dennyc

Not only that. Completing the season earns them bucketfuls more SKY money (£430m I think was quoted) which when divided up between the Clubs will more than cover any costs incurred. I suspect that if SKY had had even £10m waiting to come our way if all games completed in full, then they would have been. In the SPL anyway. EPL are only interested in completing the games for financial gain long term.

And having agreed to abide by the rules when joining the SPFL, Hearts were effectively relegated after a democratic (?) vote of all members which was held within the rules of the Association. I think that under special circumstances the Board already had the power to call all Divisions so they could argue the case that for fairness purposes they even went the extra mile by holding that vote. And if the claim is restriction of trade, it is not the SPFL denying them games. It is the clubs within their new Division who cannot/are refusing to play until fans may attend matches. The SPFL have provided Hearts with a Division in which to play and would be delighted if all teams took part from the start. So should Hearts not take those teams to court rather than the Association? And that is not taking into account the real reason for the current mess is CoVid 19, regarded as an Act of God, which I would think must come into any legal decision. Hearts are scrambling about trying to find any way to remain in the PL, possibly as most clubs would do in these circumstances. But they are getting desperate now as the start date draws nearer. I still think reconstruction is their only way out and I hear that within the SPL there are now only 3 Clubs in the “No” camp following lobbying from Anne Budge and elsewhere. Hopefully those three stand firm as any temporary increase creates so much more risk of eventual relegation to so many Clubs. Begs the question though as to why Clubs that happily voted to close down the League now wish to avoid some of the outcomes they knowingly voted for.

Yep, I guess three down automatically allowing for the Championship winners moving up. And that is a minimum. Potentially four down if play offs continue. The proposal fails to mention that possibility. Why on earth would any Club in danger of being bottom eight support such a situation? Next two seasons are likely to be a lottery for most clubs, with finances dictating much reduced quality of squads. Huge risk. Also, 10 of the 12 PL Clubs effectively voted to relegate Hearts, Thistle and Stranraer In that earlier vote. What has changed.? Or are Clubs like Aberdeen now saying they made a mistake. And if the argument is that the games were not completed, then why does that logic not apply at the other end of the tables. Whole thing is so hypocritical .

Ha ha. BBC now changed their report on Budge proposal. Now saying it needs an 11-1 minimum to succeed at SPL level. Pity they don’t research before publishing. Even the Hearts fan site picked up on vote requirements.

And as expected there is no indication of how the return to 12 Clubs is to be achieved. That is just a risk not worth taking. Budge is asking folk to go into a room without knowing how they are going to get out of it. But I do fear there is a chance it will go through though. Doncaster is behind it and pushing hard. So does that mean all those SPL clubs with people on the SPFL Board will feel obliged to vote yes? That’s a fair chunk of the 12 clubs. And the BBC are doing their bit saying it only needs backing from 9 SPL clubs. Even though they also say it will result in cash pay out changes. By their own rules that requires 11 “yes” votes. I think Budge is aware of that cash “hurdle” as she says the lack of a parachute payment for this season will offset that reduction across the other clubs. But what about after year 1 of 2? Will the club(s) relegated then not receive parachute payments? And as for “ This is not about saving Hearts”. Hilarious.

He’s a good guy. Shocking news. Hopefully he comes through this.

With more of a case than Hearts. But if it was only those teams you mention we would not be even considering restructuring. And whether anybody likes it or not, a democratic vote of all senior League Clubs decided the outcome. It was a shambles but it was a vote. Some teams have lost out. But as soon as it was decided it was not practical to complete all games that was going to happen. Null and void might have avoided that , but then just as many teams would have been disadvantaged by that option. Financially and by way of reward for performance to date. There is no perfect solution. I wish there was. Might have been easier football wise if CoVid had struck a couple of games in.

I think many fans would like to see a bigger League with teams only meeting twice. 16 or 18 teams maybe. But reality is that for financial reasons it is never going to happen. Our major source of income is TV monies and the only product Sky etc are interested in is the OF clashes. Clubs need cash. TV provides that cash. Vital cash as Mr Doncaster seems incapable of securing new sponsors willing to pay substantial amounts. So we must have at least four Celtic v Rangers meetings a season. When it was first introduced I was against a Division of 12 splitting after 3 rounds. But it does work from a financial point of view and it is better than a 10 team league. Most teams have something to play for all season long and the play offs work well, bringing much needed excitement across all Divisions up to season end. Whether we have had good or bad seasons of late, most matches have meant something. That was not always the case when we had 18 teams in the Division. Out of the Cup and little to play for beyond January a horrible memory. I could Just about live with a 14 team Division if it was permanent, splitting Top 6 Bottom 8 after two rounds. But that would mean more than half the teams losing out on a home game against Rangers or Celtic. Splitting after 3 rounds as at present would result in too many games. So I doubt whether clubs would support either option. Any temporary increase is just contrived to appease a team who have been dire all season (and before that) and who are exactly where they deserve to be on merit. On merit, just like the Division winners and Motherwell in third. And a temporary increase greatly increases the danger of relegation for all but the OF when a return to 12 teams takes place. I don’t want to see my Club increasing our chances of relegation ,and potentially reducing income ,to rescue a Club who find themselves in a situation to which they have greatly contributed. Four league wins all season speaks for itself. I have slightly more sympathy for Partick Thistle, having a game in hand. They have been disadvantaged much more than Hearts. But on a points per game average they are another team facing relegation on merit.

I read that as well. Hearts hoped to have the recon vote before the Division was ended.. When the SPL was called on Monday, Hearts immediately became a Championship Club for voting purposes. And likewise Dundee Utd are now an SPL vote. Utd were against reconstruction when the round the table vote took place which stopped the working party in its tracks.

Any increase (or decrease) to the League total of 42 Clubs needs 11-1 vote from SPL. Any change to cash shareout per league finishing position also needs an 11-1 SPL vote. If the total number of teams stays at 42, then a 9-3 SPL vote is enough unless the cash share is changed. The deciding factors are the total number of teams across all Divisions and cash share out. To make 9-3 enough in SPL, they could go 14-14-14 and keep the same cash payout as at present from 1st placed team all the way down to team finishing 42nd. In effect add teams 13 and 14 to the SPL and also add the 13 and 14 place monies to the SPL pot. So no cash change and total teams across all Divisions remains at 42.

According to the media three of the "top teams" are minded to agree a temporary increase to 14. That's why it is back on the table. But any temporary increase means a return to 12 at some stage. So potentially 3 down 1 up next season. Add in the play off situation and it could be 4 relegated. 4 relegated out of 14 (effectively 12 as OF in no danger) seems a bit too risky to me. Anybody other than the OF would be taking a huge gamble voting for such an arrangement. To offset that, word is Budge will suggest either a gradual return to 12, or a review after two years to assess how the new 14 team SPL is working. I don't see why any team would vote for any temporary increase without a guarantee of how a return to 12 is to be achieved. Far too risky to enter into such a vague situation. The OF are adamant any change must be temporary. I suspect Sky will have a similar view. I'm hoping the encouragement given to Hearts was just a sop to get the League closure agreed unanimously and cash distributed. No way should our own Club agree to any arrangement that weakens our own chances of remaining in the SPL, bearing in mind that next season may well see squads depleted across the Division. The only reason reconstruction is being considered in the first place is to rescue a team that won only four league games all season and was bottom of the league for a reason.

Or maybe the Daily Record could just have asked ICT for a statement before publishing the accusation. Balanced reporting and all that. Then folk can make their mind up. And the releasing of the article on the day of the vote speaks volumes. One thing though which does not add up. If the money was split evenly across each Division (as ICT were accused of making possible by “null and void” proposal) why would teams below 5th in PL and 4th in other Divisions be against it? The likes of Hamilton, Hearts, QoS , Morton , Alloa and numerous others would have gained monies. More teams stood to benefit than lose out. The Standard payments per position all the way down to 42 are detailed on the SPFL website. But If you read carefully the story is “may” be split evenly. By no means certain and surely that decision is down to the Members? And did Holland not null and void , no Champions or relegation, but positions counted for cash split and Europe. Nobody disadvantaged due to incomplete season. But I agree there are two factions here, each using their media pals to push their own agenda.

https://ictfc.com/club-statement-11 You either believe the Daily Record or ICT. Seems Like a fairly robust statement.

As Weeyin says footballers and many sportsmen will spend a greater proportion of their week training than other profession. But every job will likely have an element of training, self development . Health and Safety awareness will also come under that heading. Distance learning as well to gain qualifications to assist promotion.So I guess the issue would be where to draw the line and how to measure it before it’s ruled too much for a scheme like this. If the Government were going to exclude sport from the Furlough Scheme I would have thought Hancock would have taken action when he was ranting about footballers wages and EPL Clubs in particular. He backed off then but I think if he could have acted then he would have. At least one member of his party, and some media, put him under extreme pressure to do so. In the end clubs such as Liverpool withdrew voluntarily. But if Motherwell have provided training plans and receive updates from time to time, then they will have checked it out thoroughly before doing so. Hopefully from the Government as well as Martin Lewis. The barrier any ban might face , especially in England, is that it would actually hurt the smaller clubs who need the support more than the massive PL and Championship Clubs who earned Millions last year and will do so again when this is over. . Again where do you draw the line? And as I mentioned earlier , it’s good enough for Victoria Beckham. Crack on Motherwell.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say. And certainly that the evidence Rangers do or do not produce will determine where this is headed. I too very much doubt that an enquiry will take place for the reasons you outline. Apart from a few Clubs there is little appetite for an Enquiry, notwithstanding the dissatisfaction throughout most of Scottish football with the conduct of some members of the SPFL Board and the approach taken..... ...release of funds, voting procedures, refusal to answer valid questions as prime examples. Even John Nelms in his statement tonight to the Daily Record was critical of the way Dundee were dropped in it with regard to the missing vote. That might all change of course if the evidence suggests the Board acted beyond their remit or unlawfully. But there we are, back to that evidence again. I will always believe though that accusations of bullying within an Organisation should betaken seriously and investigated. And the SPFL is no exception. Regarding the Deloitte Report, would it have been that difficult to at least address the allegations made in the Twitter story, which was in the public domain with the complainants readily identifiable. If, as you indicate, there was more to it that changed the implications of the comments, then a few lines in the Report would have put that issue to bed, publicly. Nobody other than a few Board Members seemed aware that the Report had even been commissioned, so would it have mattered if it had been delayed a couple of days to at least clear up that issue? But to ignore it just added to the situation. As for English and his insider information, I guess that unless there is an Enquiry we will never know if the Clubs he refers to intend to follow through with their advice to him that they will speak up if it gets to that stage. I do find his persistence convincing though. However this turns out I think many would agree the Board have handled matters badly with communication and awareness of public perception a major concern. Whether that brings about the change, in my opinion, the Governance of Scottish Football deserves, only time will tell. And so we await the Dossier. Whistleblower evidence included.