I did that too.....got a weeks detention, during which they left the chemistry stores open so I lifted a whole roll of magnesium ribbon...
When we use magnesium it's me that hands it out, heard enough of those stories to not just leave it lying around! Slightly more problematic is the story of one student who tried to flush a huge piece of potassium down the bog
Sorry, but you lost my support for this as soon as you mentioned Robbie Williams.I've got an off-the-wall idea too. It's unusual, so please clear your head of preconceptions and ride with it.
Every team elects one player. They all get together two meters apart and are blindfolded and spun around in a circle by 23 referees, who then scarper. The theme music from Zorba the Greek is played and the players have to dance. Each player is given points for their dancing by Robbie Williams and those people off Strictly (don't watch it so don't know their names). The points are all put into a hat and drawn randomly. But it's all a sham because it's fixed that Peterborough get top points. And then they do weighted points per game and we go up! Peterborough are happy because they won something and we're happy because we go up.
Sorry, but you lost my support for this as soon as you mentioned Robbie Williams.
If you could somehow merge your proposal with Brightons idea of pirates per game, ie having the fat dancing port vale fan in the barrel you may get my vote.
If you can guarantee they would be real swords you would definitely get my vote.
I think you're ignoring the fundamental reason why teams do not want to play on which is about finances. What happens if I'm a team that wants to play on but all of my opponents do not?
It's flawed. PPG is and always has been the only way.
While we have this impasse on how to decide League 1 between all the vested interests it's struck me that there is a possible middle ground in all this, allowing every team that wants to stop playing to do so and those that want to play on to also do so. This basically works by allowing those teams that do not want to play to have all their remaining games decided 0-0, while all the remaining games are played to their conclusion. Amongst the bottom half it looks like only Tranmere would want to play on, while in the top half from what I understand Doncaster would be unlikely to want to play on, so on that basis the most games anyone would have to play would be Rotherham with 6. We would have 4 - Oxford (h), Peterborough (h), Wycombe (h) and Gillingham (a). A table prior to the resumption for those that want to carry on would look something like this:
1. Coventry 40 - 73
2. Portsmouth 41 - 66
3. Peterborough 41 - 65
4. Rotherham 38 - 65
5. Sunderland 42 - 65
6. Fleetwood 40 - 65
7. Wycombe 40 - 65
8. Oxford 39 - 64
9. Doncaster 44 - 64
10. Ipswich 43 - 59
11. Burton 44 - 57
12. Gillingham 39 - 55
13. Blackpool 44 - 54
14. Bristol Rovers 44 - 54
15. Lincoln 44 - 51
16. Shrewsbury 44 - 51
17. Accrington 44 - 49
18. MK Dons 44 - 46
19. Rochdale 44 - 46
20. Wimbledon 44 - 44
21. Tranmere 39 - 37
22. Southend 44 - 28
23. Bolton 44 - 24
This would allow everything to still be decided on the pitch, while protecting those clubs that financially don't think they can play on. Tranmere would still have a shot at staying up if they were good enough. All the promotion issues would be decided that way too, but with half the games required to play than at the moment, which makes it more practical. There's even an argument that this situation effectively becomes a play off in its own right, so promoting the top 3 without play offs also becomes a possibility, to reduce further games. The only clubs who might feel this adversely affects them are Ipswich and Gillingham, who are probably only pursuing the play on mantra at the moment in the outside chance that the 10 team play off proposition comes into play, so if this came into force they might decide not to play on, reducing the number of games needed even further.
I set things on fire in my classroom to be fair
Bunsen burners don't count!
The one thing that's guaranteed to put clubs out of business is having to pay player wages AND paying for virus tests, while playing behind closed doors with no gate receipts, no parking revenue, and no food and beverage and no hospitality income,I am working from the premise of accepting that the greater interest of the game is for the likes of Accrington and Rochdale to not go out of business. If we don't accept that and it truly is dog eat dog, then ok lets just play out the season and let them face the consequences. If we want to be supportive of the majority in the league then this is one way of doing so. The only teams that can be truly safe by taking one point a game are those that have accrued enough points by their performances through the season so far. One point a game through a season would normally see you relegated from this league, so no team are getting any huge favours in this scenario. If say Rochdale took this option, both Wimbledon and Tranmere would still be able to overtake them by playing their games, and winning them, the same as they would have had to do if the season had played out as normal.
When we use magnesium it's me that hands it out, heard enough of those stories to not just leave it lying around! Slightly more problematic is the story of one student who tried to flush a huge piece of potassium down the bog
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?