SPFL Shambles

[shotstopper 765]

Proper discussions should have been held. The 5 proposals on the table, whittled down to 3, then 2 and then finally the proposal that would take us forward. 

Democratic, the way it should have been, but no , this did not suit the agenda of a certain team from the east end of Glasgow who run football in Scotland.

FFS when will the rest of Scottish football wake up and smell the coffee.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

22 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Null and Void.

End season using existing standings

End season using PPG

Freeze season and look to resume at an unknown point in the future. 

End lower leagues and freeze Premiership until unknown point. 

Not sure what the other one was

Budge spoke about 5 of them being brushed aside and the PPG option being the only one strongly promoted. Yet we dont know the comparable costs of each option. Theres a reason we dont know imo, and that's because it doesnt suit the spfl for us to know.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

 

27 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No smoke and mirrors. I've been as upfront as possible and given the info as I have it.

Let me put it  to you this way, if N&v cost the same/less as PPG do you not think one - just one - of the clubs might have come out and said so? Rangers were quick to point out the cost of PPG but never provided anything to compare that against when costing N&V.

Mate you dont see it but there it is again.

Figures disclosed for the EPL, part figures disclosed for Scotland. Then reasoning and conjecture why no n&v when all I want is figures and the comparable contractual risk. I hear repeatedly what I keep getting told but its like listening to politician it's never the actual answer. And I find it absurd we're being told to swallow it, for arguments given like yours above, yet no figures are known other than the ones the spfl preferred not to have come to light for PPG  but which destroy some of the arguments for opting for that decision.

Let me put it this way 😁. If N&v WAS such a problematic and costly option, why wouldn't the ballpark figure of it be disclosed now, especially given we know the true costs of PPG.  Why wouldn't the figure of 10m, 30m whatever be known if it was that easy to factually conclude it as a ruinous option. Unless it wasnt.

[The Dude 20,026]

11 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Budge spoke about 5 of them being brushed aside and the PPG option being the only one strongly promoted. Yet we dont know the comparable costs of each option. Theres a reason we dont know imo, and that's because it doesnt suit the spfl for us to know.

Clubs will have their own idea of the costs on their end of the various different options - there's a reason none of them put n&v forward as their preferred option.

[The Dude 20,026]

2 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

 

Mate you dont see it but there it is again.

Figures disclosed for the EPL, part figures disclosed for Scotland. Then reasoning and conjecture why no n&v when all I want is figures and the comparable contractual risk. I hear repeatedly what I keep getting told but its like listening to politician it's never the actual answer. And I find it absurd we're being told to swallow it, for arguments given like yours above, yet no figures are known other than the ones the spfl preferred not to have come to light for PPG  but which destroy some of the arguments for opting for that decision.

Let me put it this way 😁. If N&v WAS such a problematic and costly option, why wouldn't the ballpark figure of it be disclosed now, especially given we know the true costs of PPG.  Why wouldn't the figure of 10m, 30m whatever be known if it was that easy to factually conclude it as a ruinous option. Unless it wasnt.

Clubs themselves have said N&V was never a starter. If you think they are just basing that on the SPFL's say so then you're being incredibly naive. If every club in the country - including Rangers - agree it was a more damaging financial decision, I'll take it at face value as I've nothing to contradict that.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

1 minute ago, The Dude said:

Clubs will have their own idea of the costs on their end of the various different options - there's a reason none of them put n&v forward as their preferred option.

Perhaps sporting, more likely financial, yet none of it is demonstrable, yet the PPG costs are.

Given all the words written about it, not one comment says it would cost a club or the league X% more than the PPG option. Which itself was sold to clubs as the best option yet slowly but surely figures come to light of the true costs of it.

Imo it's been brushed aside as a ruinous option because it's not a preferred option. Including by Rangers probably on sporting grounds. But nothing has yet demonstrated it was costlier than PPG despite the converted narrative agsinst it.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

3 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Clubs themselves have said N&V was never a starter. If you think they are just basing that on the SPFL's say so then you're being incredibly naive. If every club in the country - including Rangers - agree it was a more damaging financial decision, I'll take it at face value as I've nothing to contradict that.

And who provided the evidence of this financial damage? The same folk that masked a 10m risk whilst promoting a preferred option over all others?

You've clearly spoken to a number of clubs yet the figure of X% more by opting for n&v has never came to the fore. Nor for any journalist from anyone in the game. But the generalisation is simply accepted because of what I can only assume is the case put to clubs by the spfl. You dont see that as strange?

[The Dude 20,026]

5 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

And who provided the evidence of this financial damage? The same folk that masked a 10m risk whilst promoting a preferred option over all others?

You've clearly spoken to a number of clubs yet the figure of X% more by opting for n&v has never came to the fore. Nor for any journalist from anyone in the game. But the generalisation is simply accepted because of what I can only assume is the case put to clubs by the spfl. You dont see that as strange?

Like I've said before, clubs have come to that view on the basis of their own contracts with their partners - not what they have/haven't been told by the SPFL.

Some clubs feared having to pay out full refunds on entire season tickets and hospitality packages and sponsorships etc rather than the pro-rata ones by 'completing' the season by curtailing it. Others didn't have as many risks (Rangers with their ST T&Cs for example) so there's no one definitive figure or % I can possibly put on what it would be. I've no idea what or how much Sky would demand in return however, using the example they've set with the PL, it's probably fair to assume it would be greater than the sum they got for losing a % of games.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

8 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Like I've said before, clubs have come to that view on the basis of their own contracts with their partners - not what they have/haven't been told by the SPFL.

Some clubs feared having to pay out full refunds on entire season tickets and hospitality packages and sponsorships etc rather than the pro-rata ones by 'completing' the season by curtailing it. Others didn't have as many risks (Rangers with their ST T&Cs for example) so there's no one definitive figure or % I can possibly put on what it would be. I've no idea what or how much Sky would demand in return however, using the example they've set with the PL, it's probably fair to assume it would be greater than the sum they got for losing a % of games.

So clubs have looked at the cost to themselves with their sponsors and partners, ST t&cs, etc., I fully get that.

The spfl presented 6 options including n&v, but cast 5 aside including that one, yet we dont know why in terms of comparable costs. Like you say, you don't know how much SKY would seek back, but assume. All I'm saying is we have that figure now for the EPL but not Scotland. Assuming its the same suggests all contracts are the same, that's a naive assumption.  The fact the figure is not commonly known and available suggests it's not known and commonly available, as it would have been leaked. Its likelier the case and narrative has been presented against it by those not wanting it considered as an option, and that's where for me the issue lies.

[British_Empire 9,648]

There's no option that the SPFL could have invoked that would have kept everyone happy and involved no money being lost. 

That's why it had to be null and void.

The apparent "disadvantages" of that, were no different to the other downsides of every other option.

[GersInCanada 7,775]

Given the circumstances surrounding the need to prematurely end the season I doubt that a court would enforce the strict terms of a contract.

You paid for 20 games but only got 10. You get half of your money back would be the ruling.

[The Dude 20,026]

17 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

So clubs have looked at the cost to themselves with their sponsors and partners, ST t&cs, etc., I fully get that.

The spfl presented 6 options including n&v, but cast 5 aside including that one, yet we dont know why in terms of comparable costs. Like you say, you don't know how much SKY would seek back, but assume. All I'm saying is we have that figure now for the EPL but not Scotland. Assuming its the same suggests all contracts are the same, that's a naive assumption.  The fact the figure is not commonly known and available suggests it's not known and commonly available, as it would have been leaked. Its likelier the case and narrative has been presented against it by those not wanting it considered as an option, and that's where for me the issue lies.

Nobody wanted it considered as an option. It was far from just the SPFL who didn't want it.

[British_Empire 9,648]

2 minutes ago, GersInCanada said:

Given the circumstances surrounding the need to prematurely end the season I doubt that a court would enforce the strict terms of a contract.

You paid for 20 games but only got 10. You get half of your money back would be the ruling.

When we played Dundee United at Tannadice and the game got called at half-time, apparently the by-laws meant because the game went to half-time the home club didn't have to issue refunds. I'm sure that was the result of the small-claims outcome when a Rangers bus took them to court. 

I think (and it's just a guess as I'm not legal-minded) if you decide to call an end to the season, effectively finish it with winners etc then you're obliged to refund people for what they are outstanding as you've declared the competition finished to a close.

If you cancel it and do it null-and-void due to a global pandemic and there's no way it could continue, like that day at Tannadice - then that's the end of it. It's just one of them things and a line is drawn under it,

[Dickie1963 2,352]

13 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Nobody wanted it considered as an option. It was far from just the SPFL who didn't want it.

How do you know that ?

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, Dickie1963 said:

How do you know that ?

People involved in the meetings have told me.

[GersInCanada 7,775]

6 minutes ago, British_Empire said:

When we played Dundee United at Tannadice and the game got called at half-time, apparently the by-laws meant because the game went to half-time the home club didn't have to issue refunds. I'm sure that was the result of the small-claims outcome when a Rangers bus took them to court. 

I think (and it's just a guess as I'm not legal-minded) if you decide to call an end to the season, effectively finish it with winners etc then you're obliged to refund people for what they are outstanding as you've declared the competition finished to a close.

If you cancel it and do it null-and-void due to a global pandemic and there's no way it could continue, like that day at Tannadice - then that's the end of it. It's just one of them things and a line is drawn under it,

Like yourself I am not a lawyer and I fail to see the financial difference between null and void or any other method of ending it.

[The Dude 20,026]

1 minute ago, GersInCanada said:

Like yourself I am not a lawyer and I fail to see the financial difference between null and void or any other method of ending it.

One is considered complete, the other isn't.

[British_Empire 9,648]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

People involved in the meetings have told me.

What was the consistent reasoning though, was it a worry about costs from paying money back to sponsors, TV companies etc? 

[The Dude 20,026]

Just now, British_Empire said:

What was the consistent reasoning though, was it a worry about costs from paying money back to sponsors, TV companies etc? 

All of the above. Sponsors, TV, hospitality, STs etc

[GersInCanada 7,775]

2 minutes ago, The Dude said:

One is considered complete, the other isn't.

A difference that makes no difference.

A pandemic brought the season to an early close and that's it.

[The Dude 20,026]

 

1 minute ago, GersInCanada said:

A difference that makes no difference.

A pandemic brought the season to an early close and that's it.

Then why were there differing fees due back to Sky depending on how the PL ended?

[STEPPS BOY 73,804]

8 minutes ago, British_Empire said:

What was the consistent reasoning though, was it a worry about costs from paying money back to sponsors, TV companies etc? 

The very definition of Null and Void .

’ being or amounting to nothing; nil; lacking; nonexistent.‘

With the season “curtailed” you’re paying ST’s and TV companies Pro Rata.

Null and void they’re claiming back money for a season that would be “non existent” in a legal sense.

 

 

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,622]

6 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Nobody wanted it considered as an option. It was far from just the SPFL who didn't want it.

Which arguably could have been on sporting grounds as much as financial. We dont know as no one asks. Except for the English game.

But the argument exists against it with nothing to substantiate it, and no one interested.

[GersInCanada 7,775]

3 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Which arguably could have been on sporting grounds as much as financial. We dont know as no one asks. Except for the English game.

But the argument exists against it with nothing to substantiate it, and no one interested.

That was essentially one of our arguements in the dossier. If the season is ended now then broadcasters etc can claim back monies. Let's not cancel it now - what's the rush - until we have examined all of the options.

[The Dude 20,026]

6 minutes ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Which arguably could have been on sporting grounds as much as financial. We dont know as no one asks. Except for the English game.

But the argument exists against it with nothing to substantiate it, and no one interested.

The people I've spoken to were against it on financial grounds more than anything - although sporting was part of it. It simply made no sense to increase the financial hit AND wipe the slate clean.