Jump to content

Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Flash said:

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.

They do.  However going to match is a completely different experience than watching at home.  For many its about the social aspect and the routine of getting up and going to a game on a Saturday. 

One of the benefits of televised football matches is usually that they contain some kind of atmosphere which helps add to the sense of occasion.  

If elite level football is dull behind closed doors, I can't see what's going to suddenly make lower league Scottish football work in the way it needs to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 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? 

 

Would you normally watch the Bundesliga? I don't, however I did watch it last weekend and will probably do the same this weekend, this is for clubs I have no support or affiliation with whatsoever, so I know for certain I would pay to watch my own club.

 

12 minutes ago, Mr X said:

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.

Say you did treble it, that's 900, so you would only need 500 away fans to reach the average attendance.

How many season books did Queens shift last season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:

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.

Surely the ticket office are furloughed? Don't imagine we'll have the staff ready to even attempt processing things until they are back. I wouldn't think insurance would pay out right now though - the scale of the damage isn't final and these things can take a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:

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.

Very handy for just now but I doubt it would be a multi year policy and when it runs out there won't be  another one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Flash
10 minutes ago, Mr X said:

 

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.

The crowds for the Betfred cup group games are generally much lower than for league games. If you trebled the subscriber number, you’d probably be close to the actual crowd. I’m not saying there would be sufficient numbers, just that the lower crowds for group games would also have to be factored into any estimate.

5 minutes ago, CALDERON said:

They do.  However going to match is a completely different experience than watching at home.  For many its about the social aspect and the routine of getting up and going to a game on a Saturday. 

One of the benefits of televised football matches is usually that they contain some kind of atmosphere which helps add to the sense of occasion.  

If elite level football is dull behind closed doors, I can't see what's going to suddenly make lower league Scottish football work in the way it needs to. 

I know. I wasn’t being entirely serious. Saying that, many games at Palmerston have zero atmosphere and there wouldn’t be much difference between sitting at home watching it and sitting in what amounts to an outdoor library.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

Say you did treble it, that's 900, so you would only need 500 away fans to reach the average attendance.

How many season books did Queens shift last season?

Which you might get once or twice a season.

I'd be hugely surprised if you could treble it at, say, £20 a game. So if you're charging in the £5-10 range you'd have to have significantly more subscribers than you had attending fans. 

As I said, at best, its going to provide some income and reduce losses.

If games go ahead behind closed doors, clubs should try and stream games, if only just to try and keep fans engaged, but its not going to replace ticket money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Flash said:

The crowds for the Betfred cup group games are generally much lower than for league games. If you trebled the subscriber number, you’d probably be close to the actual crowd. I’m not saying there would be sufficient numbers, just that the lower crowds for group games would also have to be factored into any estimate.

Fair point. But then you could counter that by saying that the Betfred trial covered both the home games. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

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.

I think, and I'm really not trying to be a smartass here or get at Johnny (I accidentally pissed off the Ayr fans last weekend), that most of the people talking about this as if it is remotely viable arent conscious of anything like the numbers involved in running a football club. There isnt the slightest chance that closed door professional football can be funded in any way by online subs at this level. If we are suggesting teams fill squads with amateurs then maybe but the problem there will be the clubs who already have pros signed up in great numbers.

1 hour 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.

It wouldnt be profitable at all. I think the point you are missing is footballers generally are not employed now, or shortly wont be. Dundee have a relatively full squad, and for the moment insurance that will help though that wont last forever and you can bet it wont be renewed whenever its up for renewal. But most other clubs at this level will have less than 11 players signed. Signing players to play loss making games is absolute madness and will accelerate the clubs into financial difficulties far more so than mothballing until we can open 'normally'. It would need some sort of mass Govt subsidy to run without crowds in even the medium term of a couple of months.

The big Leagues are coming back closed door because the penalty clauses to tv companies for not playing are worse than the costs of playing. Thats not a factor for us. If it cant be done profitably (or at least with lower losses than not playing) then its not going to be.

1 hour ago, Parttimesupporter said:

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.  

I dont think a trial of a bounce friendly will be meaningful at all except in proving the technology works for those clubs who didnt already do it. 

Otherwise though pretty much agree with everything else you said. If we knew crowds could return in October say then we could amend the fixture schedule or consider whether playing a month or two closed door is achievable if required. But you cant employ a squad now in the vague hope you might be able to generate income in 3 or 4 months but might not be able to until at least 2021.

The idea that Hearts for instance, who are pretty much furious with every club other than Inverness, are going to merrily offer to pool the subs of their fans so that Alloa, Arbroath and QoS can maybe think about employing a team is ridiculous.

39 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

Would you normally watch the Bundesliga? I don't, however I did watch it last weekend and will probably do the same this weekend, this is for clubs I have no support or affiliation with whatsoever, so I know for certain I would pay to watch my own club.

Bundesliga had a novelty last week (& I still didnt watch it, but I dont have BT). By the time we might come back the main Euro Leagues will already be back and nobody neutral will be desperately lacking a football fix. Nobody is going to pay to watch Championship games without a vested interest in one of the teams. Hell if I had to pay on an individual match basis I wouldnt watch half the games on Sky that I do!

Edited by Skyline Drifter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

The idea that Hearts for instance, who are pretty much furious with every club other than Inverness, are going to merrily offer to pool the subs of their fans so that Alloa, Arbroath and QoS can maybe think about employing a team is ridiculous.

 

Im sure you're right.  The alternative could be, though, that there are no clubs for Hearts to play against.

Im also pretty sure Hearts have no problem in taking the pooled TV money generated by the OF, or that they would argue strongly against either of the OF breaking away from that and selling their broadcast rights separately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Im sure you're right.  The alternative could be, though, that there are no clubs for Hearts to play against.

Im also pretty sure Hearts have no problem in taking the pooled TV money generated by the OF, or that they would argue strongly against either of the OF breaking away from that and selling their broadcast rights separately.

True, but we are effectively discussing replacement gate receipts here, not 'tv money'. Hearts would have earned far more of that than everyone else. Their crowds are bigger, their stadium is bigger and their prices much bigger.

Edited by Skyline Drifter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched the Scotland Tonight programme last night about Scottish Football and i thought Ian Maxwell spoke very well on it, unusual to see from someone at the top of Scottish Football.

Ian Maxwell seems convinced that this paid live streaming to fans could work and there's currently an SPFL media team looking into making it work. Looks as if SPFL media teams could stream each game instead of the individual clubs doing it. 

Also said if these regional hubs happen it would be with fans there and not closed doors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

True, but we are effectively discussing replacement gate receipts here, not 'tv money'. Hearts would have earned far more of that than everyone else. Their crowds are bigger, their stadium is bigger and their prices much bigger.

Potato ... potato.

We're also talking about an alternative media broadcast platform. And the reason the OF generate more "tv money" is because they have bigger crowds/fanbases.

Its all linked.

It would be insanely hypocritical of any club, outside the OF, to complain about pooling streaming income with smaller clubs. Not that that will stop them, of course

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rb123! said:

Watched the Scotland Tonight programme last night about Scottish Football and i thought Ian Maxwell spoke very well on it, unusual to see from someone at the top of Scottish Football.

Ian Maxwell seems convinced that this paid live streaming to fans could work and there's currently an SPFL media team looking into making it work. Looks as if SPFL media teams could stream each game instead of the individual clubs doing it. 

Also said if these regional hubs happen it would be with fans there and not closed doors. 

The media group is made up of reps from big clubs and clubs who already stream matches, in the main. My concern is that they come up with some plan that works for bigger clubs but not for smaller ones.

I cant see how the SPFL could provide the resources to cover and stream every game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I think, and I'm really not trying to be a smartass here or get at Johnny (I accidentally pissed off the Ayr fans last weekend), that most of the people talking about this as if it is remotely viable arent conscious of anything like the numbers involved in running a football club. There isnt the slightest chance that closed door professional football can be funded in any way by online subs at this level. If we are suggesting teams fill squads with amateurs then maybe but the problem there will be the clubs who already have pros signed up in great numbers.

It wouldnt be profitable at all. I think the point you are missing is footballers generally are not employed now, or shortly wont be. Dundee have a relatively full squad, and for the moment insurance that will help though that wont last forever and you can bet it wont be renewed whenever its up for renewal. But most other clubs at this level will have less than 11 players signed. Signing players to play loss making games is absolute madness and will accelerate the clubs into financial difficulties far more so than mothballing until we can open 'normally'. It would need some sort of mass Govt subsidy to run without crowds in even the medium term of a couple of months.

The big Leagues are coming back closed door because the penalty clauses to tv companies for not playing are worse than the costs of playing. Thats not a factor for us. If it cant be done profitably (or at least with lower losses than not playing) then its not going to be.

I dont think a trial of a bounce friendly will be meaningful at all except in proving the technology works for those clubs who didnt already do it. 

Otherwise though pretty much agree with everything else you said. If we knew crowds could return in October say then we could amend the fixture schedule or consider whether playing a month or two closed door is achievable if required. But you cant employ a squad now in the vague hope you might be able to generate income in 3 or 4 months but might not be able to until at least 2021.

The idea that Hearts for instance, who are pretty much furious with every club other than Inverness, are going to merrily offer to pool the subs of their fans so that Alloa, Arbroath and QoS can maybe think about employing a team is ridiculous.

Bundesliga had a novelty last week (& I still didnt watch it, but I dont have BT). By the time we might come back the main Euro Leagues will already be back and nobody neutral will be desperately lacking a football fix. Nobody is going to pay to watch Championship games without a vested interest in one of the teams. Hell if I had to pay on an individual match basis I wouldnt watch half the games on Sky that I do!

I don't think you're being a smart arse or getting at me, I think this has all been a respectful, healthy debate and your counter argument has been appreciated. 

I do know the levels of staffing needed to run a club, it is most of those people that I am thinking about when looking into the possibility of paying for streams. The alternative is those people are out of work for possibly a year.

Like I have said I maybe am overestimating, however I when we are talking about job losses I think all options need to be considered. I think this needs surveyed at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mr X said:

The media group is made up of reps from big clubs and clubs who already stream matches, in the main. My concern is that they come up with some plan that works for bigger clubs but not for smaller ones.

I cant see how the SPFL could provide the resources to cover and stream every game. 

Perhaps easier if the hub idea comes to fruition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Im sure you're right.  The alternative could be, though, that there are no clubs for Hearts to play against.

Im also pretty sure Hearts have no problem in taking the pooled TV money generated by the OF, or that they would argue strongly against either of the OF breaking away from that and selling their broadcast rights separately.

If we were looking at a contingent of clubs at this level who were not able to find any way to make up that best case >50% shortfall in income, I'm wondering if an alternative could be to try and set-up a one-off temp league that is set up with bare minimum costs and contract out of work players in to the set-up (and ideally represent their existing club but be flexible and contract to league body so everyone has numbers). We could then maybe look at subscription models with that (or even looking at doing this as a joint venture with broadcasters - there is some shared interest there to protect their contract the best they can) and seeing how we can cost accordingly leasing one or two facilities.

A bit batshit and American but could the a newco league body 'loans' the identity of the clubs for a year (or would that incur their liabilities)? I wouldn't have thought that was ever possible but we all saw Rangers etc.

The complete hibernation of some clubs would be toxic if it come to that, you really wouldn't be able to assess how much it'll damage your future income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rb123! said:

Watched the Scotland Tonight programme last night about Scottish Football and i thought Ian Maxwell spoke very well on it, unusual to see from someone at the top of Scottish Football.

 

I don't think you've set the bar very high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

The big Leagues are coming back closed door because the penalty clauses to tv companies for not playing are worse than the costs of playing.

Does this not beg the question of what the longer term consequences of clubs at our level saying that they are not going to compete for a season? What would the process of withdrawal actually look like - would there have to be an agreement or vote with Premiership clubs that they would not have any relegation? Would that damage the TV deal? Would the Championship-League 2 clubs be surrendering their share of prize money to the Premiership clubs for a season, and how would the amounts be negotiated back thereafter? I have no idea how any of this would actually work - would we be voting away our slice of TV funding in the hope that Premiership clubs would give it back or is there something which would stop them from doing that?

Would a club like Morton be giving away their current % level of prize money in exchange for the hope that they would get that level back when they returned to playing? What would the return to football look like if we had to pay for insurances, water rates, pitch maintenance, ongoing payments (for the online ticket system, for example), and any other costs for a year with no football and then we come back from a position of no staff with no assurances of the level of prize money at the other end? Would it be like the 2001/02 season when we returned with nothing after administration and had trials in the park in order to get a part-time team back on the park?

What would the penalties end up being if we didn't resume?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

Does this not beg the question of what the longer term consequences of clubs at our level saying that they are not going to compete for a season? What would the process of withdrawal actually look like - would there have to be an agreement or vote with Premiership clubs that they would not have any relegation? Would that damage the TV deal? Would the Championship-League 2 clubs be surrendering their share of prize money to the Premiership clubs for a season, and how would the amounts be negotiated back thereafter? I have no idea how any of this would actually work - would we be voting away our slice of TV funding in the hope that Premiership clubs would give it back or is there something which would stop them from doing that?

Would a club like Morton be giving away their current % level of prize money in exchange for the hope that they would get that level back when they returned to playing? What would the return to football look like if we had to pay for insurances, water rates, pitch maintenance, ongoing payments (for the online ticket system, for example), and any other costs for a year with no football and then we come back from a position of no staff with no assurances of the level of prize money at the other end? Would it be like the 2001/02 season when we returned with nothing after administration and had trials in the park in order to get a part-time team back on the park?

What would the penalties end up being if we didn't resume?

Its not just prize money that would be an unknown if clubs "mothballed" for a year. How many fans would come back? Or sponsors and advertisers?

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...