Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[GiGi]

33 minutes ago, SJP79 said:

Do you think Rangers and Celtic will accept the roughly 50k in money from James Anderson ?

Rangers* would eat wet dog shit for a spare 50k these days.

[super_carson]

What does £50k actually do for the clubs? I get that it's a decent sum especially as you go lower down the leagues, but it surely won't make a dent for some clubs if they do closed doors/mothballed till the new year.

 

This is all a tactical move by Budge to save her precious Hearts, get the bluff called and reconstruction in the sea and see what happens.

 

 

[North Terrace Gazza]

So Budge arranges £2 million to push through her reconstruction plans. According to her relegation would cost Hearts far more than that. It’s a bung pure and simple and no doubt most clubs will take it and run.

[AyrExile]

2 minutes ago, super_carson said:

What does £50k actually do for the clubs? I get that it's a decent sum especially as you go lower down the leagues, but it wont make a dent for some clubs if they do closed doors/mothballed till the new year.

This is all a tactical move by Budge to save her precious Hearts, get the bluff called and reconstruction in the sea and see what happens.

It would cover the cost of testing for most of the season. An additional barrier that would stop more clubs from being able to play 

[super_carson]

It would cover the cost of testing for most of the season. An additional barrier that would stop more clubs from being able to play 

I thought the cost was substantially higher than that? Still doesn't address the lack of income if crowds are banned long term.

As an aside, would tests carried out my football clubs and other sports clubs be counted in government figures? If so, there could be an argument that it could/should be subsided.

[Skyline Drifter]

18 minutes ago, AyrExile said:

It would cover the cost of testing for most of the season. An additional barrier that would stop more clubs from being able to play 

It likely would get close to it anyway. That is, as previously pointed out though, only half the problem. Even if there were no testing, playing closed door would be loss making.

[RandomGuy.]

32 minutes ago, AyrExile said:

It would cover the cost of testing for most of the season. An additional barrier that would stop more clubs from being able to play 

Ross County chairman said its £50 per person, and you've to do it two or three times a week.

On top of that the actual testing set up, according to the Ross County chairman, is £35k on it's own.

So £50k would get you the machine to test it, then youd have £15k for actual tests.

That's 300 tests.

Squad of 18, plus manager, assistant and physio.

14 testing sessions.

3 a week.

Youd presumably get a month of testing from £50k.

If you dont buy the machine then testing costs are higher.

Edited June 3, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[AyrExile]

15 minutes ago, super_carson said:

I thought the cost was substantially higher than that? Still doesn't address the lack of income if crowds are banned long term.

As an aside, would tests carried out my football clubs and other sports clubs be counted in government figures? If so, there could be an argument that it could/should be subsided.

£40 a test, taken twice a week for 30 people was the numbers quoted on the radio. That was for full time so don’t know how part time would fit in.  There are a few different sources of income and potential for other donations in the future. I would also imagine players contracts are about to be significantly less than before. Not sure if they would be included in the testing figures and also doubt the govt would bear the cost of these 

[AyrExile]

15 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It likely would get close to it anyway. That is, as previously pointed out though, only half the problem. Even if there were no testing, playing closed door would be loss making.

Someone made a comment the other day that many didn’t appreciate. It was about just getting a team on the pitch and no more. The quality might be poor but I believe that is possible with far less cost than before

[AyrExile]

7 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Ross County chairman said its £50 per person, and you've to do it two or three times a week.

On top of that the actual testing set up, according to the Ross County chairman, is £35k on it's own.

So £50k would get you the machine to test it, then youd have £15k for actual tests.

That's 300 tests.

Squad of 18, plus manager, assistant and physio.

14 testing sessions.

3 a week.

Youd presumably get a month of testing from £50k.

If you dont buy the machine then testing costs are higher.

You obviously missed the part about regional hubs being set up to avoid all clubs splashing out on a machine. Would guess Annan or Brechin’s costs might be a bit less than Ross County 

[Guest SJP79]

Who is forcing the testing issue ?

Is this the spfl or the goverment ?

[Trogdor]

44 minutes ago, super_carson said:

This is all a tactical move by Budge to save her precious Hearts, get the bluff called and reconstruction in the sea and see what happens.

100% this!

Ann Budge can get in the sea as well.

[super_carson]

Not sure if they would be included in the testing figures and also doubt the govt would bear the cost of these 

My concern throughout all of this is that we are continuing with falling infection rates and deaths, yet the rhetoric is still slow and cautious. We could be in a situation come August whereby infection and death rates are negligible and we’d still having football clubs having to pay for tests when other industries won’t be subject to the same conditions. That will stop so many clubs from being able to operate, yet I highly doubt (as you say) there would be much support from the government.

[AUFC 1910]

Characteristic of the problem Scotland has selling its game right there.
Our football may not be the best in the world, but Scottish football is fucking great and we should market it as such.
Maybe if the SPFL didn't feed into the 'only the OF is commercially viable' mantra and focused on building and marketing the league over a set number of years we'd be a much more attractive proposal.

POST OF THE DECADE [emoji122][emoji122][emoji122][emoji122][emoji122][emoji122][emoji122]

[AyrExile]

2 minutes ago, super_carson said:

 

My concern throughout all of this is that we are continuing with falling infection rates and deaths, yet the rhetoric is still slow and cautious. We could be in a situation come August whereby infection and death rates are negligible and we’d still having football clubs having to pay for tests when other industries won’t be subject to the same conditions. That will stop so many clubs from being able to operate, yet I highly doubt (as you say) there would be much support from the government.

 

Completely agree. This is one to take up with the residents of the politics forum 

[super_carson]

Completely agree. This is one to take up with the residents of the politics forum 

Don’t make me go into that dark place...

[eindhovendee]

4 hours ago, Dee-funked said:

The SPFL has asked clubs if they would back a 14-team Scottish Premiership for next season and, if not, how might their objections be overcome.

In a letter to clubs in the top two tiers, chief executive Neil Doncaster queried if enlarging the Premiership for five years would be more palatable.

He also asked clubs what other factors should be taken into account around league reconstruction.

Responses have been requested by 17:00 BST on Friday.

Doncaster is also expected to ask similar questions of clubs in Leagues One and Two following their divisional meetings on Wednesday.

What time have Dundee to respond by?

[Zoomer Brown]

18 minutes ago, eindhovendee said:

What time have Dundee to respond by?

Dundee F C, they vote when they want!

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, AyrExile said:

£40 a test, taken twice a week for 30 people was the numbers quoted on the radio. That was for full time so don’t know how part time would fit in.  There are a few different sources of income and potential for other donations in the future. I would also imagine players contracts are about to be significantly less than before. Not sure if they would be included in the testing figures and also doubt the govt would bear the cost of these 

Actually in theory I'd imagine part time is a problem. Part of the plan for a return to full time football is that players should isolate and not make contact with anyone else outside their household when they are not training and playing. If you are a part time footballer and that's not your main source of income you physically can't do that.

1 hour ago, AyrExile said:

Someone made a comment the other day that many didn’t appreciate. It was about just getting a team on the pitch and no more. The quality might be poor but I believe that is possible with far less cost than before

Of course it will cost less than before but it's far from as simple as "we'll just field 18 amateurs then". Firstly there remains the issue of all the existing players with contracts in place. I accept that problem remains whether we play or don't but if we don't play there is probably grounds to make them redundant. If we are playing you'd have a difficult job making them redundant and then replacing them with cheaper players.

Also, if you do field a side packed out with amateurs, it's reasonably unlikely we'll be able to field the same quality for next to nil wages. A lot of better players will simply drop out of the game, certainly the full time game, and pick up other work. It's not inconceivable for instance that a club like us effectively fields something akin to last season's reserve squad, which finished bottom and won one game all season in the Reserve League. Does anyone really want to watch that team get ragdolled by Hearts or Dundee's full team with internationals in it? With the greatest of respect to our young lads, they were losing by 5 or 6 to other reserve squads sometimes. Are people really going to pay to watch that online? 36-0 might be in danger!

And whether people like it or not, it's NOT just about getting a team on the pitch and no more. Apart from testing there are other incidental costs in playing a football match that don't occur if you don't play. First aiders, some degree of stewarding / security (even if it's only to keep people out), heat and light for floodlights, showers (if they are allowed to shower on the premises), pitch maintenance, training facility costs, kit, laundry, potentially other matchday staffing (although for us that's largely volunteers), all the additional sanitisation processes that will be required, etc. That doesn't come for buttons and will certainly result on a few thousand pounds a game.

1 hour ago, AyrExile said:

You obviously missed the part about regional hubs being set up to avoid all clubs splashing out on a machine. Would guess Annan or Brechin’s costs might be a bit less than Ross County 

I don't think it's likely they would be any less to be honest except insofar as the squad sizes are presumably smaller and therefore testing in total would be lower. Regional hubs is a bit of a red herring in Scotland's extreme areas anyway. I guess Annan might be obliged to play at Palmerston if that's the case whilst we're closed door anyway. It's only going to result in a slight split of costs though. There's nobody else near the two of us in SPFL football. 

58 minutes ago, super_carson said:

My concern throughout all of this is that we are continuing with falling infection rates and deaths, yet the rhetoric is still slow and cautious. We could be in a situation come August whereby infection and death rates are negligible and we’d still having football clubs having to pay for tests when other industries won’t be subject to the same conditions. That will stop so many clubs from being able to operate, yet I highly doubt (as you say) there would be much support from the government.

 

My main concern is that the REASON infection rates are negligible in rural areas like Dumfries and to an extent Ayr is because it's never really been here in the first place and we largely locked down before it reached us in exactly the same way as London didn't! As a result we've avoided getting much infection here but it didn't wash past and won't return. There's no herd immunity at all in these areas and when lockdown is eased it will almost certainly result in localised infection rate increases in those areas.

[super_carson]

My main concern is that the REASON infection rates are negligible in rural areas like Dumfries and to an extent Ayr is because it's never really been here in the first place and we largely locked down before it reached us in exactly the same way as London didn't! As a result we've avoided getting much infection here but it didn't wash past and won't return. There's no herd immunity at all in these areas and when lockdown is eased it will almost certainly result in localised infection rate increases in those areas.

 

 

I’m not denying your point, I was just more speaking about Scotland as a whole, if it was at a negligible rate throughout entire country (ifs and buts, I know). Of course, the scenario you’re discussing is just as applicable even if we have no return to football.

 

 

Just taking my own job as a comparison...I’ll be back teaching pupils in August, yet testing will be only available to me should I (or a colleague/pupil) develop symptoms. It might be there is less demand for testing in the wider population, if those rates were falling. Some of that could be allocated to professions where it would deem necessary (professional sport seemingly the only sector I can see where everyone connected is to be tested at set regular intervals ).