Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[DA Baracus]

36 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

Wigan the first club to go into admin due to the pandemic. Surprised a few up here haven't already done so. Timely reminder that clubs are hanging on here by an absolute thread. Grim times.

I think that most clubs in Scotland tend to live within their means. It helps that most clubs out of the top league only give out year long contracts to most players, with some players getting two at most, meaning over the summer months costs are kept low. The furlough scheme has helped out big time too.

That we were not able to play out the season has been a huge help, as it has meant that clubs were able to keep players on furlough. Playing in empty stadiums just isn't feasible for clubs here. It isn't affordable for more than a few games if it hasn't been budgeted for. We might have to have a round of fixtures in empty stadiums but clubs have taken this in to account and have been able to budget against that loss of income.

Edited July 1, 2020 by DA Baracus

[Ludo*1]

1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

I think that most clubs in Scotland tend to live within their means. It helps that most clubs out of the top league only give out year long contracts to most players, with some players getting two at most, meaning over the summer months costs are kept low. The furlough scheme has helped out big time too.

That we were not able to play out the season has been a huge help, as it has meant that clubs were able to keep players on furlough. Playing in empty stadiums just isn't feasible for clubs here. It isn't affordable.

No club in Scotland will have budgeted to have missed out on 9 games (4-5 home games) and missed out on the hospitality that'd bring in either. That's a massive amount of money in Scottish footballing terms for the respective clubs even when living within their means.

Still expect a few to be massively hit by this. Early days yet IMO.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, Ludo*1 said:

Wigan the first club to go into admin due to the pandemic. Surprised a few up here haven't already done so. Timely reminder that clubs are hanging on here by an absolute thread. Grim times.

 

29 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

I think that most clubs in Scotland tend to live within their means. It helps that most clubs out of the top league only give out year long contracts to most players, with some players getting two at most, meaning over the summer months costs are kept low. The furlough scheme has helped out big time too.

That we were not able to play out the season has been a huge help, as it has meant that clubs were able to keep players on furlough. Playing in empty stadiums just isn't feasible for clubs here. It isn't affordable for more than a few games if it hasn't been budgeted for. We might have to have a round of fixtures in empty stadiums but clubs have taken this in to account and have been able to budget against that loss of income.

Yeah this. I don't think too many in Scotland will be too badly hit, certainly not amongst the lower two and a bit divisions. Players may find wages are far lower in the next year but the clubs themselves should mostly be ok. Scottish football is such a low economy that furlough effectively covered costs for most in the shutdown period. The worst affected will be the top paying full time Championship clubs and possibly some of the Premiership sides, Clubs whose players tend to earn more than the furlough limits and maybe couldn't agree reductions. Clubs in the Premiership are also going to have to play 3 or 4 months with no crowds at least. That's going to be a challenge for them.

The English Championship however is absolutely brutal. Most of the clubs in it lose fortunes annually already in the chase to reach the Premiership. They have players earning thousands a week and furlough is a drop in the ocean. Even in the English League 1 and 2 there will be clubs massively hit. Wigan are the first but they almost certainly won't be the last down South.

[Skyline Drifter]

31 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

No club in Scotland will have budgeted to have missed out on 9 games (4-5 home games) and missed out on the hospitality that'd bring in either. That's a massive amount of money in Scottish footballing terms for the respective clubs even when living within their means.

Still expect a few to be massively hit by this. Early days yet IMO.

Playing matches isn't all that profitable for most clubs though and very few of the smaller ones have any significant hospitality. With most fans waiving season ticket refunds and the bulk of payroll costs covered it's unlikely missing out on 4 or 5 home games is enough to send anyone over the edge (away games not being played is a money saver).

[Ludo*1]

1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Playing matches isn't all that profitable for most clubs though and very few of the smaller ones have any significant hospitality. With most fans waiving season ticket refunds and the bulk of payroll costs covered it's unlikely missing out on 4 or 5 home games is enough to send anyone over the edge (away games not being played is a money saver).

I hope you're right. Obviously I'm most fearful for my own club - Having lost around £500k of potential income thus far - but I think there's a lot of clubs that survive on attendance through the gate. Even small amounts of cash can have an impact on some of the lower league teams. You're better placed than I am to comment so I'll bow down to your superior knowledge on the subject, but I still feel it'd come as a shock if every single Scottish club came out the other end of this without significant difficulty.

[DA Baracus]

48 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

No club in Scotland will have budgeted to have missed out on 9 games (4-5 home games) and missed out on the hospitality that'd bring in either. That's a massive amount of money in Scottish footballing terms for the respective clubs even when living within their means.

Still expect a few to be massively hit by this. Early days yet IMO.

Aye clubs would have made a bit of loss due to that but thankfully didn't have to take the hit of playing the games, meaning paying their squads in full and doing all the testing etc. Thankfully the losses will have mitigated and can be recovered with a reduction in budget for season 20/21.

Most clubs here are in a unique situation to be able to ride out the worst of this. If any clubs are knackered by this here it will be Premiership clubs or Hearts.

[Skyline Drifter]

17 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

I hope you're right. Obviously I'm most fearful for my own club - Having lost around £500k of potential income thus far - but I think there's a lot of clubs that survive on attendance through the gate. Even small amounts of cash can have an impact on some of the lower league teams. You're better placed than I am to comment so I'll bow down to your superior knowledge on the subject, but I still feel it'd come as a shock if every single Scottish club came out the other end of this without significant difficulty.

Yes but top line figures like losing £500k of potential income are one thing. How much have Dundee FC saved in Furlough receipts? Chances are it's in excess of £20k a week, maybe considerably more for three months to date. Probably another 6 or 7 weeks to come. There's £400,000 saved right there. Before we talk about not having the costs of hospitality, anything you pay match day casual staff, reductions in heat and light usage with buildings locked up, etc, etc, etc.

Dundee (pending the potential for an insurance receipt) are probably among the worst hit (highest payroll full time, Championship club, probably only topped by your neighbours along the street) but Wigan probably lost more in a week than you'll lose throughout the whole crisis.

Edited July 1, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[TxRover]

4 hours ago, virginton said:

If clubs have still been progressing towards having a viable streaming service up and running then fans who don't want to physically attend should still be able to watch the games at a reasonable price. Your claim that professional classes are more likely to be concerned about attending likely has little bearing in reality: again, this isn't the US and so a virus hasn't been embroiled in your pathetic, partisan and all-encompassing culture war. There's really no accounting for the degree of risk that people find acceptable to take in this context: some people are freaking out on the basis of tabloid and social media hype alone; others understand that the current risk level in Scotland is remarkably low compared to just a couple of months ago.

So annoyed you have to red dot, eh? The evaluation of fans and their behaviors is taken from UK based studies, not US, so you can stuff that shite down your throat. Climb off your high horse and address the facts, laddie.

Streaming services will provide pennies on the pound because when Uncle Jock pays for the game, the kids and relatives are likely to come over and watch, not to screw the club, but simply for the enjoyment of watching the game with other fans. With regards to acceptance of the degrees of risk, look at the relative rates of compliance and violations based upon demographics, and you’ll see. Then add in the high compliance rates for the high risk and elderly, who are at least 15% of fans, and you probably won’t see them in the park anytime soon.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, TxRover said:

So annoyed you have to red dot, eh?

Erm no, the purpose of the red dot function is to punish shit posts - stop posting shit and you won't get them.

Quote

The evaluation of fans and their behaviors is taken from UK based studies, not US, so you can stuff that shite down your throat. Climb off your high horse and address the facts, laddie.

Feel free to publish them Tex so we can take a look at their findings for ourselves then.

Quote

Streaming services will provide pennies on the pound because when Uncle Jock pays for the game, the kids and relatives are likely to come over and watch, not to screw the club, but simply for the enjoyment of watching the game with other fans.

Uh huh, so on the one hand you're saying that people are so terrified of the virus that they won't want to enter a large and mostly empty outdoor venue to watch a live football match but will instead invite everyone round to their place to watch the game inside despite this being an objectively more dangerous act? Seems legit.

Quote

With regards to acceptance of the degrees of risk, look at the relative rates of compliance and violations based upon demographics, and you’ll see. Then add in the high compliance rates for the high risk and elderly, who are at least 15% of fans, and you probably won’t see them in the park anytime soon.

Except that in a scenario in which football games are granted government permission to play in front of crowds, there would be no issue of 'compliance' at all. It would instead be a permitted activity for the general population and all but the most vulnerable groups, not including 'the elderly' as a whole. So your argument makes no sense then and the evidence cited for it completely redundant.

Better luck next time.

Edited July 1, 2020 by vikingTON

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, TxRover said:

laddie.

 

^^^All content null and void.

[TxRover]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Erm no, the purpose of the red dot function is to punish shit posts - stop posting shit and you won't get them.

Oh, so you just keep reading shit posts...

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Feel free to publish them Tex so we can take a look at their findings for ourselves then.

OK.

2016 Football Survey: http://www.supporters-direct.scot/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/survey-pdf.pdf

Summary of complied demographic compliance data: https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-lockdown-fresh-data-on-compliance-and-public-opinion-135872

Note the numbers match what I stated, clear enough?

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Uh huh, so on the one hand you're saying that people are so terrified of the virus that they won't want to enter a large and mostly empty outdoor venue to watch a live football match but will instead invite everyone round to their place to watch the game inside despite this being an objectively more dangerous act? Seems legit.

Nope, I’m saying that the Government has made it clear that large crowds will be among the last approved returns. I’m also saying that even if smaller, distanced crowds are approved, a large percentage of fitba fans will not be willing to attend until there is some certainly of safety. The key difference between going to Starks Park with 1-2,000 odd fans and staying at home and watching the game with some family and friends is that you “know” the people you are having over and feel you can trust them to have behaved safely, or you wouldn’t have invited them over. You have no idea if the pillock four seats over has been responsible, and you doubt it based upon his behavior last year.

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Except that in a scenario in which football games are granted government permission to play in front of crowds, there would be no issue of 'compliance' at all. It would instead be a permitted activity for the general population and all but the most vulnerable groups, not including 'the elderly' as a whole. So your argument makes no sense then and the evidence cited for it completely redundant.

Only true if it is an unrestricted return to “normal”, something that seems extremely unlikely any time soon. Also, given the Government’s “errors” in response so far, you can expect any number of people to doubt the accuracy of any Government statement about it being safe to resume normal behaviors until it is backed up by indisputable evidence.

 

1 hour ago, FrankReynolds said:

Didn't realise people for so upset about a red dot. Why's that? 

Not upset, simply amused he elects to do such after some of the raging crap he’s spewed.

[RandomGuy.]

3 hours ago, Ludo*1 said:

Wigan the first club to go into admin due to the pandemic. Surprised a few up here haven't already done so. Timely reminder that clubs are hanging on here by an absolute thread. Grim times.

By March Wigan had paid out over £18m in wages, with a turnover of £11m.

Since then theyve had pay full wages without any matchday income.

This follows about half a decade of even worse wages/turnover percentages.

That's according to that Kieran Maguire boy.

The EFL should be the worst hit set of leagues in the UK by this.

Edited July 1, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[vikingTON]

9 minutes ago, TxRover said:

Oh, so you just keep reading shit posts...

OK.

2016 Football Survey: http://www.supporters-direct.scot/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/survey-pdf.pdf

Summary of complied demographic compliance data: https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-lockdown-fresh-data-on-compliance-and-public-opinion-135872

Note the numbers match what I stated, clear enough?

Oh dear. Firstly, your 'compliance' survey was conducted at the beginning of April, fully three months ago. The idea that it is in any way relevant to how people are resonding to Covid 19 now when literally a handful of deaths are being recorded from it per week in Scotland is far fetched. Secondly, the data doesn't actually say what you think it does when you claim that:

Quote

Also, over 40% of fans are Professional or Senior Management, a highly educated group likely to have more concerns about the current pandemic.

The study does not break down concern by occupation but rather their respective compliance with lockdown measures at that time. It does show that professional or senior management groups are more likely to stick to government guidelines during the lockdown but observes that:

Quote

 

Occupation appears to matter, too. Employees in private sector professional services such as law and consultancy are more likely to be working from home, while employees in manual industries like construction are less likely to do so.

It is important to note that these statistics reveal as much about the unequal conditions of employment and people’s living arrangements, and by implication the opportunities offered to those with more financial resources, as they do about “willful” individual choices.

 

A conclusion that is of course perfectly obvious - educated professionals have simply enjoyed a greater opportunity of working from home and to get their essentials delivered to the house than a care worker, NHS nurse or warehouse staff. This does not mean that they were more concerned about the pandemic though, nor that they wil be any more fearful of entering a mostly empty Scottish football ground in the autumn.

Quote

Nope, I’m saying that the Government has made it clear that large crowds will be among the last approved returns. I’m also saying that even if smaller, distanced crowds are approved, a large percentage of fitba fans will not be willing to attend until there is some certainly of safety. The key difference between going to Starks Park with 1-2,000 odd fans and staying at home and watching the game with some family and friends is that you “know” the people you are having over and feel you can trust them to have behaved safely, or you wouldn’t have invited them over. You have no idea if the pillock four seats over has been responsible, and you doubt it based upon his behavior last year.

Except that an infectious airborne virus doesn't wait around for irresponsibility, so whether you trust them or not the chances of someone in your immediate circle giving you the virus while in an enclosed space for 90 minutes is in fact many times higher than some random punter 2 metres away outdoors.

Quote

Only true if it is an unrestricted return to “normal”, something that seems extremely unlikely any time soon. Also, given the Government’s “errors” in response so far, you can expect any number of people to doubt the accuracy of any Government statement about it being safe to resume normal behaviors until it is backed up by indisputable evidence.

Another contention with absolutely no evidence to back it up. If a tiny minority wish to remain sealed in their homes until the big bad virus goes away then they're free to do so; it is not the response of the overwhelming majority of people and so Scottish football will return to reflect that demand and not yours.

[bluearmyfaction]

There's a LOT more dodgy stuff going on at Wigan.  Hong Kong stock exchange shenanigans.  Damned if I know what's going on, but the HK company that owned Wigan hived it off to a company that was owned by the company's chairman - until shortly after Wigan was hived off.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Not upset, simply amused he elects to do such after some of the raging crap he’s spewed.

I'm getting the beer and popcorn out.

Someone taking on Methadone Mick.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

I'm getting the beer and popcorn out.

Someone taking on Methadone Mick.

What a letdown that was.

[emoji19]

[TxRover]

4 hours ago, virginton said:

Oh dear. Firstly, your 'compliance' survey was conducted at the beginning of April, fully three months ago. The idea that it is in any way relevant to how people are resonding to Covid 19 now when literally a handful of deaths are being recorded from it per week in Scotland is far fetched. Secondly, the data doesn't actually say what you think it does when you claim that:

The study does not break down concern by occupation but rather their respective compliance with lockdown measures at that time. It does show that professional or senior management groups are more likely to stick to government guidelines during the lockdown but observes that:

Dear, dear is right. You are conflating two different things into the same. I referred to 40% via the survey of supporters, not the compliance survey. As for the fact that things may have changed, that is always true, however the general viewpoint of group is pretty persistent over time. If the Government says socially distant crowds are OK, the groups that enjoy high compliance numbers are likely to defer returning to stadia because of that recommendation.

4 hours ago, virginton said:

A conclusion that is of course perfectly obvious - educated professionals have simply enjoyed a greater opportunity of working from home and to get their essentials delivered to the house than a care worker, NHS nurse or warehouse staff. This does not mean that they were more concerned about the pandemic though, nor that they wil be any more fearful of entering a mostly empty Scottish football ground in the autumn.

Again you attempt to infer future actions from absent data. The ability of professionals to work from home has no bearing on your argument, and is simply tossed in here because you couldn’t figure out another way to toss out another straw man.

4 hours ago, virginton said:

.Except that an infectious airborne virus doesn't wait around for irresponsibility, so whether you trust them or not the chances of someone in your immediate circle giving you the virus while in an enclosed space for 90 minutes is in fact many times higher than some random punter 2 metres away outdoors..

Really, you absolutely sure about that, professor? Care to cite YOUR references for this startling data? If that was true, then a sudden spike would have occurred the second any restrictions on intersections outsides ones household were allowed.

4 hours ago, virginton said:

Another contention with absolutely no evidence to back it up. If a tiny minority wish to remain sealed in their homes until the big bad virus goes away then they're free to do so; it is not the response of the overwhelming majority of people and so Scottish football will return to reflect that demand and not yours.

Sorry, did I forget to list my reference on that: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/trust-uk-government-and-news-media-covid-19-information-down-concerns-over-misinformation

So, that kind of puts a hole in your latest rant, as I would say that 52% is pretty much a majority...unless you’re voting in the Scottish Premiership.

[vikingTON]

7 hours ago, TxRover said:

Dear, dear is right. You are conflating two different things into the same. I referred to 40% via the survey of supporters, not the compliance survey. As for the fact that things may have changed, that is always true, however the general viewpoint of group is pretty persistent over time.

Neither of the surveys that you have posted show that professionals are more likely to be concerned about coronavirus than other groups in UK society. That is the claim that is being challenged here and no matter how often you want to assert it there is no basis for it in fact.

Quote

If the Government says socially distant crowds are OK, the groups that enjoy high compliance numbers are likely to defer returning to stadia because of that recommendation.

If the government says that socially distanced crowds are OK then there's no issue of compliance as football grounds would no longer fall under health advisories. So your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy.

That's before we even consider the stupidity of equating a white collar employee's willingness to i) lay around the house all day and take part in a few Zoom meetings to ii) remaining inside each and every weekend when all leisure amenities are open again as an equivalent act of risk aversion, when they clearly are not. 

Quote

Again you attempt to infer future actions from absent data.

 ...says the chump declaring which groups within society will and will not attend football games in the autumn, based on survey data that you don't even understand from April.

Quote

The ability of professionals to work from home has no bearing on your argument, and is simply tossed in here because you couldn’t figure out another way to toss out another straw man.

Except that it's not my argument but rather the one made by the social scientists who wrote that paper stating that it did have a bearing on the findings. You really should have tried reading it instead of just cherry-picking data via a Google search to shore up your crock of shit argument, but here we are.

Quote

Really, you absolutely sure about that, professor? Care to cite YOUR references for this startling data? If that was true, then a sudden spike would have occurred the second any restrictions on intersections outsides ones household were allowed.

Well no there wouldn't, because in Scotland there are still significant restrictions on meeting other households inside an enclosed space because it carries a greater risk of infection. As opposed to being in contact with several households in a public space, which does not.

Quote

 

Sorry, did I forget to list my reference on that: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/trust-uk-government-and-news-media-covid-19-information-down-concerns-over-misinformation

So, that kind of puts a hole in your latest rant, as I would say that 52% is pretty much a majority...unless you’re voting in the Scottish Premiership.

 

That frantically Google-searched paper only states that 52% of people don't trust the government's messaging; it says literally nothing about their willingness to take part in leisure activities or public events. Which you would have known had you given an even cursory glance at its headline claims never mind the findings themselves.

So with your argument and trustworthiness now comprehensively demolished, I'll be taking this opportunity to disengage with your nonsense before you throw in another pile of completely irrelevant studies and demand any more of my time to dissect your latest fail. 

Absolutely gutted for you.

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by vikingTON

[RandomGuy.]

Seems like it's likely there will be no closed door Championship games. 

Edited July 2, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[Rudolph Hucker]

35 minutes ago, virginton said:

I'll be taking this opportunity to disengage with your nonsense

Thank f**k.