Jump to content

What if they shut down the season?


West Ender
 Share

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

It’s kind of what I have been wondering. As various countries have relaxed lockdown, I don’t think there have been many instances of new spikes. 

It’s what happened with SARS as well.....also it looks like you can’t get infected twice and you will be protected for 1 or 2 years ....add in its mutation and it may well fade 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

That’s definitely the case over here, if anything it’s continued to shrink faster since we opened most things up.

Our border was due to be closed to all non Nordic countries till August 25th, but we are now looking at opening Schengen countries in a few weeks time.

Good news  !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With regard to league reconstruction. Would it not be better to wait and find out the conditions that football will need to start with. Find out what teams can afford to play with the required restraint's. Then when they know the amount of teams, decide on the make up of the leagues. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

With regard to league reconstruction. Would it not be better to wait and find out the conditions that football will need to start with. Find out what teams can afford to play with the required restraint's. Then when they know the amount of teams, decide on the make up of the leagues. 

Och don’t be so sensible, AJ ;)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Auld Jag said:

With regard to league reconstruction. Would it not be better to wait and find out the conditions that football will need to start with. Find out what teams can afford to play with the required restraint's. Then when they know the amount of teams, decide on the make up of the leagues. 

Way too sensible for Scottish football.

Id propose the following if clubs can safely play behind closed doors.

Every virtual ticket sold above a clubs maximum capacity 50% goes to a central pool, away team gets 10% and club selling keeps the other 40%
Central pool is distributed amongst other clubs to take them up from current virtual numbers to last seasons average attendance, any extra left helps lower pyramid clubs.

Rangers or Celtic could potentially sell 150000 tickets a game if international market is allowed, they could potentially profit more from this than a normal match, so in fairness the extra 100000 tickets at £30 would benefit the away team by £300000, the home team £1.5 million and 40 other clubs by £1.2 million (dependent on need)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Even better news (for me) is that also includes flying to UK.

And to avoid 14 quarantine on arrival I’m allowed to pay for a antibody test the day before travel allowing me right of entry (With a test cert)

Perfect ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Even better news (for me) is that also includes flying to UK.

And to avoid 14 quarantine on arrival I’m allowed to pay for a antibody test the day before travel allowing me right of entry (With a test cert)

What happens if you fail the test? Do you lose your money paid for the trip?

Also do you need to quarantine when you get back home in case you get the rona here?

Edited by Pinhead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Norgethistle said:

Way too sensible for Scottish football.

Id propose the following if clubs can safely play behind closed doors.

Every virtual ticket sold above a clubs maximum capacity 50% goes to a central pool, away team gets 10% and club selling keeps the other 40%
Central pool is distributed amongst other clubs to take them up from current virtual numbers to last seasons average attendance, any extra left helps lower pyramid clubs.

Rangers or Celtic could potentially sell 150000 tickets a game if international market is allowed, they could potentially profit more from this than a normal match, so in fairness the extra 100000 tickets at £30 would benefit the away team by £300000, the home team £1.5 million and 40 other clubs by £1.2 million (dependent on need)

 

Way too generous for Scottish football. Any extra money will stay in the premier league. Nothing will change that attitude, not even a pandemic that could put the future of a number of clubs in doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Auld Jag said:

With regard to league reconstruction. Would it not be better to wait and find out the conditions that football will need to start with. Find out what teams can afford to play with the required restraint's. Then when they know the amount of teams, decide on the make up of the leagues. 

Absolutely. I have been saying this for weeks. It’s utter madness to try to reconstruct a league when you don’t know when you might be able to play games and how long you will have for the season 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaf said:

Absolutely. I have been saying this for weeks. It’s utter madness to try to reconstruct a league when you don’t know when you might be able to play games and how long you will have for the season 

 

4 hours ago, Auld Jag said:

With regard to league reconstruction. Would it not be better to wait and find out the conditions that football will need to start with. Find out what teams can afford to play with the required restraint's. Then when they know the amount of teams, decide on the make up of the leagues. 

I can see the sense of this but is it practicable to organise leagues on the basis of a club being able to afford to play behind closed doors? 

For example, let's say 3 Championship clubs can't afford to play behind closed doors  - Alloa, Arbroath & QoS! Let's also assume 2 League 1 clubs can afford to play - Partick & Falkirk

We have a SPL of 12 clubs (including Dundee Utd) & a Championship of 9 (including Hearts & Raith Rovers) . Let's say Patrick and Falkirk do well and come January are in 4th & 5th place in the league. We now return to football with fans attending so Alloa, Arbroath & QoS are able to play. Where does this leave Partick and Falkirk? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies is this has already been debated!

Regarding reconstruction

Budge's proposal seens a bit confused, or I am! 

Is she proposing 3 x 14 or a 14/14/16? 

I would suggest 3 x 14 has a better chance of success than 14/14/16!

3x14

10 clubs in L2 will vote for this.                           Partick, Falkirk, East Fife (poss) in L1would vote yes - so only 2 more votes needed from L1 & L2

Think only Ayr in Championship would vote no! 

SPL avoids the 11-1 voting requirement as a 9-3 vote needed; so who would vote against - Hibs, St Johnstone & Dundee utd anyone else? 

I think reconstruction is at best a slim hope but a 14/14/16 has no chance given the SPL 11-1 voting requirement and the stated view of the 10  L2 clubs! 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pinhead said:

What happens if you fail the test? Do you lose your money paid for the trip?

Also do you need to quarantine when you get back home in case you get the rona here?

That’s why you book the flight on a credit card for insurance. I either quarantine when I get home or pay for a 2nd test. If the 1st test shows I have had it previously, then currently the HSI guidelines are you do not need retested for 12 months 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Way too sensible for Scottish football.

Id propose the following if clubs can safely play behind closed doors.

Every virtual ticket sold above a clubs maximum capacity 50% goes to a central pool, away team gets 10% and club selling keeps the other 40%
Central pool is distributed amongst other clubs to take them up from current virtual numbers to last seasons average attendance, any extra left helps lower pyramid clubs.

Rangers or Celtic could potentially sell 150000 tickets a game if international market is allowed, they could potentially profit more from this than a normal match, so in fairness the extra 100000 tickets at £30 would benefit the away team by £300000, the home team £1.5 million and 40 other clubs by £1.2 million (dependent on need)

 

You haven't taken the Sky TV deal into consideration. They will have a say in which games are allowed to be streamed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scotty said:

You haven't taken the Sky TV deal into consideration. They will have a say in which games are allowed to be streamed.

And how much it will cost for permission to stream them. Also, in your example, what is in it at the moment for the old firm over pocketing all of the dosh, which would be the default ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, exiledjag said:

 

I can see the sense of this but is it practicable to organise leagues on the basis of a club being able to afford to play behind closed doors? 

For example, let's say 3 Championship clubs can't afford to play behind closed doors  - Alloa, Arbroath & QoS! Let's also assume 2 League 1 clubs can afford to play - Partick & Falkirk

We have a SPL of 12 clubs (including Dundee Utd) & a Championship of 9 (including Hearts & Raith Rovers) . Let's say Patrick and Falkirk do well and come January are in 4th & 5th place in the league. We now return to football with fans attending so Alloa, Arbroath & QoS are able to play. Where does this leave Partick and Falkirk? 

I’m not suggesting you reorganise in who can afford to play. For the reasons you identify that won’t work. 
im suggesting your league sizes are determined by how long your Available  season is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, jaf said:

I’m not suggesting you reorganise in who can afford to play. For the reasons you identify that won’t work. 
im suggesting your league sizes are determined by how long your Available  season is. 

Ah! That might work though Ross County's McGregor has already stated he is 'horrified' at the prospect of an 18 game Championship season! But then he is only one Club Chairman! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, exiledjag said:

Apologies is this has already been debated!

Regarding reconstruction

Budge's proposal seens a bit confused, or I am! 

Is she proposing 3 x 14 or a 14/14/16? 

I would suggest 3 x 14 has a better chance of success than 14/14/16!

3x14

10 clubs in L2 will vote for this.                           Partick, Falkirk, East Fife (poss) in L1would vote yes - so only 2 more votes needed from L1 & L2

Think only Ayr in Championship would vote no! 

SPL avoids the 11-1 voting requirement as a 9-3 vote needed; so who would vote against - Hibs, St Johnstone & Dundee utd anyone else? 

I think reconstruction is at best a slim hope but a 14/14/16 has no chance given the SPL 11-1 voting requirement and the stated view of the 10  L2 clubs! 

 

 

 

She's proposing 3 x 14, link below, although as others have pointed out might be better waiting to see who's still standing come the start of the season whenever that might be

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52813339

In a sign that businesses are planning for a new normal, my employer has told its 50,000 staff worldwide that all "in person" events (internal or external) are cancelled until at least February....   Another company that we were originally spun-off from has indicated that approx. 50% of it's staff will never return to office working. Both companies are looking at offloading a huge amount of real estate..

Edited by JAG1970
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JAG1970 said:

She's proposing 3 x 14, link below, although as others have pointed out might be better waiting to see who's still standing come the start of the season whenever that might be

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52813339

 

It won't get through so no point elevating any sense if hope ... different voting % in the divisions ranging from 92 to 75% apparently (BBC) 

"For the proposal to pass, it would require 11 of the 12 Premiership clubs to vote in favour, as well as eight of 10 in the Championship and 15 of 20 in the bottom two tiers " 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gianlucatoni said:

It won't get through so no point elevating any sense if hope ... different voting % in the divisions ranging from 92 to 75% apparently (BBC) 

"For the proposal to pass, it would require 11 of the 12 Premiership clubs to vote in favour, as well as eight of 10 in the Championship and 15 of 20 in the bottom two tiers " 

Previous reports suggested that if the total no of league clubs remained the same, ie 3 x 14, then the number of Premiership clubs required to vote was 9. It was only if the total number changed, ie 14/14/16, did it require 11 Premiership clubs to vote it through. The BBC report seems to contradict this. 

This gets more confusing by the day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a chance that the Hearts proposal will be rejected today. This will result in us dropping into a Division when many clubs won’t be able to survive without crowds. This nightmare scenario could see our 2020/21 season mothballed.

I really hope this is not the outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Muscat Jag said:

Previous reports suggested that if the total no of league clubs remained the same, ie 3 x 14, then the number of Premiership clubs required to vote was 9. It was only if the total number changed, ie 14/14/16, did it require 11 Premiership clubs to vote it through. The BBC report seems to contradict this. 

This gets more confusing by the day. 

Think it's because if the Premiership increases from 12 to 14 there will need to be a redistribution of the funding.,  The rules are if that is the case then the  threshold becomes 11 in 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suggestions that championship clubs are going to vote against this as it would mean that in two years there would be potentially 6 teams involved in relegation. 

This is just such a narrow minded view, even with more relegation spaces there would be a bigger league offering more security. There's also the possibility that they could keep the 2 leagues of 14 if they so wished after the 2 year period. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, redandyellowallover said:

Suggestions that championship clubs are going to vote against this as it would mean that in two years there would be potentially 6 teams involved in relegation. 

This is just such a narrow minded view, even with more relegation spaces there would be a bigger league offering more security. There's also the possibility that they could keep the 2 leagues of 14 if they so wished after the 2 year period. 

 

Two home games v Hearts, or one v East Fife and one v Montrose ??

It is narrow minded, which is the same as being done out of self interest, which is how EVERY club are acting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Muscat Jag said:

Previous reports suggested that if the total no of league clubs remained the same, ie 3 x 14, then the number of Premiership clubs required to vote was 9. It was only if the total number changed, ie 14/14/16, did it require 11 Premiership clubs to vote it through. The BBC report seems to contradict this. 

This gets more confusing by the day. 

ano MJ, I'm none the wiser either :thinking:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...