Jump to content

Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship


Recommended Posts

Furlough will continue to be extended until restrictions are eased. Even the nastiest tory government has no alternative to that, because the alternative is quadrupling the unemployment rate overnight.

I suspect if Bundesliga players and officials don't start keeling over in the next two weeks then there will be a general decision to approve closed-doors games and to provisionally go ahead with next season on that basis. Not that this provides much comfort for clubs who rely on matchday revenue and season ticket sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

I know everyone's in a tough position here regarding the start of next season, and it's no fault of the SFA & SPFL either as they obviously can't plan with any certainty when next season can start, whether fans can attend and what means of generating revenue clubs will have if they can't. They can't make any decisions on that until we know what's going on with societal restrictions and no one can say for sure what position we'll be in months from now.

What would be useful though as we move into late May/early June and the time where contracts will be expiring is some clarity on loosening the rules over contracts and transfer windows. Clubs quite rightly aren't going to be handing out new contracts to cover next season when they have no idea when they'll have income again and it would be downright irresponsible and stupid to do so, but there's player welfare to consider as well.

We know the furlough scheme has been extended to August and will cover wages for employees who have fixed terms contracts extended but not new employees - ie a player getting a new contract from their current club will be covered but one signing for a new club won't. Surely in those circumstances it's sensible to remove any rules about contracts being required to run window to window or anything like that, so clubs can extend contracts for as long as the furlough scheme is in place at least to protect players? Otherwise we're going to have hundreds of players becoming unemployed in the next few weeks while other clubs can't sign them, throwing them on the scrapheap with no idea when clubs will start making signings again.

I know the SFA have said this is a thing they're considering and they'll have an answer by June 9th, but with the window opening on the 10th they really need to be providing clarity at least a couple of weeks before that to give clubs and players time to sort things out.

It's not just down to the SFA - the stuff about contracts running from window to window comes as a result of FIFA and UEFA registration rules as far as I know, so they'll need confirmation that any such arrangements are legal (though possibly the players could be employed without being registered as a way around that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starting to worry that due to the range of size of club's that no solution other than playing in front of crowds will be feasible. Whilst playing behind closed doors may work for the bigger clubs such as Hearts, Dundee & Dunfermline or clubs that have a good amount in the bank this obviously won't be the case for the smaller clubs as QotS' chairman has pointed out.

Can see the previously mooted 2 division set-up becoming a reality on a voluntary basis with some clubs effectively going into hibernation until next season. What that'd mean for clubs across Scottish football is a major worry and I include my own in that. It's looking fucking grim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ludo*1 said:

Starting to worry that due to the range of size of club's that no solution other than playing in front of crowds will be feasible. Whilst playing behind closed doors may work for the bigger clubs such as Hearts, Dundee & Dunfermline or clubs that have a good amount in the bank this obviously won't be the case for the smaller clubs as QotS' chairman has pointed out.

Can see the previously mooted 2 division set-up becoming a reality on a voluntary basis with some clubs effectively going into hibernation until next season. What that'd mean for clubs across Scottish football is a major worry and I include my own in that. It's looking fucking grim.

It's during this time, crowd wanking would hold some merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ludo*1 said:

Starting to worry that due to the range of size of club's that no solution other than playing in front of crowds will be feasible. Whilst playing behind closed doors may work for the bigger clubs such as Hearts, Dundee & Dunfermline or clubs that have a good amount in the bank this obviously won't be the case for the smaller clubs as QotS' chairman has pointed out.

Can see the previously mooted 2 division set-up becoming a reality on a voluntary basis with some clubs effectively going into hibernation until next season. What that'd mean for clubs across Scottish football is a major worry and I include my own in that. It's looking fucking grim.

And what's the bad news?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:

Starting to worry that due to the range of size of club's that no solution other than playing in front of crowds will be feasible. Whilst playing behind closed doors may work for the bigger clubs such as Hearts, Dundee & Dunfermline or clubs that have a good amount in the bank this obviously won't be the case for the smaller clubs as QotS' chairman has pointed out.

Can see the previously mooted 2 division set-up becoming a reality on a voluntary basis with some clubs effectively going into hibernation until next season. What that'd mean for clubs across Scottish football is a major worry and I include my own in that. It's looking fucking grim.

Playing games in empty stadiums isn't remotely close to being viable for Dundee or Dunfermline, and most likely Hearts too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Playing games in empty stadiums isn't remotely close to being viable for Dundee or Dunfermline, and most likely Hearts too.

It is viable for us as in we could cope and have the equipment and infrastructure to run games and use a subscription model. Our insurance would also cover the losses made during this process. Don't know for sure about the others mind you.

Allan Maitland confirmed Hamilton could do it for a year as well albeit they are in the Prem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

It is viable for us as in we could cope and have the equipment and infrastructure to run games and use a subscription model. Our insurance would also cover the losses made during this process. Don't know for sure about the others mind you.

Allan Maitland confirmed Hamilton could do it for a year as well albeit they are in the Prem.

Forgot about your insurance. Will that cover a new season though?

Infrastructure isn't really relevant as I imagine many, perhaps even most, could stream games. It's the uptake that would be the issue, as clubs would need to have over 100% of who would normally pay in to games paying for every single streamed game to ensure they can afford to pay players and meet all other costs.

Hamilton will set the record for most top leagues titles won after the heat death of the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DA Baracus said:

Forgot about your insurance. Will that cover a new season though?

Infrastructure isn't really relevant as I imagine many, perhaps even most, could stream games. It's the uptake that would be the issue, as clubs would need to have over 100% of who would normally pay in to games paying for every single streamed game to ensure they can afford to pay players and meet all other costs.

Hamilton will set the record for most top leagues titles won after the heat death of the universe.

I wouldn't see why not - Although no doubt the insurers will have some loop hole to ensure they can get out of paying whatever they can.

Hmm, not so sure on that one! DeeTV regularly can't film in places like Dingwall due to the Wifi being chronic but appreciate that's far and few between. Think QotS are a bit shit that way as well? Might be wrong though!

:lol: The one time they benefit from having no fans!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ludo*1 said:

I wouldn't see why not - Although no doubt the insurers will have some loop hole to ensure they can get out of paying whatever they can.

Hmm, not so sure on that one! DeeTV regularly can't film in places like Dingwall due to the Wifi being chronic but appreciate that's far and few between. Think QotS are a bit shit that way as well? Might be wrong though!

:lol: The one time they benefit from having no fans!

Aye, insurers are c***s, so they'll be trying to wriggle out of renewing cover for companies who were able to claim for COVID-19. If Dundee's insurance was for many years beyond 2020 you'll surely be fine, but if not they'll no doubt make it very difficult for Dundee to cover the new season.

Yeah, stadiums weren't built with Wi-fi signals in mind! You'd imagine that in q5 years all football grounds would have Wi-fi, but we're not close to that yet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

I think you would get a lot more away fans subscribing to games they would not attend in person, along with the home fans.

Surely clubs would be running their own streams for away games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheGoon said:

Surely clubs would be running their own streams for away games?

I think it would be more fair to pay the home team for their stream, they would keep it the same way they do gate receipts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

I think you would get a lot more away fans subscribing to games they would not attend in person, along with the home fans.

Possibly. But that wouldn't make up for the income lost from hospitality and all other matchday income (food and drinks, programmes, merchandise, matchday sponsors).

But even if the number of subscribers was to match the numbers who would usually be at a game, there would still be an unsustainable loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Possibly. But that wouldn't make up for the income lost from hospitality and all other matchday income (food and drinks, programmes, merchandise, matchday sponsors).

But even if the number of subscribers was to match the numbers who would usually be at a game, there would still be an unsustainable loss.

Im not being arsey about this I am just putting a counter argument to it...

You may be able to have small groups of hospitality by that time.

Programmes could also be on a subscription.

Merchandise can be purchased anytime.

Matchday sponsors could have adverts along a banner on the screen and at half-time. 

The machday policing and stewarding that won't need paid for probably out weighs the money not raised by food and drink.

I don't doubt for a second that it won't be as profitable as an open doors game, but in the least I think this should be surveyed or tried out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, johnnydun said:

Im not being arsey about this I am just putting a counter argument to it...

You may be able to have small groups of hospitality by that time.

Programmes could also be on a subscription.

Merchandise can be purchased anytime.

Matchday sponsors could have adverts along a banner on the screen and at half-time. 

The machday policing and stewarding that won't need paid for probably out weighs the money not raised by food and drink.

I don't doubt for a second that it won't be as profitable as an open doors game, but in the least I think this should be surveyed or tried out.

Nah, didn't think you were being arsey.

All good points, but I fear the uptake from fans will be far too low and the sponsorship will, at first, be too low. Online sponsorships have been growing a lot in recent seasons and could become a bigger market going forward, but I fear the circumstances will mean the sponsorship for next season will be reduced.

But yes, agree that it would be good to survey this, as I could (hopefully) be way out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TheGoon said:

Surely clubs would be running their own streams for away games?

That sounds a bit shit. Dunno how they'd work it, but it'd surely be better using the home club's service and then splitting proceeds or the home team keeps all proceeds like they do at the moment from cash at the gate.

Using two separate streams is good when fans have the ability to attend the game and it's only technically for fans abroad, but it'd make more sense to focus on a singular feed especially if they'd just be 'leeching' off the home club's stream anyway.

Edited by Ludo*1
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...