Latest news:

Latest: Bowyer slams "Points Per Game" as "Ridiculous"
Discussion started by Crazylegs Cranebird (IP Logged), 28 June, 2020 16:02
Viking Tranmere
Crazylegs Cranebird
28 June, 2020 16:02
Charlton's form since the restart of the Championship season has proved that talk of ending the campaign on a points-per-game basis was "ridiculous", says boss Lee Bowyer:

[www.bbc.co.uk]

He really confines it to the dustbin good and proper! Good man.

Should be an interesting week, with Waasland-Beverens relegation about to be overturned by the Courts, Hearts & Particks case coming up on Tuesday.

Amiens and Toulouse will now take the French League to the Courts of Law on unfair prejudice after the premier teams voted not to follow the Court of Arbitration's recommendations by extending the league to 22 teams for next season with 4 going down. Sound familiar?



TRFC is #8 on Wirral's new Viking Trail
[www.facebook.com] 👊👊

Aldo'smuzzy
Aldo'smuzzy
28 June, 2020 17:55
Bowyer's missing the point - PPG isn't being used as a projection, it's being used as a measure of performance up to when the season was terminated.

The legal argument isn't whether PPG is a valid approach, it's more to do with how the decision to use it was arrived at - a vote of the self-interested. There's a strong argument that that creates unfair prejudice, but it doesn't invalidate the use of PPG.

I can foresee a situation in the Hearts case where the court agrees unfair prejudice but then refers the matter to the SFA (not the SPFL) to resolve. Indeed the SFA have already written to Hearts to ask why they went to court rather than through SFA arbitration. The point here, though, is that the SFA could quite easily decide that PPG is the way to decide matters, and they can do so free of any allegations of unfair prejudice.

In Northern Ireland they've just decided their outcome - their choice was either play two more games or curtail the season and outsource the decision on sporting outcomes to a third party consultancy. The clubs agreed to outsource it, without knowing what outcome the consultancy would come up with. Lo and behold, the consultancy studied various methodologies used throughout Europe and came up with PPG. So PPG it is, meaning Institute are relegated on PPG and have no 'unfair prejudge' argument to fall back on.

I wouldn't be surprised if the SFA eventually decided things in Scotland, and stuck to PPG. Likewise the FA down here, if it comes to that.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net