Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[johnnydun]

2 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

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.

Maybe players wages might need to be reduced, along with some staff cuts?

[johnnydun]

Does anyone have the current streaming figures from oversea fans?

[Ludo*1]

15 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

Does anyone have the current streaming figures from oversea fans?

Your best bet for a question like that would be to SuperTommy on Twitter or someone like @Skyline Drifter. That's a figure that would vary massively from club to club and I'm not sure if QotS even produce such a service?

[johnnydun]

1 minute ago, Ludo*1 said:

Your best bet for a question like that would be to SuperTommy on Twitter or someone like @Skyline Drifter. That's a figure that would vary massively from club to club and I'm not sure if QotS even produce such a service?

I wonder if @rambling syd rumpo still reads these threads? He might help. I don't have twatter matey.

Edited May 21, 2020 by johnnydun

[Homer Thompson]

3 hours ago, rb123! said:

And what's the bad news?

All of it

1 hour 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!

The one time they benefit from having no fans!

The wifi is basically non-existent in the new stand, where the tv gantry is. Im pretty sure others have broadcast using 4G. 

Having said that, the internet to the ground is far better than before and with no fans in the ground, it might be possible to broadcast from somewhere with better connection. 4G also becomes more viable with no fans.

42 minutes ago, TheGoon said:

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

Shirley not. Why would they? They dont get any share of the gate receipts at the moment.

If the home team were not streaming games, then fine

Just now, Ludo*1 said:

Your best bet for a question like that would be to SuperTommy on Twitter or someone like @Skyline Drifter. That's a figure that would vary massively from club to club and I'm not sure if QotS even produce such a service?

We dont.

I do know of a league one club that does broadcast, to an average of 2 fans per game. Smaller than Queens and I wont name them!

[RossBFaeDundee]

6 minutes ago, Mr X said:

I do know of a league one club that does broadcast, to an average of 2 fans per game. Smaller than Queens and I wont name them!

I feel a Falkirk joke is there to be made, but I'm above that.

 

A league above, to be exact.

[Homer Thompson]

1 minute ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

I feel a Falkirk joke is there to be made, but I'm above that.

 

A league above, to be exact.

No, not Falkirk.

When I say I know, I suppose I should point out that I was told by, what I believe to be, a reputable source a year or so ago

[Ludo*1]

I mentioned our insurance a few posts back and in theory that should be solid but Tweets likes this, as harmless as they are (I mean, what else could the club realistically say?) still give me the absolute fear:

 

Insurers are going to look for every single possible loophole they can to not pay out. We seem to have more solid cover than most due to us having the additions of 'Notifiable Diseases and Prevention of Access to our Commercial Combined' that many companies who have Business Interruption insurance don't have but it's still a scary time.

[johnnydun]

4 minutes ago, Mr X said:

No, not Falkirk.

When I say I know, I suppose I should point out that I was told by, what I believe to be, a reputable source a year or so ago

If it's Arbroath and @weetoonlad I would take it with a bucket of salt.

[Homer Thompson]

Just now, johnnydun said:

If it's Arbroath and @weetoonlad I would take it with a bucket of salt.

[Skyline Drifter]

2 hours ago, johnnydun said:

If it's Arbroath and @weetoonlad I would take it with a bucket of salt.

Its not. I know who he is talking about and who his source is and it will be 100% accurate.

We clearly wouldnt be at that level and wifi was set to be improved anyway I think but the idea that Championship football could be funded with some sort of online closed doors subscription femains absolute pie in the sky stuff. Its a means to mitigate losses at best. 

[johnnydun]

5 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Its not. I know who he is talking about and who his source is and it will be 100% accurate.

We clearly wouldnt be at that level and wifi was set to be improved anyway I think but the idea that Championship football could be funded with some sort of online closed doors subscription femains absolute pie in the sky stuff. Its a means to mitigate losses at best. 

I know it wouldn't be him, I was joking.

I can't see why you think this would be pie in the sky? At championship level at least. Your average gate is 1,400, IMO you would get more than double that watching in away fans from Dundee and Hearts globally even at £20 a pop.

Fans will not have seen any football for around 6 months, this would be the only way to watch thier team and they know the importance of buying the subscription.

It needs to, at the very least, be trialled.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, johnnydun said:

I know it wouldn't be him, I was joking.

I can't see why you think this would be pie in the sky? At championship level at least. Your average gate is 1,400, IMO you would get more than double that watching in away fans from Dundee and Hearts globally even at £20 a pop.

Fans will not have seen any football for around 6 months, this would be the only way to watch thier team and they know the importance of buying the subscription.

It needs to, at the very least, be trialled.

It really doesnt. Even if we assume we can keep sales to away fans in full, something Dundee and Hearts may well not be happy about, we cant run a squad for a year on sales for 4 games.

And it cant be 'trialled'. You either insist on clubs committing to it or you dont. You cant 'try' a football season. We either employ players or we dont. You cant employ them for a couple of weeks, and thats ignoring the fact they would need 6 weeks minimum pre season first.

[Homer Thompson]

I know it wouldn't be him, I was joking.
I can't see why you think this would be pie in the sky? At championship level at least. Your average gate is 1,400, IMO you would get more than double that watching in away fans from Dundee and Hearts globally even at £20 a pop.
Fans will not have seen any football for around 6 months, this would be the only way to watch thier team and they know the importance of buying the subscription.
It needs to, at the very least, be trialled.

I think youre vastly overestimating demand and the price people would pay, particularly considering some clibs would be single camera with no replays or commentary.

As SD said, at best it's a revenue stream that woukd reduce losses if games went ahead behind closed doors and you can't trial it without playing games.

There's some talk on the Alloa thread about pooling resources. Maybe that's a more sensible idea, a centralised service with someone kind of revenue sharing. Still unlikely to generate enough money for the smaller clubs to not run at a loss though.

[Sergeant Wilson]

9 minutes ago, Mr X said:

I think youre vastly overestimating demand and the price people would pay, particularly considering some clibs would be single camera with no replays or commentary.

As SD said, at best it's a revenue stream that woukd reduce losses if games went ahead behind closed doors and you can't trial it without playing games.

There's some talk on the Alloa thread about pooling resources. Maybe that's a more sensible idea, a centralised service with someone kind of revenue sharing. Still unlikely to generate enough money for the smaller clubs to not run at a loss though.

That might increase costs. Would they be buying equipment to be shared or does everyone get kitted out? If shared your the talking about staggered kick off times. Would they be chipping in for a few pro cameramen and commentators?

I've tried making this idea of streaming add up to a viable project but it falls to pieces every time I apply any thought to it.

[johnnydun]

23 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It really doesnt. Even if we assume we can keep sales to away fans in full, something Dundee and Hearts may well not be happy about, we cant run a squad for a year on sales for 4 games.

And it cant be 'trialled'. You either insist on clubs committing to it or you dont. You cant 'try' a football season. We either employ players or we dont. You cant employ them for a couple of weeks, and thats ignoring the fact they would need 6 weeks minimum pre season first.

Obviously you couldn't run on those games alone, I was just highlighting that they would help with the below average gates.

13 minutes ago, Mr X said:

I think youre vastly overestimating demand and the price people would pay, particularly considering some clibs would be single camera with no replays or commentary.

As SD said, at best it's a revenue stream that woukd reduce losses if games went ahead behind closed doors and you can't trial it without playing games.

There's some talk on the Alloa thread about pooling resources. Maybe that's a more sensible idea, a centralised service with someone kind of revenue sharing. Still unlikely to generate enough money for the smaller clubs to not run at a loss though.

Maybe I am overestimating and maybe others are underestimating.

I have said before it wouldn't be as profitable as an open doors regular game, however with presumably reduced wages, it might help clubs break even and keep people employed.

[CALDERON]

Yeah I just cant see it happening.  I highly doubt over half of Dundee's home support would pay £20 to watch a stream of a lower league game.  Even if they did, that's great, what about the games against the other 7 teams who aren't Hearts or Dundee?

The Bundesliga was shite to watch at the weekend.  This was one of the best leagues in the world, at a time where football had been off air for months and many were desperate to have it back.  It was pish, lack of intensity or spectacle in any way.  And that was watching it on TV.  Are we really expecting enough people to pay at least £20 a week, every week, to watch this level of football remotely? 

 

[Parttimesupporter]

5 minutes ago, Mr X said:

I think youre vastly overestimating demand and the price people would pay, particularly considering some clibs would be single camera with no replays or commentary.

As SD said, at best it's a revenue stream that woukd reduce losses if games went ahead behind closed doors and you can't trial it without playing games.

There's some talk on the Alloa thread about pooling resources. Maybe that's a more sensible idea, a centralised service with someone kind of revenue sharing. Still unlikely to generate enough money for the smaller clubs to not run at a loss though.

Agreed on pricing.  One of the other key risks is that fans meet in groups so there is only one payment.  That isn't necessarily a case of saving money - watching with other fans is a key part of the experience of watching football.  There will be plenty of households with more than one fan.  There will be others who may turn a Nelsonian eye to soclal distancing for a couple of hours so they can watch with friends.

I wonder if the point about trials is that you can test the technology and the user experience by offering free viewing for pre-season games?  Unless the costs of testing are reduced that may mean clubs having a bounce game including youth players rather than a traditional friendly.

In terms of pooling, there might be an argument for a levy on the cost of streaming to fund a studio where there could be some half time analysis, replays etc to make the experience a bit closer to watching on TV.  I agree that the lack of commentary could be a real turn off.  I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that clubs won't run at a loss until fans return.  However, they will be losing some money now, with losses increasing once employers have to start contributing to furlough payments, and increasing again at the end of furlough.

At the risk of stating the fecking obvious, the biggest problem is the lack of certainty on when crowds can return.  By that I mean crowds as before, as I can't see a socially distanced crowd being of much help to anyone, particularly in stands.  

[Guest Flash]

9 minutes ago, CALDERON said:

Yeah I just cant see it happening.  I highly doubt over half of Dundee's home support would pay £20 to watch a stream of a lower league game.  Even if they did, that's great, what about the games against the other 7 teams who aren't Hearts or Dundee?

The Bundesliga was shite to watch at the weekend.  This was one of the best leagues in the world, at a time where football had been off air for months and many were desperate to have it back.  It was pish, lack of intensity or spectacle in any way.  And that was watching it on TV.  Are we really expecting enough people to pay at least £20 a week, every week, to watch this level of football remotely? 

 

To be fair, people pay £20 a week to sit freezing at matches in the Championship that are shite to watch, have lack of intensity and spectacle in any way.

[Homer Thompson]

19 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

That might increase costs. Would they be buying equipment to be shared or does everyone get kitted out? If shared your the talking about staggered kick off times. Would they be chipping in for a few pro cameramen and commentators?

I've tried making this idea of streaming add up to a viable project but it falls to pieces every time I apply any thought to it.

A shared service should reduce costs, otherwise you're not doing it right!

Im not talking about the SPFL providing a full blown broadcasting service, more that they would provide the platform to handle subscriptions and streaming. 

In terms of equipment, it would be the same whether each club does their own thing or whether its shared. If we're talking about replicating what the likes of Falkirk and Dundee Utd do now for overseas fans then the equipment needed shouldnt be much more than a camera(s) and some AV kit to handle the video feed(s) from the camera(s).

On top of that, you need an internet connection to upload the stream and a service to manage the subscriptions and streaming to fans. There are plenty out there but if each club was to sign up and pay individually its going to  cost more, overall, than if the SPFL provided something.

Why would you need to stagger kick off times? Queens fans pay to watch Queens games, Morton fans pay to watch Morton games, Hearts fans for Hearts games etc.

No, Im not suggesting the SPFL provide cameramen or commentators. Each club would do that and where the clubs cant then the away team could agree to provide the coverage. Im sure between the 10 teams there would be few, if any, games where one club or the other couldnt cover it.

There are obvious flaws in all of this, of course. The coverage isnt going to be great, as I said earlier, and is going to vary wildly from one club to another for one.

And, at the end of all  that, its still highly unlikely to generate the numbers to stop clubs running at a loss. However, its better than games going on behind closed doors, if it comes to that,  with no coverage or income for the clubs

12 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

Obviously you couldn't run on those games alone, I was just highlighting that they would help with the below average gates.

Maybe I am overestimating and maybe others are underestimating.

I have said before it wouldn't be as profitable as an open doors regular game, however with presumably reduced wages, it might help clubs break even and keep people employed.

The closest thing Queens have is the trial we did a couple of seasons ago when we offered delayed coverage of the full 90 minutes for the Betfred cup games. There were just over 300 subscribers to that.

Now, it wasnt live and it was for games where the fans could go and watch, so it isnt a direct comparison, but it was free! 

You might double that for live streaming, you might even treble it. You're still well under the average actual attendance though.