The generic Hearts thread

[Gloucester Hibs]

If there is really to be solidarity payments made to the poppy thieves to compensate for the shock of relegation it should come at a price. They need their wings clipped; ok here’s your GTF dosh but on the condition that you STFU now about perceived injustices, corruption, bullying, conspiracies or any other pish they’ve been whining about

[18Craig75]

Should we also be entitled to a solidarity payment? We lost out on c130k by voting to end the season and dropping a position. As far as I can tell all we are actually the only club that can genuinely say they’ve acted ‘in the best interest of the game’.

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why tamper with something that is working and is favoured by the vast majority of clubs?

Why also risk any disagreement with our broadcaster (Sky) on a deal (new, starting August 2020)?

For what, so as not to relegate the team who have been the worst in the division over the last year?

Pretty much sums it up. If St Mirren had lost to Hearts you wouldn't have heard a peep out of the Budgie.

[Radium]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure about this but I assume any solidarity payment would go to a vote too? If that’s the case, the way these clubs have behaved they will have lost any sympathy from the remaining clubs.

Hearts want compensated but are paying Boyce and Naismith £6k plus per week?

The 3M figure being thrown about won’t happen, I would have thought something around 150k added to the parachute payments will be about the best they can hope for. Would be surprised if much over 400-500k was used for compensation across all clubs. All speculation on my part but had they dealt with it differently, not rolling over but by linking the loss of the sporting opportunity to a solidarity payment they would have probably got a better result when the negotiations take place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Booked4Being-Ugly]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Pretty much sums it up. If St Mirren had lost to Hearts you wouldn't have heard a peep out of the Budgie.

If the huns were in Celtic's position and Gerrard was about to secure his 1st trophy and Hearts had beaten St Mirren, could you imagine the same furore about ending the season.

[Future17]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why tamper with something that is working and is favoured by the vast majority of clubs?

Why also risk any disagreement with our broadcaster (Sky) on a deal (new, starting August 2020)?

For what, so as not to relegate the team who have been the worst in the division over the last year?

The reason to do it would be not to relegate teams based on their performance over 30 matches of a 38-match season.

The reasons not to do it are predominantly financial.

I understand there's no perfect solution, but my main point (several pages back now) is that it's harsh to relegate the relegated teams in these circumstances.

It's sad to see sporting competitions being driven primarily by financial concerns, but I'm aware that's the modern reality (which, judging by your username, you'll probably agree with).

[PatHead]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Agreed, but those weren't the only reconstruction models available. If reconstruction had been implemented on a purely sporting basis, a much simpler change was all that was required.

Such as?

The bottom league had already said the only reconstruction they would vote for was three leagues. No other format would be considered.

Clyde and others then said they would not support that.

Rushed reconstruction was never going to work.

It was not only the Premiership that rejected the plans even if saying that suits your and Hearts agenda.

[high bee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The reason to do it would be not to relegate teams based on their performance over 30 matches of a 38-match season.

The reasons not to do it are predominantly financial.

I understand there's no perfect solution, but my main point (several pages back now) is that it's harsh to relegate the relegated teams in these circumstances.

It's sad to see sporting competitions being driven primarily by financial concerns, but I'm aware that's the modern reality (which, judging by your username, you'll probably agree with).

Positions 7-10 in League 1 (Clyde have an 18 point cushion on bottom) would find themselves in the bottom tier as would Cove Rangers who should be promoted. The models suggested seem far more unfair to them than relegating the teams in the automatic relegation spots. (Hearts, Partick, Stranraer). So I totally agree that there is no perfect solution.

So can you please demonstrate how we could avoid relegating any team who hasn’t completed the season? This is not a jibe BTW, if there’s a way to do it then it should be done. I can’t think of a way and my feeling is that certain clubs would be happy to whitewash over the injustice for multiple ‘wee’ teams provided their team is okay.

[007]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Allisbarry certainly getting his money’s worth out of Deans 😂

https://twitter.com/edinburghsport/s...215312386?s=21

https://twitter.com/edinburghsport/s...084125189?s=21

Budge: Tell me Mr Lawyer, do you think we've got a good case?

Lawyer (whose livelihood depends on fees from taking on cases and whose business has been suffering very badly due to the Covid-19 crisis): Yes, you have a very good chance of winning.

Budge: Will you do it on a no win no fee basis?

Lawyer: Ah...em....well...💡....I'm actually a Hibby so maybe you'd be better trying Smith, Cardigan, Fudsworth, Creditor, Plaza (née Piazza) and Rover solicitors next door.

[matty_f]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The reason to do it would be not to relegate teams based on their performance over 30 matches of a 38-match season.

The reasons not to do it are predominantly financial.

I understand there's no perfect solution, but my main point (several pages back now) is that it's harsh to relegate the relegated teams in these circumstances.

It's sad to see sporting competitions being driven primarily by financial concerns, but I'm aware that's the modern reality (which, judging by your username, you'll probably agree with).

I actually agree that it's harsh to relegate a team when the season hasn't been played out in full. Where I disagree is that decisions have been pretty financial. While finance has undoubtedly played a part, I think a lot of people are overlooking the actual practicalities of trying to complete the season.

IMHO, based on what we currently know, finishing this season is impossible for a whole host of reasons.

With that knowledge, the only option really is to ends the league season as it stands, and accept that there will be some winners and losers from the situation. Ultimately, in 8 games' time we'd have had some winners and losers, such is the nature of sport.

Reconstruction as a sticking plaster for the wounds of the relegated clubs isn't a good enough reason to do it, and trying to find a solution that suits all parties (which it would have to do, to meet the sporting integrity and fairness criteria those that shouted for reconstruction hinged their argument on) with a matter of weeks was never going to happen.

If reconstruction is going to happen then it should be well thought out, considered and beneficial to everyone.

Ideally we'd see Hearts relegated after all the games were played, but that's not going to happen. What's going ahead as things stand is the least unfair option across all clubs that there is available, whilst still being practical.

[brog]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Should we also be entitled to a solidarity payment? We lost out on c130k by voting to end the season and dropping a position. As far as I can tell all we are actually the only club that can genuinely say they’ve acted ‘in the best interest of the game’.

We certainly are the only club to have actually voted against our short term self interest, in the long term interest of the greater good. Given that 3 of St J's 4 games were away against us & the uglies we were long odds on to be 6th at the break.

[NadeAteMyLunch!]

[QUOTE=Future17;6169964]”The reason to do it would be not to relegate teams based on their performance over 30 matches of a 38-match season.”

The flip side of that argument would be, is it fair that a side who have been dreadful over 30 games, odds on to get relegated(form and previous history of 10 out of the last 11 seasons the team bottom at this stage go down), won 4 games out of 30 and now require 2 wins in their last 8 to get off the bottom(assuming nobody around them picks up a single point, in which case they would require more than 2 wins from 8). Why should a world pandemic spare them from what was undoubtedly coming? That’s not sporting integrity either.

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We certainly are the only club to have actually voted against our short term self interest, in the long term interest of the greater good. Given that 3 of St J's 4 games were away against us & the uglies we were long odds on to be 6th at the break.

Na, that can’t be right. Budgie said so.

[Rumble de Thump]

Anyone who watched Hearts play over the course of the season, read the league rules and looked at the league table will agree that relegating Hearts is not harsh. It's fair, deserved and the rules dictate they have to go.

[calumhibee1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Anyone who watched Hearts play over the course of the season, read the league rules and looked at the league table will agree that relegating Hearts is not harsh. It's fair, deserved and the rules dictate they have to go.

I’m finding myself unable to find it harsh in any way.

[Future17]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Such as?

The bottom league had already said the only reconstruction they would vote for was three leagues. No other format would be considered.

Clyde and others then said they would not support that.

Rushed reconstruction was never going to work.

It was not only the Premiership that rejected the plans even if saying that suits your and Hearts agenda.

I don't have an agenda as such, just a point of view.

As I've said a few times now, there's no perfect solution and, for the avoidance of doubt, I do think it seems like the best option was chosen from all the bad options, taking into account all circumstances. However, I think it seems as though the main motivation in not proceeding with reconstruction is financial. I'm not criticising that, as that's the modern reality, but I think it's come at the cost of sporting fairness.

To answer your question though, if the desire was there to find a purely sporting solution, there are several possible options, from which we'd again have to pick the least worst. For example, we could have had a 14-10-10-10 structure for 1 or more seasons. It's far from perfect but, on a sporting basis, I think it's better than relegating teams for their performance over 80% of the season.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Positions 7-10 in League 1 (Clyde have an 18 point cushion on bottom) would find themselves in the bottom tier as would Cove Rangers who should be promoted. The models suggested seem far more unfair to them than relegating the teams in the automatic relegation spots. (Hearts, Partick, Stranraer). So I totally agree that there is no perfect solution.

So can you please demonstrate how we could avoid relegating any team who hasn’t completed the season? This is not a jibe BTW, if there’s a way to do it then it should be done. I can’t think of a way and my feeling is that certain clubs would be happy to whitewash over the injustice for multiple ‘wee’ teams provided their team is okay.

I've touched on this above. I 100% agree with Clyde's position. I would have them remain in League 1 which would still be the second bottom tier.

[Future17]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I actually agree that it's harsh to relegate a team when the season hasn't been played out in full. Where I disagree is that decisions have been pretty financial. While finance has undoubtedly played a part, I think a lot of people are overlooking the actual practicalities of trying to complete the season.

IMHO, based on what we currently know, finishing this season is impossible for a whole host of reasons.

With that knowledge, the only option really is to ends the league season as it stands, and accept that there will be some winners and losers from the situation. Ultimately, in 8 games' time we'd have had some winners and losers, such is the nature of sport.

Reconstruction as a sticking plaster for the wounds of the relegated clubs isn't a good enough reason to do it, and trying to find a solution that suits all parties (which it would have to do, to meet the sporting integrity and fairness criteria those that shouted for reconstruction hinged their argument on) with a matter of weeks was never going to happen.

If reconstruction is going to happen then it should be well thought out, considered and beneficial to everyone.

Ideally we'd see Hearts relegated after all the games were played, but that's not going to happen. What's going ahead as things stand is the least unfair option across all clubs that there is available, whilst still being practical.

I agree with most of that - it's certainly not practical to finish the season. I don't think the practicalities of temporary reconstruction are relatively minor (purely on sporting terms). The largest downside would be likely be reduced promotion opportunities in the short term, but at least teams would know what they're competing for at the start of the season and the outcome would dependon their performance across the full season, as it should.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The flip side of that argument would be, is it fair that a side who have been dreadful over 30 games, odds on to get relegated(form and previous history of 10 out of the last 11 seasons the team bottom at this stage go down), won 4 games out of 30 and now require 2 wins in their last 8 to get off the bottom(assuming nobody around them picks up a single point, in which case they would require more than 2 wins from 8). Why should a world pandemic spare them from what was undoubtedly coming? That’s not sporting integrity either.

As much as we all hoped it was coming, it was far from "undoubted". As discussed previously, loads of teams have gotten themselves out of worse relegation trouble than Hearts were in with 8 games to play.

[high bee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I've touched on this above. I 100% agree with Clyde's position. I would have them remain in League 1 which would still be the second bottom tier.

The closest thing to nobody suffering that I can think of is a 16-16-12 set up because then you’re only left with a dilemma over Cove Rangers vs Stranraer as all other teams stay in their current tier in the pyramid or move up one.

Stranraer could be offered a healthy parachute payment which, given the prize money at that level, would be a drop in the ocean when spread amongst all the other members.

Problems would occur if they still didn’t accept it or the other clubs around them complain about them getting a higher cash payment. Then there’s the TV, sponsorship and prize money debate but ultimately if the clubs vote it through it’s the closest thing to looking after all clubs that certain clubs keep banging on about.

[CapitalGreen]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The closest thing to nobody suffering that I can think of is a 16-16-12 set up because then you’re only left with a dilemma over Cove Rangers vs Stranraer as all other teams stay in their current tier in the pyramid or move up one.

Stranraer could be offered a healthy parachute payment which, given the prize money at that level, would be a drop in the ocean when spread amongst all the other members.

Problems would occur if they still didn’t accept it or the other clubs around them complain about them getting a higher cash payment. Then there’s the TV, sponsorship and prize money debate but ultimately if the clubs vote it through it’s the closest thing to looking after all clubs that certain clubs keep banging on about.

The closest thing to nobody suffering is 12-12-10-10 but that option wasn’t pursued because of Hearts self-interest as they were the only team to lose out in that scenario.

[high bee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The closest thing to nobody suffering is 12-12-10-10 but that option wasn’t pursued because of Hearts self-interest as they were the only team to lose out in that scenario.

Good point and that makes more sense if you believe that a 12 team league is better than 16 (which I do).

[weecounty hibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The closest thing to nobody suffering is 12-12-10-10 but that option wasn’t pursued because of Hearts self-interest as they were the only team to lose out in that scenario.

Correct. Wasn't even talked about and I think that may have gone through. It would be the only scenario that I would have cited for. But as you say hearts are only interested in the greater good of Scottish football so it wasn't mentioned. Sorry I meant the greater good of heart of Midlothian football

[Future17]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The closest thing to nobody suffering is 12-12-10-10 but that option wasn’t pursued because of Hearts self-interest as they were the only team to lose out in that scenario.

Why is 12-12-10-10 better than 14-10-10-10? I'm not saying I disagree, just wondering about the logic.

[Andy74]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Correct. Wasn't even talked about and I think that may have gone through. It would be the only scenario that I would have cited for. But as you say hearts are only interested in the greater good of Scottish football so it wasn't mentioned. Sorry I meant the greater good of heart of Midlothian football

Why should no one suffer?

Teams get relegated every year.

Are relegated teams going to suffer even more due to Covid?

Relatively, no. Everyone is going to suffer on that front.

[Skol]

Would Hearts have accepted reconstruction with a caveat that as the club in bottom, they only qualify for say 75% (actual amount needs a financial modeller to work out) of whatever income they earn in the next season which would ensure the financial impact is spread across everyone.

Nope, thought not, they wanted to finish top 6 and be better off

[steviehibsleith]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Why is 12-12-10-10 better than 14-10-10-10? I'm not saying I disagree, just wondering about the logic.

Money

The Sky sports deal is only to show SPL games plus play offs
Why do you think Budge is saying 3/4 million losses
You are putting two more teams to dilute the Pot Cormack at Aberdeen said this would take 600k from Aberdeeen share

Championship is BBC and Premier sports have a deal also

[Hibs4185]

Ian Murray in his interview said it was right to end the season now but the only fair way was for league reconstruction.

In other words, we don’t want to finish the season as we will get relegated anyway.

I think the jambos quite like the injustice. They know they are odds ok for relegation anyway, this way they can invoke the famous macrame battalion spirit, man the barricades and all that pish. They will thrive of the injustice for years

[A Hi-Bee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Anyone who watched Hearts play over the course of the season, read the league rules and looked at the league table will agree that relegating Hearts is not harsh. It's fair, deserved and the rules dictate they have to go.

Its all just deflection, they should go down, not harsh or unfair, no problem with looking at some form of recalibration/reconstruction sometime in the future once football is going again, this is no time for deflection as more important things going on.
I feel that some on here perhaps have there own agenda, the BBC for sure has not mentioned one thing to support any opinion that is not for a no change.
No two ways about it get them relegated and then look at the set up once the game is being played, and some kind of league set up is in place.
Not harsh, not unfair just the way it is.

[Onion]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I actually agree that it's harsh to relegate a team when the season hasn't been played out in full. Where I disagree is that decisions have been pretty financial. While finance has undoubtedly played a part, I think a lot of people are overlooking the actual practicalities of trying to complete the season.

IMHO, based on what we currently know, finishing this season is impossible for a whole host of reasons.

With that knowledge, the only option really is to ends the league season as it stands, and accept that there will be some winners and losers from the situation. Ultimately, in 8 games' time we'd have had some winners and losers, such is the nature of sport.

Reconstruction as a sticking plaster for the wounds of the relegated clubs isn't a good enough reason to do it, and trying to find a solution that suits all parties (which it would have to do, to meet the sporting integrity and fairness criteria those that shouted for reconstruction hinged their argument on) with a matter of weeks was never going to happen.

If reconstruction is going to happen then it should be well thought out, considered and beneficial to everyone.

Ideally we'd see Hearts relegated after all the games were played, but that's not going to happen. What's going ahead as things stand is the least unfair option across all clubs that there is available, whilst still being practical.

Agree with that. Still think some compensation could be given to those most adversely impacted - Partick, Hearts etc funded from the new TV deal. No, it's not perfect and won't appease them, but at least it would show some empathy for the position they find themselves in. But for the grace , St M could easily have found themselves in bottom slot, Partick could quite possibly have escaped with their game in hand. To ask those clubs to pick up the full cost of relegation is harsh .

[Rumble de Thump]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Agree with that. Still think some compensation could be given to those most adversely impacted - Partick, Hearts etc funded from the new TV deal. No, it's not perfect and won't appease them, but at least it would show some empathy for the position they find themselves in. But for the grace , St M could easily have found themselves in bottom slot, Partick could quite possibly have escaped with their game in hand. To ask those clubs to pick up the full cost of relegation is harsh .

The position Hearts have found themselves in is bottom of the league at the end of the season. They don't deserve extra money and they would only waste it anyway. They certainly wouldn't use it to pay their employees what they owe them.

[hibeerealist]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The 3M figure being thrown about won’t happen, I would have thought something around 150k added to the parachute payments will be about the best they can hope for. Would be surprised if much over 400-500k was used for compensation across all clubs. All speculation on my part but had they dealt with it differently, not rolling over but by linking the loss of the sporting opportunity to a solidarity payment they would have probably got a better result when the negotiations take place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Parachute payment I think is £500k first season. IF we put it to a vote in the SPL maybe clubs could agree a 10% Solidarity payment of say 10% (£50k), this could pay 2 months wages for Bryce & Naismith at their rate post wage cut. That would help their finances greatly over the close season and more importantly, enable them to retain two vastly important members of their squad, a very generous gesture indeed from the football community!!!