The Ultimate Super Ayr Thread

[GaryMc93]

1 hour ago, rb123! said:

Would be a game changer if we could at some point down the line purchase all the green area too

Back in Barr's day they wanted to redevelop Somerset and turn the pitch 90° to be adjacent to Somerset Road. However the owners of the house behind the North Terracing wouldn't sell. I imagine at the time he'd have been offering silly money too.

[ayrunitedfw]

[Skyline Drifter]

45 minutes ago, diegomarahenry said:

I am saying they are more likely to offer support to 10 or 22 clubs rather than all clubs for testing, not that they should. 

But genuinely I can see this lasting until the end of the season, It was announced today that no restrictions would change at the end of the month. I cant envisage them allowing every level of football to return without testing protocols. Maybe March because of the vaccine but they would need to reduce the season to 18 games for the lower leagues or something similar. 

With about16 weeks left of the season you are talking about roughly £45k on testing that the government is making mandatory.  When you consider the amount of revenue lost currently and the money spent on attendance protocols that were never needed, £500k is not a lot of money. I am pleased that no club at this level have made a big signing this month with the injection of cash. 

I don't think there's the slightest chance anyone in Govt is going to offer clubs any additional support for testing. Clubs got the £50k Anderson Grant last summer that was earmarked initially for testing then wasn't needed outside the top level. They have since received Govt packages of £0.5m at this level and are still able to furlough any staff not actually working. There's absolutely no reason anyone in the Championship should be blanching at the prospect of testing for the rest of the season on a cost basis at least (there may be a moral argument for ceasing, that's a different debate though).

Government not changing Level 4 restrictions is not directly relevant to the SFA allowing football to restart at lower levels. They were merrily allowing it to be played at lower levels while the country has been in level 4 restrictions nationally since Boxing Day and for most of the country since early November. It is possible they may allow it to restart without the country as a whole changing tiers (it may also be seen as politically unwise though). I tend to agree it's likely to be shut down till at least March.

The Government did not make testing mandatory. The SFA did if the Championship wishes to continue playing. They could if they so wished choose to mothball for a month instead (they won't  but they could). £500k is a massive amount of money to clubs at this level typically (lets ignore Hearts for the moment). I'm incredulous that anyone could claim it's "not a lot of money". It will likely be in excess of two years gate receipts for Ayr United. And you're not without gate receipts entirely. People bought season tickets, people are streaming. Income is undeniably down, possibly significantly, but it's not zero. You're still getting all the SFA / SPFL funding you got before.

Edited January 12, 2021 by Skyline Drifter

[rb123!]

1 minute ago, ayrunitedfw said:

Bye Cammy

[diegomarahenry]

Cue a housing application to go in for Somerset and Smith to do a Hugh Scott...

Was impressed by Smiths interview, it all seems to have came very quickly though. 

My opinion on what he said is, he wants the club to be self sufficient and he doesn't  think he'll chuck money at a transfer budget. Anyone who saw the Barr era will agree with this, or even Gretna, you spend money you don't make on mercenaries that buy you temporary success and it all comes to an abrupt end. 

The stadium plans, Somerset has a rustic charm that fans enjoy visiting, you can get a train to within a 10 minute walk from the stadium or direct in to Ayr and visit pubs on the way in to the ground. Fans enjoy the atmosphere that comes with standing and the shed roof. However, some fans like to pay to sit and some fans may want something a bit more special. Having facilities to cater for all levels within reason might make more fans want to visit Somerset that don't want to stand in the cold or even want running water in the toilets. 

Not being comfortable in front of the camera and being reluctant to be interviewed, If you know the name of another clubs chairman or owner it is because they are most likely an egomaniac or a complete fruitloop. 

On him being a fan, owner and Chairman. Maybe he will go down the director of football route so that he isn't making decisions on the playing side, If I was all three, managers would be getting sacked at half time and all sorts. 

In short, time will tell, hopefully his plan will come together without stretching his wallet to much and his emotional attachment doesn't rule his head, as it won't help him or the club. A steady organic growth that can see the club be self sufficient at this level and hopefully above for him and future chairmen.   

[diegomarahenry]

8 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I don't think there's the slightest chance anyone in Govt is going to offer clubs any additional support for testing. Clubs got the £50k Anderson Grant last summer that was earmarked initially for testing then wasn't needed outside the top level. They have since received Govt packages of £0.5m at this level and are still able to furlough any staff not actually working. There's absolutely no reason anyone in the Championship should be blanching at the prospect of testing for the rest of the season on a cost basis at least (there may be a moral argument for ceasing, that's a different debate though).

Government not changing Level 4 restrictions is not directly relevant to the SFA allowing football to restart at lower levels. They were merrily allowing it to be played at lower levels while the country has been in level 4 restrictions nationally since Boxing Day and for most of the country since early November. It is possible they may allow it to restart without the country as a whole changing tiers (it may also be seen as politically unwise though). I tend to agree it's likely to be shut down till at least March.

The Government did not make testing mandatory. The SFA did if the Championship wishes to continue playing. They could if they so wished choose to mothball for a month instead (they won't  but they could). £500k is a massive amount of money to clubs at this level typically (lets ignore Hearts for the moment). I'm incredulous that anyone could claim it's "not a lot of money". It will likely be in excess of two years gate receipts for Ayr United. And you're not without gate receipts entirely. People bought season tickets, people are streaming. Income is undeniably down, possibly significantly, but it's not zero. You're still getting all the SFA / SPFL funding you got before.

Up until the new strain took hold it was sustainable. Then, for a week or so, they were effectively saying that everyone must stay in their homes and not mix, One exemption was organised sport, which could feasibly see travel with an untested 22 person squad + staff from Annan to Wick, Greenock to Arbroath or Ayr to Elgin, to play any sport with only 13 football teams and two rugby teams being tested. Celtic to Dubai was allowed under the guidelines. I think the Scottish cup weekend was a wake-up call to the extent of mass travel that would be happening on match days. I don't see them being able to justify lifting restrictions at the end of the month. With the vaccine target of high risk being vaccinated by the end of February, hopefully this will reduce hospital additions and in turn, restrictions. 

I am not sure what your point is with the rest of it, I said that the Government would be more likely to offer support to a small number of clubs than a large number. The same clubs covered by the majority of TV deals that could be completed and paid for that support the whole of Scottish football indecently. I didn't say clubs should look for more money or that they had, "Blanching" or otherwise

I made a point on here previously that the money being paid to clubs should be means tested to make sure all losses were covered and clubs didn't treat it like a windfall. Maybe it is having Cameron as a Chairman for as long and continually pleading poverty that £500k is not a lot of money when running a club with reduced revenue streams. 

[Skyline Drifter]

27 minutes ago, diegomarahenry said:

Up until the new strain took hold it was sustainable. Then, for a week or so, they were effectively saying that everyone must stay in their homes and not mix, One exemption was organised sport, which could feasibly see travel with an untested 22 person squad + staff from Annan to Wick, Greenock to Arbroath or Ayr to Elgin, to play any sport with only 13 football teams and two rugby teams being tested. Celtic to Dubai was allowed under the guidelines. I think the Scottish cup weekend was a wake-up call to the extent of mass travel that would be happening on match days. I don't see them being able to justify lifting restrictions at the end of the month. With the vaccine target of high risk being vaccinated by the end of February, hopefully this will reduce hospital additions and in turn, restrictions. 

I am not sure what your point is with the rest of it, I said that the Government would be more likely to offer support to a small number of clubs than a large number. The same clubs covered by the majority of TV deals that could be completed and paid for that support the whole of Scottish football indecently. I didn't say clubs should look for more money or that they had, "Blanching" or otherwise

I made a point on here previously that the money being paid to clubs should be means tested to make sure all losses were covered and clubs didn't treat it like a windfall. Maybe it is having Cameron as a Chairman for as long and continually pleading poverty that £500k is not a lot of money when running a club with reduced revenue streams. 

What is your point then? The Govt isn't going to offer extra support for testing whether it be a large number, a small number or just one. I've no idea why you brought up the issue at all if you weren't suggesting it might be possible.

I agree with your first paragraph. In hindsight I bet they wish they'd tried harder to squeeze earlier rounds of the Scottish Cup in before Xmas so that there were few if any non league sides still in it. They would also be in a much better position if the weather had allowed ties to go ahead last weekend rather than having so many still standing.

As for support, I certainly don't agree with it being "means tested". I'm guessing you didn't actually mean that. I don't think clubs who were prudent and managed things well should suffer by not receiving a support package because they don't need it as much. Are we saying (for instance) that Queen of the South should get next to nothing because we happen to have got a six figure transfer fee at the wrong time? If you actually meant it should be based on lost revenues then I think that's a much better argument. I guess though that they had better things to do than work through all sorts of applications supported by evidence to the degree by which income was down (last year's detailed accounts, interim management figures for this year, etc).

[UpInTheAyr]

1 hour ago, ayrunitedfw said:

That's that then. America could be a tempting choice with  the right  team.

[diegomarahenry]

7 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

What is your point then? The Govt isn't going to offer extra support for testing whether it be a large number, a small number or just one. I've no idea why you brought up the issue at all if you weren't suggesting it might be possible.

I agree with your first paragraph. In hindsight I bet they wish they'd tried harder to squeeze earlier rounds of the Scottish Cup in before Xmas so that there were few if any non league sides still in it. They would also be in a much better position if the weather had allowed ties to go ahead last weekend rather than having so many still standing.

As for support, I certainly don't agree with it being "means tested". I'm guessing you didn't actually mean that. I don't think clubs who were prudent and managed things well should suffer by not receiving a support package because they don't need it as much. Are we saying (for instance) that Queen of the South should get next to nothing because we happen to have got a six figure transfer fee at the wrong time? If you actually meant it should be based on lost revenues then I think that's a much better argument. I guess though that they had better things to do than work through all sorts of applications supported by evidence to the degree by which income was down (last year's detailed accounts, interim management figures for this year, etc).

I didn't have a point, I made a pretty basic remark that the Government was more likely to finance a small number of clubs to keep football going in some form rather than all. You have taken that and ran with it in to all sorts of avenues. 

By means tested I mean, clubs would not be out of pocket due to covid, Hospitality and matchday revenue, even firms not wanting advertising in programmes or pitch side. They should have had the ability to obtain money up to the value of 500k to cover projected shortfalls, rather than getting a cheque through the door that could go in to a chairman's pocket to cover "soft loans" or in to an agents pocket.  They had the facility to do this for all workers furloughed. It would be like the government sending you a cheque for 50k to cover your losses during covid without checking to see if you were still earning money. Some clubs will have done well during this time increasing revenue streams and others will be spending directors money to get through it. Both should have a net zero due to covid. 

Any money in to Scottish football is good but this is tax payers money. If Ayr only need say 150k to cover losses, then the money should be filtered down, covering Partick or Falkirks losses, Airdries losses etc rather than a blanket 500k to championship clubs and x amount to League 1 clubs.  

[Skyline Drifter]

7 minutes ago, diegomarahenry said:

I didn't have a point, I made a pretty basic remark that the Government was more likely to finance a small number of clubs to keep football going in some form rather than all. You have taken that and ran with it in to all sorts of avenues.

Prefacing it by saying "I didn't have a point" whilst again repeating the same point doesn't really work. I've taken it and ran with it because you keep saying it and it's still as utter nonsense as it was the first time you posted it. The Government isn't going to provide any more support for anyone to keep football going. They've done their part.

The rest of your post I'd tend to agree with, but that's not the meaning of the phrase "means tested". .

Edited January 12, 2021 by Skyline Drifter

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, diegomarahenry said:

I didn't have a point, I made a pretty basic remark that the Government was more likely to finance a small number of clubs to keep football going in some form rather than all. You have taken that and ran with it in to all sorts of avenues. 

By means tested I mean, clubs would not be out of pocket due to covid, Hospitality and matchday revenue, even firms not wanting advertising in programmes or pitch side. They should have had the ability to obtain money up to the value of 500k to cover projected shortfalls, rather than getting a cheque through the door that could go in to a chairman's pocket to cover "soft loans" or in to an agents pocket.  They had the facility to do this for all workers furloughed. It would be like the government sending you a cheque for 50k to cover your losses during covid without checking to see if you were still earning money. Some clubs will have done well during this time increasing revenue streams and others will be spending directors money to get through it. Both should have a net zero due to covid. 

Any money in to Scottish football is good but this is tax payers money. If Ayr only need say 150k to cover losses, then the money should be filtered down, covering Partick or Falkirks losses, Airdries losses etc rather than a blanket 500k to championship clubs and x amount to League 1 clubs.  

I agree with you but this has been the blanket approach across the piece and not just for football clubs. Personally I know of quite a few businesses who have actually MADE money through the covid grants and anyone self employed with a half decent accountant will be the same.

There's also all those on furlough being paid more for doing nothing by the tax payer than many of those who are knocking their pan in daily on the front line.

Ultimately a quick fix and a blanket policy was required as opposed to individual scrutiny, it's far from ideal but circumstances have dictated I'm afraid.

[Trogdor]

Skyline Drifter, I salute your courage, your strength your indefatigability. And I want you to know that we are with you until victory. 

Spoiler

Couldn't resist... 

 

[Gorgie greatness]

I see fat boy has handed over the reins...he’s looking forward to attending after covid & also someone’s chicken & haggis pie

[Trogdor]

Just now, Gorgie greatness said:

I see fat boy has handed over the reins...he’s looking forward to attending after covid & also someone’s chicken & haggis pie

[Gorgie greatness]

10 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

Your gonna need a bigger door

[callum-ayr]

6 minutes ago, Gorgie greatness said:

Your gonna need a bigger door

As well as an English teacher. 

[diegomarahenry]

57 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Prefacing it by saying "I didn't have a point" whilst again repeating the same point doesn't really work. I've taken it and ran with it because you keep saying it and it's still as utter nonsense as it was the first time you posted it. The Government isn't going to provide any more support for anyone to keep football going. They've done their part.

The rest of your post I'd tend to agree with, but that's not the meaning of the phrase "means tested". .

A  point would be - The government should give more funds, or they shouldn't. Clubs should ask for more or they shouldn't. You, True to form have decided you are right and are arguing a point I haven't made........and have continued to over several posts. 

Why would The clubs ask for money ? I didn't say they would

Why would the government give out more money ? I didn't say they would

Clubs have had enough money! I didn't say they haven't

Everything else is in your head.

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, diegomarahenry said:

A  point would be - The government should give more funds, or they shouldn't. Clubs should ask for more or they shouldn't. You, True to form have decided you are right and are arguing a point I haven't made........and have continued to over several posts. 

Why would The clubs ask for money ? I didn't say they would

Why would the government give out more money ? I didn't say they would

Clubs have had enough money! I didn't say they haven't

Everything else is in your head.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between a "point" and a "suggestion". You made a point and have continued to make it over multiple posts.

[rb123!]

6 hours ago, rb123! said:

I thought £500k bid for Shankland would be a more fitting way to start the new reign off

Make that about £1m now after the worldie he has just scored tonight 

 

[mugen_power]

Scored one like that against Partick aswell did he not?