

 

[+DoofersDad]

Rangers' statement reads

We prepared this update in advance of the scheduled SPFL board meeting this morning, in the full anticipation that the SPFL board would rule our proposed resolution was not competent.

As a member club, we sought assistance from the SPFL Executive on several occasions yesterday, to ensure our resolution was deemed competent. For the avoidance of doubt, no advice was forthcoming prior to the meeting starting.

Now that the SPFL have belatedly identified the reason why our members resolution was not competent, we will immediately resubmit our resolution, based upon their advice. If this advice had been forthcoming earlier, we would not have lost valuable time in this process. We are confused as to why attempts have been made to slow the progress of Rangers’ resolution.

Either, they or the SPFL are telling porkies, because the SPFL statement directly contradicts what Rangers are saying.  On such an important issue that affects all clubs in the SPFL this is very concerning.  It will be very interesting to see whether the belated "help" from SPFL lawyers will result in a motion being accepted as competent by the SPFL.  If not, then I would expect that the SPFL motion would be defeated.  

[dougiedanger]

It's not like The Rangers to act in a completely unprofessional, dishonest way, and to make such an utter fool of themselves, so unlike them.