Junior football, what is the future?

[Che Dail]

24 minutes ago, FairWeatherFan said:

Could argue is relates to where the SJFA offices are going to be in future.

..and Queens Park - if they can't preserve their league status long term, maybe in the Lowland League or even the West of Scotland league with all the ex Junior Giants!

[Le Tout P'ti FC]

Several risks there you would hope QP and their advisers will have identified well ahead of time as the clock runs down on the lease... 
Interesting you mention Cathkin, (I saw the excellent BBC Alba documentary last week) although if relocation is being considered I'd have thought Toryglen might be a better option seeing as the SFA are already there - old tenant becomes new landlord.

Yes Toryglen is a good idea! I hadn't considered that. It would be an alternative way for QP to maintain their "difference" (first team to play indoors) and stay close to their roots.

I'd personally hate to see them, and Scotland leave Hampden, but I understand some of the reservations others have about the place .

[Garret Deasy]

4 hours ago, Le Tout P'ti FC said:

The value of the land it sits on is whatever a buyer is willing to pay to a seller when the buyer knows the seller needs out of there pronto before they get sucked into a financial abyss.

What happens to the £22m (plus) that they owe to the grant funder if they knock the place down to build flats? (Or go cap in hand to government to get the whole lot waived.)

Or the tax which they will presumably become liable for on sale of the asset?

Or the legal and planning costs.

What if GCC decide we've got enough housing stock in this part of town, you can't have your land rezoned for housing? Or we need three new schools and a medical centre, amd X acres of green parkland on your site before you can build a single house.

What about the costs of upgrading Lesser Hampden or Cathkin or Shawfield or god knows where they end up after flitting?

What if their preferred housebuilder goes a bit Carillion on them and they have to fire sale the whole site to GHA before they go bust?

It's too simplistic to suggest that QPFC will be ok come what may. They probably will be ok, of course they will, but there's quite a few bumps in the road - you only have to look at something like Donaldson's College in Edinburgh which is perhaps comparable to a degree in terms of size and complexities to see it doesn't always go smoothly.
 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12070539.Hampden_Park_nets__23m_award_from_the_lottery/ Interesting to compare today's reality with the 'finest stadium in the world' talk.  Suspect (haven't checked on this ) that the lottery money is a straight grant, so no payback. 

I know BT put in excess of £5 million into Hampden around  this time, and have regretted it ever since. Their view was 'what a bunch of amateurs' both the SFA and Queens Park. This was under Jim Farry's watch of course, so what more can you say.  But what pis**d them off most of all was the control from Queens Park. They felt at the time they were dumping their money into a black hole to be spent on vanity projects, or jobs for the boys. 

With Regan talking to Murrayfield, if you compare Murrayfield as a stadium with Hampden, you must wonder whether BT was giving him the nod to go for Murrayfield.  Would have allowed BT to turn their back on Hampden and have both rugby and football in Edinburgh at BT Murrayfield. A modern stadium that enhances the BT brand, unlike Hampden. 

All these activities do have an effect on junior clubs. Especially those tempted to join in with the pyramid, licensing and all that stuff. The weakness of the SFA as a governing body, and its repeated ineptitude create a significant risk for any club investing its future on the future activities of the SFA.  Who knows? As sure as hell we won't be told until the proverbial hits the fan.

[Le Tout P'ti FC]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12070539.Hampden_Park_nets__23m_award_from_the_lottery/ Interesting to compare today's reality with the 'finest stadium in the world' talk.  Suspect (haven't checked on this ) that the lottery money is a straight grant, so no payback. 
I know BT put in excess of £5 million into Hampden around  this time, and have regretted it ever since. Their view was 'what a bunch of amateurs' both the SFA and Queens Park. This was under Jim Farry's watch of course, so what more can you say.  But what pis**d them off most of all was the control from Queens Park. They felt at the time they were dumping their money into a black hole to be spent on vanity projects, or jobs for the boys. 
With Regan talking to Murrayfield, if you compare Murrayfield as a stadium with Hampden, you must wonder whether BT was giving him the nod to go for Murrayfield.  Would have allowed BT to turn their back on Hampden and have both rugby and football in Edinburgh at BT Murrayfield. A modern stadium that enhances the BT brand, unlike Hampden. 
All these activities do have an effect on junior clubs. Especially those tempted to join in with the pyramid, licensing and all that stuff. The weakness of the SFA as a governing body, and its repeated ineptitude create a significant risk for any club investing its future on the future activities of the SFA.  Who knows? As sure as hell we won't be told until the proverbial hits the fan.

The lottery grant has some conditional payback or it won't sit on the balance sheet of QP. I don't know what the T&C are and nor does anybody else not privy to the contract but I'd surmise the chat is akin to "use this land for spectator football or other sport for XX years or grant is rescinded". This is why it's on their balance sheet today.

If it was a straight "here's £XXm build a stadium" then QP would have had to recognise it as income immediately.

(The irrelevant point here is if QP breach T&C how do they pay it back? I know, and everyone else knows, the grant is spent but the fact is QP can't recognise it at income until the grant period expires. Albeit if it's a say 25 year grant they release 4% pa to smooth that.)

The BT Hampden money is different. I think that was naming rights and their name is off the South Stand now so they must get bugger all back if it all goes tits up.

[Cyclizine]

Yeah, most fans of League One and Two clubs don't seem too keen on the regionalisation idea, but I wonder if their clubs are missing out on a fair bit of cash by not having more local matches.
When you think that a high proportion of a core home support will happily turn out for a local away match, but only a small fraction will travel even for as much as an hour for more distant away matches, it seems to me that clubs are throwing away good money from higher away attendances by not embracing more local football.
Part timers compete nationally, but not without money from the SPFL and high ticket prices to help them along.  Is the junior model (local matches, lower prices) more sustainable/self- sustaining for semi pros?  
I was interested by Stuart Brown of Stirling Albion's comments in the Sunday Mail at the weekend, when being interviewed about the possible introduction of colts teams to League Two.  He was concerned that they would lose the gate from 800-1000 fans in a more local match against Clyde or Stenhousemuir if League 2 went to 33 games in order to accommodate colts.  It's difficult to square that concern with part time SPFL clubs' insistence on playing in national leagues, since playing regionally would give them proportionately more of those higher-attendance games (although it might be Alloa and East Stirlingshire rather than Clyde for them in a west-east split of the lowlands).   
For them it seems to be a decision based on the perceived status of competing in a national league, rather than the pragmatism of more money (from higher attendances and sponsorship) of playing in a competitive regional league.

Yet attendances in League 2 are on average significantly higher than Highland, Lowland and Junior leagues. Prices are set to create the maximum pounds per spectator, sponsorship brings in enough cash, you're not going to get a significant increase in attendance or takings playing regionally. If clubs though it made financial sense, we'd already be doing it!

[energyzone]

Yet attendances in League 2 are on average significantly higher than Highland, Lowland and Junior leagues. Prices are set to create the maximum pounds per spectator, sponsorship brings in enough cash, you're not going to get a significant increase in attendance or takings playing regionally. If clubs though it made financial sense, we'd already be doing it!

The populations of the towns that League 2 clubs play in are mostly far higher than those containing Highland, Lowland and Junior teams, with only a few exceptions, e.g Irvine Meadow/Vics, Linlithgow, Kilwinning, Kirkintilloch.

If you asked most fans of League 2 clubs their thoughts on playing in a regionalised league they would see it as less prestigious and a backwards step, regardless of any potential financial benefit.

In fact I doubt any studies have ever been done to explore the benefits and drawbacks of such a reorganization.

[Robert James]

On 01/02/2018 at 15:30, cmontheloknow said:

Everything south of Brechin and Montrose would be LL - them included, even Oban on west coast. Centres of population above the line are Fort William and Stonehaven.

You can't be serious....

John Mac

[Unknown Fan]

On 2/1/2018 at 15:30, cmontheloknow said:

Everything south of Brechin and Montrose would be LL - them included, even Oban on west coast. Centres of population above the line are Fort William and Stonehaven.

Yep, seems like common sense to me.  

Sure once and when Cove get promoted the furthest south a Highland league team would be North of the Don.

[Jambo'ness]

10 hours ago, energyzone said:

The populations of the towns that League 2 clubs play in are mostly far higher than those containing Highland, Lowland and Junior teams, with only a few exceptions, e.g Irvine Meadow/Vics, Linlithgow, Kilwinning, Kirkintilloch.

If you asked most fans of League 2 clubs their thoughts on playing in a regionalised league they would see it as less prestigious and a backwards step, regardless of any potential financial benefit.

In fact I doubt any studies have ever been done to explore the benefits and drawbacks of such a reorganization.

It used to be about the pools money.  Being in the 'Leagues' meant you would appear on the Littlewoods coupon.  Now it's as much about Soccer Saturday on Sky.  They don't give scores for the Lowland League, occasionally chuck in a Highland League result.  Clubs are fearful their national exposure will be diminished by regionalisation, thus affecting sponsorship.

[redstarbenhar]

14 hours ago, Le Tout P'ti FC said:

The lottery grant has some conditional payback or it won't sit on the balance sheet of QP. I don't know what the T&C are and nor does anybody else not privy to the contract but I'd surmise the chat is akin to "use this land for spectator football or other sport for XX years or grant is rescinded". This is why it's on their balance sheet today.

If it was a straight "here's £XXm build a stadium" then QP would have had to recognise it as income immediately.

(The irrelevant point here is if QP breach T&C how do they pay it back? I know, and everyone else knows, the grant is spent but the fact is QP can't recognise it at income until the grant period expires. Albeit if it's a say 25 year grant they release 4% pa to smooth that.)

The BT Hampden money is different. I think that was naming rights and their name is off the South Stand now so they must get bugger all back if it all goes tits up.

Jeezo - a technical accounting debate on a junior football forum. I’m away to start a thread on the future of junior football on a technical accounting forum.

[Dunc the drunk]

55 minutes ago, redstarbenhar said:

Jeezo - a technical accounting debate on a junior football forum. I’m away to start a thread on the future of junior football on a technical accounting forum.

Good idea, let me know where it is because there are a few posters on this forum who should hang their  heads in shame the way they hound contributors on here for no reason other than they have a different opinion of the rest. They hunt in packs on this forum and hound the sh1t out of them on everything that’s posted.

[Jambo'ness]

59 minutes ago, redstarbenhar said:

Jeezo - a technical accounting debate on a junior football forum. I’m away to start a thread on the future of junior football on a technical accounting forum.

  Good one

[cmontheloknow]

12 hours ago, energyzone said:

The populations of the towns that League 2 clubs play in are mostly far higher than those containing Highland, Lowland and Junior teams, with only a few exceptions, e.g Irvine Meadow/Vics, Linlithgow, Kilwinning, Kirkintilloch.

Really? I'd say they were pretty similar to a number of Junior / senior non-league towns. What I would say though is that a club can realistically hope to get no more than 10% of its population along to games - anything in excess of that and they're doing very well.

Just taking the current top 50...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_and_cities_in_Scotland_by_population

In the top division, you get:

Aberdeen 8% (much bigger catchment than the city)
Celtic 9% (catchment well beyond city though)
Dundee 4% (two club city)
Hamilton 5% (too close to Glasgow)
Hearts 4% (two big club city)
Hibs 4% (two big club city)
Kilmarnock 12% (figure boosted by OF attendances doubling average)
Motherwell 17% (some big travelling supports - also have to factor in M'well attract support from joined-on Wishaw, Craigneuk etc which drops it below 10%)
Partick Thistle <1% (OF)
Rangers 8% (catchment well beyond Glasgow)
Ross County 85% (catchment across the North)
St. Johnstone 9%

Only a few get above 10% and that is with either a much larger catchment area than their town (OF / Ross Co) or they benefit from large gates from the clubs with fans who will travel. Average excluding Ross County is 7%.

Brechin 11% (huge crowd vs Dundee Utd, big crowd v Dunfermline)
Dumbarton 5%
Dundee Utd 4% (two club city)
Dunfermline 11%
Falkirk 13%
Inverness CT 5%
Livingston 2%
Morton 5%
QOS 4%
St. Mirren 6%

Average for Championship is 7%

Airdrie 2%
Albion Rovers 1%
Alloa 3%
Arbroath 3%
Ayr 3%
East Fife 7%
Forfar 5%
Queen's Park 0.1%
Raith Rovers 4%
Stranraer 5%

L1 average (QP excluded) is 4%

Annan 4%
Berwick 4%
Clyde 1%
Cowdenbeath 3%
Edinburgh City 0.07%
Elgin  3%
Montrose 4%
Peterhead 3%
Stenhousemuir 2% (of Larbert and Stenhousemuir)
Stirling 2%

L2 average (Ed City excluded) 2%

So what do these figures show, if anything? The % of population attending goes up the higher the league. A more accurate way to do it would be to completely exclude outliers (ie Dundee Utd giving Brechin home 5 gates in one) but that's for someone else to do! Realistically, part-time national clubs can expect to get no more than 4% of their population to attend. I have a LL attendance for comparision, Dalbeattie 3%.

Edited February 3, 2018 by cmontheloknow

[Jack Burton]

Reginonalising leagues one and two would make little difference to the travelling. Regardless of what way you do it you will still have outliers like Stranraer, Berwick, Peterhead etc. Instead of going up to Peterhead we would have Stranraer.

The majority of players for the likes of Peterhead don't live in the Highlands. We played them at Broadwood last Sat and it would have been less travelling for most of their players than a home game.

[Jambo'ness]

1 hour ago, cmontheloknow said:

Really? I'd say they were pretty similar to a number of Junior / senior non-league towns. What I would say though is that a club can realistically hope to get no more than 10% of its population along to games - anything in excess of that and they're doing very well.

So what do these figures show, if anything? The % of population attending goes up the higher the league. A more accurate way to do it would be to completely exclude outliers (ie Dundee Utd giving Brechin home 5 gates in one) but that's for someone else to do! Realistically, part-time national clubs can expect to get no more than 4% of their population to attend. I have a LL attendance for comparision, Dalbeattie 3%.

Interesting set of figures.  If anything, they give hope to a club like mine.  Bo'ness had a population of just under 15,000 in 2008, now increased.  I would be confident that entering into a structure where we could progress would see our gates exceed the 1000 mark, the higher we went,  thus roughly giving us 15%.  So even getting to L2 would see us outstrip the current incumbents.

Conjecture I know but based on our support at Junior level through the years.

[Che Dail]

3 hours ago, redstarbenhar said:

Jeezo - a technical accounting debate on a junior football forum. I’m away to start a thread on the future of junior football on a technical accounting forum.

It's about football finances. A point was made, among others,  doubting the credibility of the SFA and questioning  why established junior clubs should risk their viability by putting trust in that organisation - so it is totally relevant.

Not everyone will care too much about understanding the detail, some might just prefer the headlines - however it's not every day you'll get someone sharing this level of expertise and knowledge for free on a p+b forum - you can either soak it up, or ignore it.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Che Dail

[LongTimeLurker]

1 hour ago, Jambo'ness said:

Interesting set of figures.  If anything, they give hope to a club like mine.  Bo'ness had a population of just under 15,000 in 2008, now increased.  I would be confident that entering into a structure where we could progress would see our gates exceed the 1000 mark, the higher we went,  thus roughly giving us 15%.  So even getting to L2 would see us outstrip the current incumbents.

Conjecture I know but based on our support at Junior level through the years.

Even with gates in the mid to high hundreds you can make a bit of an impact in the SPFL. If the likes of Alloa, Cowdenbeath and Brechin that never get anywhere near having a core home support of 1000 can have teams in the second tier from time to time, why not Bo'ness United and a few other junior clubs from largeish towns like Linlithgow Rose? In the west the likes of Rob Roy and Irvine Meadow would be the prime examples of clubs that would have the potential to do well in the senior leagues over the long term and not just be the next East Stirling.

[redstarbenhar]

3 hours ago, cmontheloknow said:

Really? I'd say they were pretty similar to a number of Junior / senior non-league towns. What I would say though is that a club can realistically hope to get no more than 10% of its population along to games - anything in excess of that and they're doing very well.

Just taking the current top 50...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_and_cities_in_Scotland_by_population

In the top division, you get:

Aberdeen 8% (much bigger catchment than the city)
Celtic 9% (catchment well beyond city though)
Dundee 4% (two club city)
Hamilton 5% (too close to Glasgow)
Hearts 4% (two big club city)
Hibs 4% (two big club city)
Kilmarnock 12% (figure boosted by OF attendances doubling average)
Motherwell 17% (some big travelling supports - also have to factor in M'well attract support from joined-on Wishaw, Craigneuk etc which drops it below 10%)
Partick Thistle <1% (OF)
Rangers 8% (catchment well beyond Glasgow)
Ross County 85% (catchment across the North)
St. Johnstone 9%

Only a few get above 10% and that is with either a much larger catchment area than their town (OF / Ross Co) or they benefit from large gates from the clubs with fans who will travel. Average excluding Ross County is 7%.

Brechin 11% (huge crowd vs Dundee Utd, big crowd v Dunfermline)
Dumbarton 5%
Dundee Utd 4% (two club city)
Dunfermline 11%
Falkirk 13%
Inverness CT 5%
Livingston 2%
Morton 5%
QOS 4%
St. Mirren 6%

Average for Championship is 7%

Airdrie 2%
Albion Rovers 1%
Alloa 3%
Arbroath 3%
Ayr 3%
East Fife 7%
Forfar 5%
Queen's Park 0.1%
Raith Rovers 4%
Stranraer 5%

L1 average (QP excluded) is 4%

Annan 4%
Berwick 4%
Clyde 1%
Cowdenbeath 3%
Edinburgh City 0.07%
Elgin  3%
Montrose 4%
Peterhead 3%
Stenhousemuir 2% (of Larbert and Stenhousemuir)
Stirling 2%

L2 average (Ed City excluded) 2%

So what do these figures show, if anything? The % of population attending goes up the higher the league. A more accurate way to do it would be to completely exclude outliers (ie Dundee Utd giving Brechin home 5 gates in one) but that's for someone else to do! Realistically, part-time national clubs can expect to get no more than 4% of their population to attend. I have a LL attendance for comparision, Dalbeattie 3%.

Be interesting to see these percentages for some of the larger non-city based junior clubs.  I suspect Auchinleck would have a particularly high percentage.

[cmontheloknow]

20 minutes ago, redstarbenhar said:

Be interesting to see these percentages for some of the larger non-city based junior clubs.  I suspect Auchinleck would have a particularly high percentage.

I believe they are able to pull decent numbers from surrounding towns like Catrine, Mauchline etc, not just Auchinleck. It's a very hard stat to prove either way, but some clubs have a pull from way beyond their own boundary.

[redstarbenhar]

2 hours ago, Che Dail said:

It's about football finances. A point was made, among others,  doubting the credibility of the SFA and questioning  why established junior clubs should risk their viability by putting trust in that organisation - so it is totally relevant.

Not everyone will care too much about understanding the detail, some might just prefer the headlines - however it's not every day you'll get someone sharing this level of expertise and knowledge for free on a p+b forum - you can either soak it up, or ignore it.

It was just a light hearted comment not to be taken seriously. It’s certainly an unusual if not unique situation. We have a very small yet once illustrious club owning what is known as the national stadium. They have secured a significant sum from effectively the public purse to underpin a business model to modernise and then rent said stadium/offices to customers the main one of which is the SFA. I suspect said business model would not have been viable without this contribution so I am not surprised to see conditions attached to ensure this money is used for purpose in the long-term. 

An asset in use on a balance sheet should be represented by future cash flows. In this case the stadium is the asset in use and the future cash flows should come from stadium event and office rental income. A clue to future committed income streams should come from lease commitment note in the accounts. In this case there is a significant risk to future cash flows if the SFA choose not to renew the lease.

From a technical accounting perspective the cost of the stadium asset in use is recorded in the balance sheet and is depreciated in the accounts over its useful economic life. At all times future predicted cash flows from that asset should exceed the depreciated cost or net book value. The asset should be impaired if there is a material event affecting future cash flows. That might happen soon with the  SFA decision.

A simple example but hypothetical example of this would be Tore-Andre Flo. Rangers buy for £12m on a four year deal and record as £12m asset in the balance sheet. They would depreciate at £3m per year the useful economic life being the length of the contract. After year one they realise he is gash and write down his value to zero immediately taking a £12m hit to the accounts.

If the stadium as an asset in use is impaired it would need to be partly written off. I suspect this is why they have kept the grant income on the balance sheet as if they had recognised it in the income statement the stadium asset would almost certainly be impaired and require to be written down. Accounting standards make it difficult to net grants against  asset construction  costs.Not sure if the lottery money t&c’s should make it a contingent liability and disclosed in the accounts instead of being recorded as a firm liability.

In any case if the business model for QP fails the saving grace is that land and building assets could be then held for sale and subsequently disposed if a buyer can be found. If that were to happen again you would expect that the lottery t&c’s would kick in to deduct part of the sale proceeds and return the cash to the public purse. I guess  Scottish Power managed to sell their HQ in Cathcart recently for housing development.

Sadly everything in this world seems to be about redistribution of wealth and it is sad to see the commercial greed in the game today.

Bit as the bible says we come into this world with nothing and we will leave with nothing so while we are on this earth we should always keep this question in mind - what shall it gain a man if he inherits the whole earth but loses his soul.