The problem with the @spfl proposal is not that it accepts the season cannot be played to a conclusion within realistic timescales. The problem is it retrospectively changes the rules of the competition in new unfair ways without trying to mitigate its unfair consequences. (1)

Relegating clubs when they haven’t played the same teams the same number of times isn’t fair. Were a proposal like that made at the start of a season, before Clubs new how they would do, almost none of them would agree to it. Retrospective rule-making warps incentives. (2)

The fairest option if you can’t complete a competition is obviously to void it. Everyone recognises that just isn’t possible as it would impose hardship on a wide range of clubs. The @spfl is under pressure to “call” the season to fulfil its legal obligations to others. (3)

It is unavoidable, if you do that, not to provide some sort of reward to teams that have done well so far. But the rewards for winning an incomplete season, unless already arithmetically won, are not fully earned. It is legitimate to compensate those denied opportunities. (4)

Such compensation will always be inexact because of the extraordinary circumstances. But promoting two teams from each league is a *more equitable* solution than what has been proposed in that regard. Reconstruction through Promotion does not disadvantage other teams. (5)

For those that lose out on a play-off spot there is the consolation that they can compete for the same competition the following year. They never had a guarantee of promotion even if they finished in the playoffs too. Their opportunity was still in a real sense contingent. (6)

In the event of reconstruction by enlargement, the good but denied teams in the second third and fourth tier actually have, on paper, an easier league to beat the following year. Their sporting disadvantage has been mitigated. (7)

By contrast, teams that are relegated on the basis of incomplete fixture lists are punished harshly without any mitigation. Several reasons apply.

(1) The teams around them, in our particular case, have sometimes benefited from games being postponed for external factors. (8)

(2) The teams finishing second bottom of each league are treated more favourably than they would have had the fixtures been played out and positions didn’t change. They avoid a play-off risk.

(3) Relegation ruins clubs in ways a merely “poor finish” doesn’t. We know this. (9)

In most leagues, relegation from the top flight means a several orders of magnitude drop in income. Now compound that in the current wider economic situation.

In lower tiers, relegation often means teams moving part-time/cutting other facilities to make ends meet. (10)

Calling the season *and relegating* teams who are not yet mathematically relegated is not just in principle unfair and objectionable: it compounds the punishment for a fate that was not (yet) fully deserved. They didn’t fully “earn” their relegation. (11)

The just thing to do is to ameliorate the situation for the teams that would otherwise face this harshest treatment. And the obvious way to do that is to not relegate them. If they are to be damned, have them fully earn that damning. (12)

The fairness of reconstruction is it doesn’t penalise other clubs. You still award prizes on the basis of end result next year. Add relegation spots to restore the old structure. If you finish 10th in the top tier it doesn’t matter if it has 12 or 14 teams: you stay up. (13)

Crucially, though, the fate of teams under new rules next season would be determined in advance of next season and on the basis of a full fixture card. It avoids the unfairness of retrospectivity. Everyone knows and accepts the rules from the outset. (14)

Tl;dr @PartickThistle have a literal game in hand, Hearts and Stranraer still had plenty points to play for, other clubs’ fans wouldn’t accept this in the same position and they wouldn’t have picked these rules for this scenario if they didn’t know how they’d apply to them. (15)