Jump to content

Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Colkitto said:

Was obviously giving extreme example. But if Club had players retiring, what could they do if there was a transfer freeze? 

tbf i'd guess most players in that position would be ok with adding several extra months to their deals if needed... same with most loans etc. which I'm sure would be worked around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, @footballCFB said:

I think we are heading for null and void. Rugby have announced that’s what they are doing tonight.

Rugby has a "close time" from 18 May to 1 August. Given the movement restrictions are unlikely to be lifted for a few weeks at the very least, finishing off the season before mid-May would basically be impossible as teams don't play midweek. Extending the season into June means playing on harder pitches, and then you'd need to move the close time to keep the same break.

The SRU are right to call it now and then hope things are better for the leagues restarting in September. Football can wait longer and restart sooner, so copying rugby isn't the way to go.

Edited by Ginaro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the players are going to be in a strong bargaining position here - clubs across the world will be absolutely rooked by the lack of games, so there is likely going to be much less opportunity to move elsewhere for more money. I reckon we'll eventually see more players than normal staying where they are, regardless of what the outcome is here.


That is not good news
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the scottish rugby season has been declared null and void so i wouldn't rule out the football following suit however league bodies will probably shit the bed with possible legal action from Celtic


It is easier for Scottish domestic rugby as it is an amateur game these days isn’t it ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites



It is easier for Scottish domestic rugby as it is an amateur game these days isn’t it ?
Officaly, the premiership is semi-professional as some players gets paid, but it's hardly big money and usually is a game by game basis rather than a monthly wage.

Super6, the new competition they fudged together this year, is fully semi-pro but most players in that league are contracted till November.

It was always going to be easier to null the rugby season, theres nowhere near the same level of no finances involved and there are no ramifications such as European qualification to consider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rugby effectively has one owner being the  SRU that provides the bulk of the cash and pushes policy across the whole game. Football is different with each club having a different owner and where the balance of power sits is debatable 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jagsfan57 said:

 


It is easier for Scottish domestic rugby as it is an amateur game these days isn’t it ?

 

Do you not mean it’s easier for Scottish domestic rugby because they don’t have big TV contracts to consider?  Scottish and English football will do whatever the TV companies tell them to do.  At least one thing won’t change because of Coronavirus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I don't see how it particularly means they "need" to stay with clubs. This is a unique situation. It's not like clubs start and finish with the same squad now. There is a January window and clubs conceivably change half a team or more in that window. It would just be like having an extra window this season. We used to allow movement all the time right up to the end of March, it's not a novel approach!

I think that would spell the death of restricted contracts. The football rules are already dubious within employment law. If they start preventing players changing jobs in a previously established window to do so there will be legal challenges.

 

Personally I don't think that finishing the season "next season" is a valid approach but not because it would require different squads. If that happens so be it. I don't think it's massively practical because it brings it's own problems in terms of registering players for a fixed period. I touched on this a week or two back but very few clubs, certainly outside the top division, know what level they will be playing at next season. If we come back with 8 or 9 games to play and spend some time between July and September playing them, before rolling straight into the one to follow, playing budgets will potentially be very different depending on what division you are in. How could QoS or Partick Thistle realistically offer a manager a playing budget for the season ahead without knowing until Sept which division they will be in? It's very impractical.

It's a potential solution but it's not one I'd favour and I suspect it creates as many problems as it solves. For me they need to draw a line under the current season by the end of June at latest (and even that has practical difficulties in Scotland where most players are only contracted to end of May or 1st week in June). If we can't play to a finish by then (and we won't) then you either void it or declare it finished as is.

Surely this can be resolved by adding an extra window, with players and clubs having the option to offer short-term deals up to that window?

So as an example we find out that we'll be completing this season from July to September then starting a shortened 20/21 season from October. You have a summer transfer window before this season restarts, acknowledging that players contracts were up at the end of May and you can't force them to sign new ones, avoiding the legal dubiety you point out of stopping them registering as players at new clubs. Then, there's a window again after this season completes as 20/21 starts.

That would obviously cause a massive challenge for clubs having to build squads in such a short timeframe as the league is also starting, but there's never going to be an ideal solution to this. That would avoid tying clubs like Partick & Queen of the South into contracts they might not be able to commit to, while retaining flexibility for players - they can sign on for an extra three months to quickly guarantee themselves a wage without tying themselves down for another season.

I would point out that anyone talking of banning registrations just to stop players moving so they remain with their current club is only thinking about this from clubs' perspective in terms of retaining players who'd be in with a shout of a better move until the season is over , such as Shaun Rooney not being able to leave ICT for his contract with St Johnstone until this season ends. I can see the logic there, but no one's considering the impact on players who are surplus to requirements.

Yeah, Morton would love to ensure Nicky Cadden definitely hangs around, and if he was to leave before we restart the season that's us at a disadvantage compared with the season finishing as normal, but the flipside of that is players who would be released. You reckon utilising a rule like that to retain our best player in Cadden would stop us punting someone who obviously isn't going to get near the team like Kris Doolan? Clubs aren't going to extend contracts of players they don't want for three months out of the goodness of their hearts when every one of them has faced a significant financial burden. These players are obviously still going to be released and if you put a ban on re-registering then you're making it impossible for the likes of Doolan to get another club.

Edited by Dunning1874
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that not all dependent on FIFA agreeing though? They'd have to do it globally, as teams sign players from outwith Scotland, and players are purchased from teams outwith Scotland as well.

Edited by DA Baracus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not mean it’s easier for Scottish domestic rugby because they don’t have big TV contracts to consider?  Scottish and English football will do whatever the TV companies tell them to do.  At least one thing won’t change because of Coronavirus.


Yes - really because there isn’t as high(if any) a financial impact on clubs not getting promoted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jagsfan57 said:

 


Yes - really because there isn’t as high(if any) a financial impact on clubs not getting promoted

 

TV rights are shared out with all clubs, to a varying degree of course.  The loss of income from missing out on promotion will effect far fewer clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TV rights are shared out with all clubs, to a varying degree of course.  The loss of income from missing out on promotion will effect far fewer clubs.


Of course it doesn’t impact many clubs but for say Dundee Utd and ICT, it could be huge. They would probably double their gate receipts and increase their prize money substantially.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

Is that not all dependent on FIFA agreeing though? They'd have to do it globally, as teams sign players from outwith Scotland, and players are purchased from teams outwith Scotland as well.

It would be. And with different countries likely to come out of lockdown in different time scales you would effectively have to remove the windows altogether through to at least January and allow varying length contracts.

None of it completely insurmountable but I still think it causes far more problems than it solves. And there are ramifications in this country for next years new tv deal. 

I still think if they cant finish it by the summer they will call this season off. The question will remain whether to call it as it stands or void it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I think that would spell the death of restricted contracts. The football rules are already dubious within employment law. If they start preventing players changing jobs in a previously established window to do so there will be legal challenges.

It's not much different to the ridiculous 'can't play for more than two clubs in a season' rule, which de facto prevents players from changing jobs in a previously established window already. Yet that still applies on a watertight basis. In stark contrast, there's nothing for players to gain from mounting a legal challenge to this proposal: this isn't the chains of the pre-Bosman era being reimposed on them but rather a one-time measure to deal with an unprecedented interruption to the professional league season.

The impetus for this would come at UEFA level rather than the SPFL. If UEFA backs temporary contract extensions to allow leagues to continue playing after June 30 then the measure will both hold and have no long-term consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

It's not much different to the ridiculous 'can't play for more than two clubs in a season' rule, which de facto prevents players from changing jobs in a previously established window already. Yet that still applies on a watertight basis. In stark contrast, there's nothing for players to gain from mounting a legal challenge to this proposal: this isn't the chains of the pre-Bosman era being reimposed on them but rather a one-time measure to deal with an unprecedented interruption to the professional league season.

The impetus for this would come at UEFA level rather than the SPFL. If UEFA backs temporary contract extensions to allow leagues to continue playing after June 30 then the measure will both hold and have no long-term consequences.

Whilst I agree the two club rule is also fairly ridiculous, its not really the same thing. Preventing players taking new jobs already agreed that they are due wage rises for is a whole different ball game.

And for what its worth to be pedantic its not in UEFA's remit either, it would be FIFA I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jagsfan57 said:

 


Of course it doesn’t impact many clubs but for say Dundee Utd and ICT, it could be huge. They would probably double their gate receipts and increase their prize money substantially.

 

I don’t doubt the above but the point I was making is football clubs will vote for whatever suits their club the best.  What happens to the club down the road will be of little consequence.  Far more clubs will be affected by a loss of TV deals than the loss of promotion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It would be. And with different countries likely to come out of lockdown in different time scales you would effectively have to remove the windows altogether through to at least January and allow varying length contracts.

No you wouldn't. Let's say for argument's sake that league matches in most parts of Europe can be resumed at the beginning of June. For countries that can't conclude their league before June 30, UEFA can approve the barring of all new player registrations and permit temporary contracts to take effect until, say, August 1. Clubs in, say, Italy where the league season is concluded before June 30 (because there's no way they're playing out all the remaining fixtures) are free to take part in the transfer window from July 1 except for transfers from leagues where the 19/20 season is still ongoing. And then from August 1 to August 31 or whenever the window is scheduled to close it is business as usual across the entire continent.

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Whilst I agree the two club rule is also fairly ridiculous, its not really the same thing. Preventing players taking new jobs already agreed that they are due wage rises for is a whole different ball game.

The two club rule prevents players who are free agents from from earning any income from football whatsoever until the end of an arbitrary period of time. That is indeed a different ball game in terms of legal challenge to deferring a wage rise for six to eight weeks, while still getting paid throughout that period. And given that the former is a fixed rule and the latter a one-off, emergency expedient, the idea that it would lead to a raft of legal challenges and 'spell the death of restricted contracts' is utterly far-fetched nonsense.

Quote

And for what its worth to be pedantic its not in UEFA's remit either, it would be FIFA I believe.

UEFA is the actual decision-making body here because it wants European qualification and the CL timetable for next season determined within a commonly agreed timetable: FIFA is a rubber stamp only.

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...