Club statement | Resolution not deemed competent

[born a blue nose 90,771]

6 minutes ago, dougal72 said:

Trying to get my head round the longest paragraph in the world.

I’ll surmise for you

hum na hum na Humnahumha hay 

[Dickie1963 2,352]

4 hours ago, GersInCanada said:

I would like the true diddy teams to be in a pyramid structure with only 2 professional leagues. When the likes of Brechin have important votes then something is badly amiss with the whole structure.

Pretty sure everly league after top 2 in Germany is amateur

 

[RFC55 108,926]

14 minutes ago, Dickie1963 said:

Pretty sure everly league after top 2 in Germany is amateur

 

3.bundesliga is professional as well mate 

[AdzKyle 7,836]

5 hours ago, Terry Hurlock Loyal said:

They are just angling for government cash, as the Rugby League received from the UK government. In this case, its got nothing to do with the evidence - although doesn't stop the media spin on it.

No doubt get a government bailout and then give themselves a pay rise for the hard work they have all done. 

[B1872 20,718]

6 hours ago, Colin Traive said:

That year we were on fire right up to December.

Never been quite so confident going into one of these games. Between suspensions and injuries, they were down at least three key players (Boruc, McGeady and AN Other iirc) on the scheduled date.

By the time it was rearranged, all their players were available and we’d lost the best player in the country at the time (Hutton) for 9m and an injured McGregor had been replaced by Neil Alexander.

Of course, the way that season ended, the sooner we’d got that game played the better.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/7165976.stm

In fact did we not play the filth in October/November and it was 3 going on 6. I remember us taking the foot off the gas and showboating like fuck similar to 88 and 2000. Fucking hate it when we do that although Jig had a perfectly good goal disallowed I’m sure.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

6 hours ago, murzo said:

I can’t quite remember but was there not another penalty shout in the game that we should have had? Julien or whatever his name is on Morelos.

We had 2 other good shouts for a penalty  in that game mate .Seen as it was Collum ,the scum would have been given both ,if it were the other end .We just happened to get the third as it was the biggest stonewaller ,you would ever see .And he had said no the others .

Collum will ultimately cost us massive games and trophies in the future .Count on that  

[Dickie1963 2,352]

1 hour ago, Rfc52 said:

3.bundesliga is professional as well mate 

Doh !!!

[eejay the dj 31,964]

7 hours ago, TamCoopz said:

Sorry mate but that’s completely fucked up 😂 We were that dominant that we should’ve won regardless of shite refereeing. Fair enough there was a big call that the ref got wrong but we robbed ourselves, we’d done more than enough except put the ball in the net 

😂😂Howz that robbing ourselves Tam 

Cmon man .We were all over them.Hitting the bar ,missed penalty and endless chances .You ever heard of plain old bad luck .The point was .We turned up on the day  .How the fuck we never won that final will always remain a mystery .

Any bheast I have spoke to after that game said they hated the game and were livid with their teams performance .We controlled it from start to finish .We definitely never bottled it .And that’s what I posted .I think one players continuing  profligacy in front of goal in massive games cost us it .That’s a different argument and not for this thread .

[magic8ball 27,901]

50 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

We had 2 other good shouts for a penalty  in that game mate .Seen as it was Collum ,the scum would have been given both ,if it were the other end .We just happened to get the third as it was the biggest stonewaller ,you would ever see .And he had said no the others .

Collum will ultimately cost us massive games and trophies in the future .Count on that  

Collum suffered early on in his career for giving us that penalty against the filth that he couldn’t see properly ,it was still a penalty but got the usual treatment from the taig media for weeks ,was around the same time Dougie McDonald got hounded out the game ,

Back then it was starting to show what influence the taig media really had in the game that the managed to force a referee to retire early do a constant campaign but it didn’t matter so much because we were still winning ,But these days we are fighting the whole world before we even think about getting results on the park ,

Irony about Collum is he’s still the most likely to give us a penalty against the cheating scum but he is still a fuckin brutal referee 

[magic8ball 27,901]

47 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

😂😂Howz that robbing ourselves Tam 

Cmon man .We were all over them.Hitting the bar ,missed penalty and endless chances .You ever heard of plain old bad luck .The point was .We turned up on the day  .How the fuck we never won that final will always remain a mystery .

Any bheast I have spoke to after that game said they hated the game and were livid with their teams performance .We controlled it from start to finish .We definitely never bottled it .And that’s what I posted .I think one players continuing  profligacy in front of goal in massive games cost us it .That’s a different argument and not for this thread .

One shot on goal they had and wasn’t even legitimate ,Folk say we bottled it ,the only bottle bit I can say was missing the penalty ,even then big lurch was a yard off his line and it should have been retaken ,if he had been on his line would Morelos have scored ,that we will never know ,Could have done with the same refereeing standards as the women had last year in the World Cup ,when that was the “new rule “ for the coming season 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

10 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

Collum suffered early on in his career for giving us that penalty against the filth that he couldn’t see properly ,it was still a penalty but got the usual treatment from the taig media for weeks ,was around the same time Dougie McDonald got hounded out the game ,

Back then it was starting to show what influence the taig media really had in the game that the managed to force a referee to retire early do a constant campaign but it didn’t matter so much because we were still winning ,But these days we are fighting the whole world before we even think about getting results on the park ,

Irony about Collum is he’s still the most likely to give us a penalty against the cheating scum but he is still a fuckin brutal referee 

He is just the cleverest and most experienced .I disagree with last part though, about him giving us more pens 

He has never given anything against the scum since that day .Nothing .I defy anyone to find something that has cost the beggars a big match .Doesn’t exist 

He is top of the tree of the cheats .He just hides it better than most 

[magic8ball 27,901]

8 hours ago, CS68 said:

New on the Daily Record website : 'Scotland' s government has been warned football north of the border cannot survive behind closed doors without an emergency bailout from Holyrood. " 

The SPFL is doing the warning. 

None of my tax to any club, Nicola, if you don't mind. 

https://www.BOYCOTT THIS LINK/sport/football/football-news/spfl-warn-holyrood-scottish-football-21980010

It’s obvious that clubs can’t afford to play behind closed doors ,TV cash is brutal compared to most other countries and we have the highest attendances per head of population in any country ,Behind close doors was never an option because of this 

Anyway hasn’t it already been said that no football can be played till at least late July from government guidelines 

Just more hollicom campaigning to get the season called in the taigs tainted favour 

[Prince George 601]

KW JAMIESON

FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME (PART TWO)

May 5, 2020

Like a moth to a flame the SPFL appears irresistibly drawn towards controversy. With COVID-19 having already set fire to the season, the members association now seems intent on self-immolation. An EGM has been called for May 12th demanding an independent inquiry into recent events. How did the SPFL Board manage to get themselves into such a mess? As always it’s a challenge to see beyond the smoke and mirrors, but they appear to have unnecessarily conflated unconnected issues and been somewhat opaque in advocating their preferred options.

The first conflation was to make payments to lower league clubs conditional on ending their seasons. Normally end-of-season payments - those dependent on final league positions - would obviously be made once all fixtures had been completed. However, the SPFL Articles/Rules made no provision for final payments to be made early, so a Resolution was required to change them to enable this to happen.

The SPFL already made staged payments throughout the season, so advance payments in lieu of the final settlement were possible. It is therefore clear that the Board could have paid out a % of outstanding fees, in accordance with likely positions at season end. If matches then resumed, and positions shifted, required adjustments could have been made from the outstanding balance or during the following season. Yet clubs were told it was not possible for any payments to be made, unless they voted to end the season. Indeed, the letter accompanying the Resolution was unequivocal. “It has been suggested that it is open to the SPFL Board to distribute end-of-season fee payments to clubs now, in the absence of league placings being finalised. That is simply not the case…..Those who have suggested that the SPFL may make such payments, without a line being drawn under Season 2019/20, are wrong.”

The above statement isn’t untrue, but it is perhaps misleading. It was true under the Articles/Rules as they stood, but those needed to be changed via the Resolution to allow final payments to be made. There is therefore no reason why they couldn’t have been changed, just as easily, to allow final payments to be made early without ending the season. The statement also makes no mention of advance payments, yet clubs were led to believe that any further payments were conditional on ending the season.

Clubs were also told that the only viable option was to ‘call’ current league positions as final, rather than declaring the season to be ‘void’. They were told the latter was not possible “as it would create potential issues with sponsors and affiliates”. In a Herald interview, Neil Doncaster further explained that voiding the Premiership “would have led to highly-damaging compensation claims and could have jeopardised Scottish clubs involvement in Europe”. Yet it remains unclear why compensation claims would be any different if the leagues were ‘voided’ versus if they were ‘called’, and clubs’ participation in Europe is entirely dependent on UEFA’s entry requirements.

All commercial contracts are based on partners buying a package of ‘rights’ - the right to broadcast games or the right to associate sponsor brands with SPFL matches for promotional purposes. If remaining fixtures cannot be played, the SPFL finds itself unable to deliver those rights and therefore in breach of contract. However, 75% of games have already taken place so the only reasonable compensation claims would be for pro-rata refunds of 25% of fees paid. Given that the failure to deliver partners’ rights is down to a global pandemic, rather than SPFL negligence, it’s hard to see how any claims for additional ‘damages’ would be valid. For the same reason any refunds due should be covered by the SPFL’s insurance.

Critically, the undelivered rights are the same whether the leagues are ‘called’ or ‘voided’. Either option should therefore make no substantive difference to partners. The only exception would be if a partner’s contract specified that different compensation would be payable under each scenario. I clearly don’t know the detail of SPFL contracts, but I do have experience of such contracts from both sides of the negotiating table. I’d be astonished if any compensation clause had this level of specificity. It’s highly unlikely a partner would propose such a clause, because the decision is clearly a matter for the SPFL. For the same reason, it’s inconceivable that the SPFL would agree to pay differential compensation. This can be easily clarified by clubs asking to see the relevant clauses.

It is therefore difficult to see how ‘voiding’ the leagues would lead to “highly-damaging compensation claims” without exactly the same being true for ‘calling’ them. Even if they weren’t covered by insurance, the SPFL could mitigate such claims by renegotiating contract terms with partners. A 25% refund would equate to c £6.5m yet there has been no mention of a reduction to the £9.3m held by the SPFL, pending final payments. This suggests that either no compensation claims are expected or that refunds are indeed covered by insurance.

The potential for voiding to “jeopardise clubs’ participation in Europe” is also misleading. UEFA initially expressed a desire for all nations to complete their fixtures, so the SPFL was right to delay any decision on the Premiership until conditions for participation were clarified. So, while it’s true to say a premature decision to ‘void’ the league could have potentially jeopardised clubs’ participation, it’s misleading because a decision to ‘call’ the league at that time, could have had exactly the same implication. Since then UEFA has clarified that entry should be based on “sporting merit”, so as long as nominations are made on this basis there would be no difference between ‘call’ and ‘void’. The Dutch have already decided to ‘void’ the Eredivisie and there’s no doubt their clubs will be accepted.

So, while the SPFL Board were clearly reticent to consider ‘voiding’ the leagues, the reasons publicly offered don’t seem to make sense. In the absence of any major implicational differences between ‘call’ or ‘void’, the decision is purely a judgement based on justice. There can be little doubt that ‘void’ is fairer, yet the desire to award titles, promotions and relegations is understandable. The SPFL rightly recognised that ‘calling’ the leagues needs reconstruction to mitigate its implications, particularly for those clubs to be relegated. However, in doing so they ‘made a rod for their own backs’ because it isn’t guaranteed that clubs will vote for their taskforce’s proposal. ‘Void’ doesn’t need reconstruction because all clubs would simply start again in the same leagues next season.

It’s for clubs to decide at the EGM whether the Board are guilty of any serious wrong-doing but it’s clear they made some mistakes, not least in their handling of the ‘Dundee vote’ debacle. However, it’s important to acknowledge that the Board have every right to decide what they think is best for the game. They also have the right to advocate for their choices. However, it does appear they misled clubs by saying that advance payments weren’t viable, and by failing to acknowledge that a different resolution could have made final payments feasible without ending the season. It does seem that their proposal was positioned as the only possible option, rather than simply their preference. Other options were clearly available, so it was wrong to infer that this wasn’t the case.

Furthermore, highlighting the downsides of ‘void’, without acknowledging that many of the same downsides also applied to ‘call’, could perhaps be considered ‘misleading by omission’. Presenting their preferred solutions as a single package made some clubs feel it was a “take it or leave it” offer. Making payments conditional on the other aspects of the Resolution made some clubs feel they had “a gun to their heads”. Some may have voted differently if they had known that alternatives were possible. Some clubs felt “bullied” and that is for them to judge. However, the SPFL’s actions do appear to be manipulative, perhaps even coercive, and lacking in goodwill or transparency.

What should the SPFL Board have done? They should have separated the issues and dealt with them in priority order. They could and should have:

Made advance payments to clubs of a large % of outstanding fees, without ending the lower league seasons.

Stated that their preference was for all 4 leagues to complete fixtures if possible.

Calculated the last date leagues would have to restart in order to complete season 2019/20, without having an unacceptable impact on season 2020/21.

Set a firm deadline prior to this, as the last date by which clubs must recommence training.

Pressed UEFA for definitive guidance on European participation prior to this deadline.

Prepared for both the restart of 2019/20 and the possibility that the season must be ended.

Delayed a decision to ‘call’ or ‘void’ until after the deadline, in order to work up a firm reconstruction proposal to mitigate the impact of ‘call’ .

Been totally transparent on the real financial implications of ending the season early, and of each option.

Proposed that with either option European places would be awarded on current Premiership positions, to satisfy UEFA’s ‘sporting merit’ requirement.

Proposed that with either option financial distribution would be on the same basis.

And with this we arrive at what is likely to be the real reason the SPFL got itself into such a mess. As always with Scottish football, it comes down to money.

It was likely concluded that the leagues needed to be ‘called’ to enable financial distribution to be made on the % splits agreed pre-season. ‘Voiding’ the season potentially opens up the claim that funds could be distributed differently - a claim only likely to come from non-Premiership clubs. The SPFL therefore had to withhold any further payments in order to leverage a ‘call’ vote from the lower leagues, thus ensuring the Premiership could still command over 82% of the total prize fund. Despite this Rangers and Hearts aren’t happy, but not for the same reasons and neither are about money.

Lower league clubs may feel duped but it’s probably too late to overturn the vote. Would they have had a case for a different financial distribution? On the one hand all clubs started the season knowing how much each league would be paid, so could budget accordingly. 75% of games have also now been played, so league positions are a fair reflection of performances to date. On the other hand, the SPFL Board could easily have proposed a reasonable compromise - that 75% of total funds be distributed on the pre-agreed split, while the remaining 25% was split more evenly. Assuming c£6.5m this could have been say £225,000 to each Premiership club, £175,000 to Championship clubs, £125,000 to each League 1 club and £75,000 to all League 2 clubs.

This one-off agreement would have reflected the unusual nature of 2019/20, and shown real solidarity amongst all clubs. In particular it could have been a powerful gesture by bigger clubs, to acknowledge the financial stresses lower down the leagues. It would also have been a fair way to distribute funds for a partially completed season and, by ensuring the same £ distribution whether the leagues were ‘called’ or ‘voided’, would have removed money as a consideration in this matter. Clubs could then have voted on a clear proposal from the SPFL Board - to ‘call’ the leagues and enact the reconstruction recommended by its taskforce. The fallback position, if the resolution failed to garner enough votes, would be to ‘void’ 2019/20 and simply start again next season in the same leagues.

Would enough clubs have voted for this resolution? Who knows. After all, this is Scottish football !

However, at least the SPFL would have tried to do the right thing.

 

 

 

 

[murzo 7,446]

3 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

One shot on goal they had and wasn’t even legitimate ,Folk say we bottled it ,the only bottle bit I can say was missing the penalty ,even then big lurch was a yard off his line and it should have been retaken ,if he had been on his line would Morelos have scored ,that we will never know ,Could have done with the same refereeing standards as the women had last year in the World Cup ,when that was the “new rule “ for the coming season 

And there was player encroachment as well.

[magic8ball 27,901]

1 minute ago, eejay the dj said:

He is just the cleverest and most experienced .I disagree with last part though 

Clancy ,Beaton ,Mcmadden ,they wouldn’t give us fuck all ,and as it stands who else is getting the gig against the taigs ,Nobody until they fast track Clancy 2

[eejay the dj 31,964]

5 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

Clancy ,Beaton ,Mcmadden ,they wouldn’t give us fuck all ,and as it stands who else is getting the gig against the taigs ,Nobody until they fast track Clancy 2

Add Ross who will be the new Clancy next season .Mclean who fucks us in every big match we play .Hard to believe we have lost 3 Scottish ties with this man

And for me .Was pivotal in the day back in 2011 that changed our season when we lost to St midden .And scum drew at Killie .Sent off mcculloch for nothing and we ended up losing a game cause of the little bastard .Surprised they don’t give him an OF game 

[B1872 20,718]

5 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

Add Ross who will be the new Clancy next season .Mclean who fucks us in every big match we play .Hard to believe we have lost 3 Scottish ties with this man

And for me .Was pivotal in the day back in 2011 that changed our season when we lost to St midden .And scum drew at Killie .Sent off mcculloch for nothing and we ended up losing a game cause of the little bastard .Surprised they don’t give him an OF game 

John Beaton, Steven Maclean, Bobby Madden, Kevin Clancy and Willie Collum should never referee us again. However it doesn’t leave many left who aren’t corrupt or fenians.

[magic8ball 27,901]

12 minutes ago, eejay the dj said:

Add Ross who will be the new Clancy next season .Mclean who fucks us in every big match we play .Hard to believe we have lost 3 Scottish ties with this man

And for me .Was pivotal in the day back in 2011 that changed our season when we lost to St midden .And scum drew at Killie Sent off mcculloch for nothing and we ended up losing a game cause of the little bastard .Surprised they don’t give him an OF game 

All underlines the whole issue ,Regime change as it stands right now we are the equivalent of a punter going into a casino ,We will win sometimes but the way the rules are set up they are set up for the house to win ,And we all know who’s house it is 

[eejay the dj 31,964]

16 minutes ago, B1872 said:

John Beaton, Steven Maclean, Bobby Madden, Kevin Clancy and Willie Collum should never referee us again. However it doesn’t leave many left who aren’t corrupt or fenians.

I’m sure there are others 

When was the last time we actually won a big match on a key decision .One that we got the break 

Remember these things are meant to even themselves out 🤣 and the scum complained this happened very regularly for years over the years .Well before 2012 🤔

[eejay the dj 31,964]

9 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

All underlines the whole issue ,Regime change as it stands right now we are the equivalent of a punter going into a casino ,We will win sometimes but the way the rules are set up they are set up for the house to win ,And we all know who’s house it is 

Brilliant analogy mate .So right 

And that could be applied all round the board in every facet of Scottish football regards ourselves 

[Colin Traive 22,775]

33 minutes ago, Prince George said:

KW JAMIESON

FOR THE GOOD OF THE GAME (PART TWO)

May 5, 2020

Like a moth to a flame the SPFL appears irresistibly drawn towards controversy. With COVID-19 having already set fire to the season, the members association now seems intent on self-immolation. An EGM has been called for May 12th demanding an independent inquiry into recent events. How did the SPFL Board manage to get themselves into such a mess? As always it’s a challenge to see beyond the smoke and mirrors, but they appear to have unnecessarily conflated unconnected issues and been somewhat opaque in advocating their preferred options.

The first conflation was to make payments to lower league clubs conditional on ending their seasons. Normally end-of-season payments - those dependent on final league positions - would obviously be made once all fixtures had been completed. However, the SPFL Articles/Rules made no provision for final payments to be made early, so a Resolution was required to change them to enable this to happen.

The SPFL already made staged payments throughout the season, so advance payments in lieu of the final settlement were possible. It is therefore clear that the Board could have paid out a % of outstanding fees, in accordance with likely positions at season end. If matches then resumed, and positions shifted, required adjustments could have been made from the outstanding balance or during the following season. Yet clubs were told it was not possible for any payments to be made, unless they voted to end the season. Indeed, the letter accompanying the Resolution was unequivocal. “It has been suggested that it is open to the SPFL Board to distribute end-of-season fee payments to clubs now, in the absence of league placings being finalised. That is simply not the case…..Those who have suggested that the SPFL may make such payments, without a line being drawn under Season 2019/20, are wrong.”

The above statement isn’t untrue, but it is perhaps misleading. It was true under the Articles/Rules as they stood, but those needed to be changed via the Resolution to allow final payments to be made. There is therefore no reason why they couldn’t have been changed, just as easily, to allow final payments to be made early without ending the season. The statement also makes no mention of advance payments, yet clubs were led to believe that any further payments were conditional on ending the season.

Clubs were also told that the only viable option was to ‘call’ current league positions as final, rather than declaring the season to be ‘void’. They were told the latter was not possible “as it would create potential issues with sponsors and affiliates”. In a Herald interview, Neil Doncaster further explained that voiding the Premiership “would have led to highly-damaging compensation claims and could have jeopardised Scottish clubs involvement in Europe”. Yet it remains unclear why compensation claims would be any different if the leagues were ‘voided’ versus if they were ‘called’, and clubs’ participation in Europe is entirely dependent on UEFA’s entry requirements.

All commercial contracts are based on partners buying a package of ‘rights’ - the right to broadcast games or the right to associate sponsor brands with SPFL matches for promotional purposes. If remaining fixtures cannot be played, the SPFL finds itself unable to deliver those rights and therefore in breach of contract. However, 75% of games have already taken place so the only reasonable compensation claims would be for pro-rata refunds of 25% of fees paid. Given that the failure to deliver partners’ rights is down to a global pandemic, rather than SPFL negligence, it’s hard to see how any claims for additional ‘damages’ would be valid. For the same reason any refunds due should be covered by the SPFL’s insurance.

Critically, the undelivered rights are the same whether the leagues are ‘called’ or ‘voided’. Either option should therefore make no substantive difference to partners. The only exception would be if a partner’s contract specified that different compensation would be payable under each scenario. I clearly don’t know the detail of SPFL contracts, but I do have experience of such contracts from both sides of the negotiating table. I’d be astonished if any compensation clause had this level of specificity. It’s highly unlikely a partner would propose such a clause, because the decision is clearly a matter for the SPFL. For the same reason, it’s inconceivable that the SPFL would agree to pay differential compensation. This can be easily clarified by clubs asking to see the relevant clauses.

It is therefore difficult to see how ‘voiding’ the leagues would lead to “highly-damaging compensation claims” without exactly the same being true for ‘calling’ them. Even if they weren’t covered by insurance, the SPFL could mitigate such claims by renegotiating contract terms with partners. A 25% refund would equate to c £6.5m yet there has been no mention of a reduction to the £9.3m held by the SPFL, pending final payments. This suggests that either no compensation claims are expected or that refunds are indeed covered by insurance.

The potential for voiding to “jeopardise clubs’ participation in Europe” is also misleading. UEFA initially expressed a desire for all nations to complete their fixtures, so the SPFL was right to delay any decision on the Premiership until conditions for participation were clarified. So, while it’s true to say a premature decision to ‘void’ the league could have potentially jeopardised clubs’ participation, it’s misleading because a decision to ‘call’ the league at that time, could have had exactly the same implication. Since then UEFA has clarified that entry should be based on “sporting merit”, so as long as nominations are made on this basis there would be no difference between ‘call’ and ‘void’. The Dutch have already decided to ‘void’ the Eredivisie and there’s no doubt their clubs will be accepted.

So, while the SPFL Board were clearly reticent to consider ‘voiding’ the leagues, the reasons publicly offered don’t seem to make sense. In the absence of any major implicational differences between ‘call’ or ‘void’, the decision is purely a judgement based on justice. There can be little doubt that ‘void’ is fairer, yet the desire to award titles, promotions and relegations is understandable. The SPFL rightly recognised that ‘calling’ the leagues needs reconstruction to mitigate its implications, particularly for those clubs to be relegated. However, in doing so they ‘made a rod for their own backs’ because it isn’t guaranteed that clubs will vote for their taskforce’s proposal. ‘Void’ doesn’t need reconstruction because all clubs would simply start again in the same leagues next season.

It’s for clubs to decide at the EGM whether the Board are guilty of any serious wrong-doing but it’s clear they made some mistakes, not least in their handling of the ‘Dundee vote’ debacle. However, it’s important to acknowledge that the Board have every right to decide what they think is best for the game. They also have the right to advocate for their choices. However, it does appear they misled clubs by saying that advance payments weren’t viable, and by failing to acknowledge that a different resolution could have made final payments feasible without ending the season. It does seem that their proposal was positioned as the only possible option, rather than simply their preference. Other options were clearly available, so it was wrong to infer that this wasn’t the case.

Furthermore, highlighting the downsides of ‘void’, without acknowledging that many of the same downsides also applied to ‘call’, could perhaps be considered ‘misleading by omission’. Presenting their preferred solutions as a single package made some clubs feel it was a “take it or leave it” offer. Making payments conditional on the other aspects of the Resolution made some clubs feel they had “a gun to their heads”. Some may have voted differently if they had known that alternatives were possible. Some clubs felt “bullied” and that is for them to judge. However, the SPFL’s actions do appear to be manipulative, perhaps even coercive, and lacking in goodwill or transparency.

What should the SPFL Board have done? They should have separated the issues and dealt with them in priority order. They could and should have:

Made advance payments to clubs of a large % of outstanding fees, without ending the lower league seasons.

Stated that their preference was for all 4 leagues to complete fixtures if possible.

Calculated the last date leagues would have to restart in order to complete season 2019/20, without having an unacceptable impact on season 2020/21.

Set a firm deadline prior to this, as the last date by which clubs must recommence training.

Pressed UEFA for definitive guidance on European participation prior to this deadline.

Prepared for both the restart of 2019/20 and the possibility that the season must be ended.

Delayed a decision to ‘call’ or ‘void’ until after the deadline, in order to work up a firm reconstruction proposal to mitigate the impact of ‘call’ .

Been totally transparent on the real financial implications of ending the season early, and of each option.

Proposed that with either option European places would be awarded on current Premiership positions, to satisfy UEFA’s ‘sporting merit’ requirement.

Proposed that with either option financial distribution would be on the same basis.

And with this we arrive at what is likely to be the real reason the SPFL got itself into such a mess. As always with Scottish football, it comes down to money.

It was likely concluded that the leagues needed to be ‘called’ to enable financial distribution to be made on the % splits agreed pre-season. ‘Voiding’ the season potentially opens up the claim that funds could be distributed differently - a claim only likely to come from non-Premiership clubs. The SPFL therefore had to withhold any further payments in order to leverage a ‘call’ vote from the lower leagues, thus ensuring the Premiership could still command over 82% of the total prize fund. Despite this Rangers and Hearts aren’t happy, but not for the same reasons and neither are about money.

Lower league clubs may feel duped but it’s probably too late to overturn the vote. Would they have had a case for a different financial distribution? On the one hand all clubs started the season knowing how much each league would be paid, so could budget accordingly. 75% of games have also now been played, so league positions are a fair reflection of performances to date. On the other hand, the SPFL Board could easily have proposed a reasonable compromise - that 75% of total funds be distributed on the pre-agreed split, while the remaining 25% was split more evenly. Assuming c£6.5m this could have been say £225,000 to each Premiership club, £175,000 to Championship clubs, £125,000 to each League 1 club and £75,000 to all League 2 clubs.

This one-off agreement would have reflected the unusual nature of 2019/20, and shown real solidarity amongst all clubs. In particular it could have been a powerful gesture by bigger clubs, to acknowledge the financial stresses lower down the leagues. It would also have been a fair way to distribute funds for a partially completed season and, by ensuring the same £ distribution whether the leagues were ‘called’ or ‘voided’, would have removed money as a consideration in this matter. Clubs could then have voted on a clear proposal from the SPFL Board - to ‘call’ the leagues and enact the reconstruction recommended by its taskforce. The fallback position, if the resolution failed to garner enough votes, would be to ‘void’ 2019/20 and simply start again next season in the same leagues.

Would enough clubs have voted for this resolution? Who knows. After all, this is Scottish football !

However, at least the SPFL would have tried to do the right thing.

 

 

 

 

An outstanding article and it nails the “null and void equals disaster” lie, something that not one journalist has ever tackled.

 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

19 minutes ago, magic8ball said:

All underlines the whole issue ,Regime change as it stands right now we are the equivalent of a punter going into a casino ,We will win sometimes but the way the rules are set up they are set up for the house to win ,And we all know who’s house it is 

Exactly my thoughts on it too, this is bigger than just them getting gifted a title. 

[kirkiebear 1,013]

The fact moonhowlers like this used to be in charge of the league says it all

[Domthenbud 899]

5 hours ago, dougal72 said:

Trying to get my head round the longest paragraph in the world.

 I tend to get a bit sentimental after an evening on whisky. And my grammar takes a hammering also.

[Dave Hedgehog 10,673]

Just now, kirkiebear said:

The fact moonhowlers like this used to be in charge of the league says it all

Another nonce appeaser mentioning a “delay” that never happened. 

Roger Mitchell is a mongo bastard.