Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[TxRover]

5 hours ago, virginton said:

And that's before we get to the fairness aspect: why should clubs who didn't bother cutting their cloth this summer suddenly get a guarantee - never mind one with public money - of wages and contracts that they could not have reasonably expected to fulfil? It would only be reasonable to continue existing support to contracts in place under furlough and leave the remainder as costs that clubs chose to add in the middle of a crisis and should just have to suck up. I'm not paying taxes to prop up Willie Haughey's jumped-up Gretna outfit on the south side of Glasgow.

Now this is a measured response that make more sense, except for one small hole. Because preparations for the season are well along, a team like QoS who spent the summer with about three contracts now has another eight plus signed that would be uncovered. They simply made the signings as late as possible to be financially prudent, and now would get hammered for that. If we could find a way around that little sting.

 

Thinking more broadly, if we’re heading back to isolation and boredom, would streaming fitba games not help people tolerate it better? If the SG is paying for part of the players, why not let the season go on, with support, and stream every damn game they can, gratis! Stagger the start times, mix up the days, broadcast the Pixellot feeds, whatever...it’s a distraction, which serves the SG purpose and it might gain a few fans for next season. Call it a public service, insane, perhaps, but what isn’t right now? Yes, it leaves the ST refund question out there and that’s a huge one, but surely something can be found to work it all out.

Edited September 24, 2020 by TxRover

[R.R.FC]

Is there any information from the Scottish Premiership teams on what the numbers for streaming have been so far?

Our owner said discussions with Dundee United at our recent friendly suggested they had been very surprised, in a positive way, with uptake for their streaming service.

Obviously there is the initial novelty factor which is likely to wear off as the season progresses and the lack of all other match day revenue in addition to tickets mean, of course, there will be a sizeable deficit. But it would be interesting to hear from the Premiership sides what the level of difference has been for them.

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 hours ago, TxRover said:

Now this is a measured response that make more sense, except for one small hole. Because preparations for the season are well along, a team like QoS who spent the summer with about three contracts now has another eight plus signed that would be uncovered. They simply made the signings as late as possible to be financially prudent, and now would get hammered for that. If we could find a way around that little sting.

 

Thinking more broadly, if we’re heading back to isolation and boredom, would streaming fitba games not help people tolerate it better? If the SG is paying for part of the players, why not let the season go on, with support, and stream every damn game they can, gratis! Stagger the start times, mix up the days, broadcast the Pixellot feeds, whatever...it’s a distraction, which serves the SG purpose and it might gain a few fans for next season. Call it a public service, insane, perhaps, but what isn’t right now? Yes, it leaves the ST refund question out there and that’s a huge one, but surely something can be found to work it all out.

Will SG also put on pantomimes at Christmas?

[The Ghost of B A R P]

4 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Will SG also put on pantomimes at Christmas?

Westminster govt does that so much better...

[TxRover]

5 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Will SG also put on pantomimes at Christmas?

Given the way some of the defenders look on crosses, I think that’s inherent. Now if you lot can rile up Davo we’ll get Punch and Judy too.

[vikingTON]

4 hours ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Who said anything about a ‘guarantee’? Some form of additional subsidy is on its way, which should rise or fall according to how viable it is to admit paying customers. No issue with it coming from the taxpayer.

I don't see anything of the sort. 

Quote

 

This isn’t about Charlie Haughey,* Charlie Adam, or some guy at Raith; it’s about survival, pure and simple.

 

* b*****d child of Willie Haughey and Charles Hawtrey, obvs...

Bollocks. It's about cutting your cloth in the middle of a pandemic instead of spending on the never-never and then holding your hand out for a government bailout three fucking months later, which is what you and half of Scottish football are bleating for right now. If Scottish football clubs did not take the hint from what happened in March and decided to plough on regardless then they don't deserve to survive. This 'free market when we want, socialism for when we've fucked ourselves over' mantra is just as risible when football clubs demand it as it was with the banks or any other sector of the economy. 

Unlike live events, Scottish football had a chance to adapt to a reduced income over the summer. If they've fucked it since then that is not the government's problem and they should be at the back of the queue for what limited support is available.

Edited September 24, 2020 by vikingTON

[The Ghost of B A R P]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

I don't see anything of the sort. 

Bollocks. It's about cutting your cloth in the middle of a pandemic instead of spending on the never-never and then holding your hand out for a government bailout three fucking months later, which is what you and half of Scottish football are bleating for right now. If Scottish football clubs did not take the hint from what happened in March and decided to plough on regardless then they don't deserve to survive. This 'free market when we want, socialism for when we've fucked ourselves over' mantra is just as risible when football clubs demand it as it was with the banks or any other sector of the economy. 

Unlike live events, Scottish football had a chance to adapt to a reduced income over the summer. If they've fucked it since then that is not the government's problem and they should be at the back of the queue for what limited support is available.

Bollocks right enough...

If crowds aren’t allowed back, there will be some kind of subsidy... and that is, unquestionably, the right outcome. If limited crowds are allowed, clubs will have to get on with it, dealing with the level of risk they took in the summer.

The only way clubs could have ‘planned’ for the absolute worst-case scenario would have been to lay off players and staff and say ‘we’re no playing’... and that would have meant throwing themselves on the mercy of the same SG you say shouldn’t be giving them a penny. There’s a difference between ‘adapting to a reduced income’ (which most have done) and adapting to fkn Armageddon.

The fact that _some_ clubs have recklessly committed more than they should have is close to irrelevant in comparison to the fact that _all_ clubs will be in dire straits if they can’t admit paying customers.

Giving, say, £150k to every club in the Championship (in the event that there are no crowds, the money distributed on a game-by-game basis) won’t save overspenders, but it will mean that the majority will get through the season. Scale it down for L1 and L2 and you’ll get change out of £4M... which is why comparing the bottom three divisions of Scottish football to the, eh... banks is a total nonsense, in terms equally of scale and culpability.

Edited September 24, 2020 by The Ghost of B A R P

[DA Baracus]

Where is this subsidy coming from?

[Sergeant Wilson]

26 minutes ago, The Ghost of B A R P said:

Bollocks right enough...

If crowds aren’t allowed back, there will be some kind of subsidy... and that is, unquestionably, the right outcome. If limited crowds are allowed, clubs will have to get on with it, dealing with the level of risk they took in the summer.

The only way clubs could have ‘planned’ for the absolute worst-case scenario would have been to lay off players and staff and say ‘we’re no playing’... and that would have meant throwing themselves on the mercy of the same SG you say shouldn’t be giving them a penny. There’s a difference between ‘adapting to a reduced income’ (which most have done) and adapting to fkn Armageddon.

The fact that _some_ clubs have recklessly committed more than they should have is close to irrelevant in comparison to the fact that _all_ clubs will be in dire straits if they can’t admit paying customers.

Giving, say, £150k to every club in the Championship (in the event that there are no crowds, the money distributed on a game-by-game basis) won’t save overspenders, but it will mean that the majority will get through the season. Scale it down for L1 and L2 and you’ll get change out of £4M... which is why comparing the bottom three divisions of Scottish football to the, eh... banks is a total nonsense, in terms equally of scale and culpability.

What about the divisions below the SPFL?

[Shandon Par]

15 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Where is this subsidy coming from?

DAFC Futsall GmbH will be lending it at a very reasonable rate.

[itzdrk]

29 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Where is this subsidy coming from?

Looks like UK Gov ruled out helping top level ('elite') clubs but not lower. 

Quote

...But the Celtic manager and other pleas look set to be ignored as UK sports minister Nigel Huddleston declared top tiers of professional sport will be expected to find ways to support themselves where possible during the coronavirus pandemic.

Huddleston told MPs the Government's focus will be helping "those most in need" within the sporting world, as he confirmed discussions with sports governing bodies are ongoing about further assistance...

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

8 hours ago, itzdrk said:

Looks like UK Gov ruled out helping top level ('elite') clubs but not lower. 

 

In England that elite is everything from National League North and South. Does Scotland have the same split? We have the Professional Game Board and the other one for non-league. League clubs already had the £50k charity donation. It's only fair the real diddies get the next hand out.

[RandomGuy.]

17 hours ago, R.R.FC said:

Is there any information from the Scottish Premiership teams on what the numbers for streaming have been so far?

I think the best spin you could put on it is that the losses haven't been as bad as expected.

It'll get worse when restricted crowds are allowed in (opening the stadium for non-paying fans will cost money) aswell.

Restricted crowds has to be a short phase.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

I think the best spin you could put on it is that the losses haven't been as bad as expected.

It'll get worse when restricted crowds are allowed in (opening the stadium for non-paying fans will cost money) aswell.

Restricted crowds has to be a short phase.

Restricted crowds, certainly restricted to below season ticket numbers, is a nightmare. It's adding a whole raft of work and costs for absolutely no extra income. From a club point of view closed door is better than nearly closed door is. We'd be better going directly from no crowd to full crowd with nothing in between but I appreciate that's not going to happen.

[SUPERSOUTH]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Restricted crowds, certainly restricted to below season ticket numbers, is a nightmare. It's adding a whole raft of work and costs for absolutely no extra income. From a club point of view closed door is better than nearly closed door is. We'd be better going directly from no crowd to full crowd with nothing in between but I appreciate that's not going to happen.

Said few weeks ago allowing only season ticket holders or less entry into games would add cost to likes of Queens on match days due to stewarding costs etc........... Hard times ahead for all clubs.. 

[Smokerson]

Hearing rumours the Highland League are about to cancel the season and look at things again in summer 2021.

[diegomarahenry]

As far as I could see it at the time, The October start was based on the Autumn flu season being underway across Europe and a decision could be made before the season started if it should take place. 

The drop in cases and the recovery in China has perhaps made some organisations over-confident that the worst had passed.  If there is a bailout for clubs, it will be because the government has demanded the season be ended which I don't think is likely to come. 

The ideal scenario would be, a limited amount of fans returning, socially distanced, all local and not using public transport, not shouting or standing in groups. Going from the game straight home. 

I would wager that within the first weekend, every one of these things would be breached by the majority of those attending. Students were told to act responsibly and not socialise. Look how well that went. 

The easing of restrictions was always supposed to be gradual and Schools/Uni's were always going to be given preference over crowds at sporting/music venues. The upsurge since schools have returned/people have returned to work was inevitable, maybe not as high as currently predicted but was always going to happen. 

To have Neil Lennon, the day after they were announcing a potential death toll of 200 a day if we don't tighten restrictions, asking for fans to return to stadiums was irresponsible at best.  

[No_Problemo]

1 hour ago, diegomarahenry said:

As far as I could see it at the time, The October start was based on the Autumn flu season being underway across Europe and a decision could be made before the season started if it should take place. 

The drop in cases and the recovery in China has perhaps made some organisations over-confident that the worst had passed.  If there is a bailout for clubs, it will be because the government has demanded the season be ended which I don't think is likely to come. 

The ideal scenario would be, a limited amount of fans returning, socially distanced, all local and not using public transport, not shouting or standing in groups. Going from the game straight home. 

I would wager that within the first weekend, every one of these things would be breached by the majority of those attending. Students were told to act responsibly and not socialise. Look how well that went. 

The easing of restrictions was always supposed to be gradual and Schools/Uni's were always going to be given preference over crowds at sporting/music venues. The upsurge since schools have returned/people have returned to work was inevitable, maybe not as high as currently predicted but was always going to happen. 

To have Neil Lennon, the day after they were announcing a potential death toll of 200 a day if we don't tighten restrictions, asking for fans to return to stadiums was irresponsible at best.  

I don’t think Lennon’s comments were irresponsible to be fair. Completely different if there had been 200 deaths and it wasn’t a prediction. Football fans in an open air stadium isn’t increasing any death toll. 

[diegomarahenry]

11 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

I don’t think Lennon’s comments were irresponsible to be fair. Completely different if there had been 200 deaths and it wasn’t a prediction. Football fans in an open air stadium isn’t increasing any death toll. 

Opening up another round of restrictions is going to increase the death toll, whether that is schools returning, pubs opening or football fans returning. The figures this week were a stark warning of what could be happening and the daily rise since then (today is the UK's highest figure to date) shows that it is realistic. 

Students going back was a big step and it is going very badly. 

To appeal to his support by saying he wan't fans in, Lennon put more pressure on the government to relax these rule...... because an official at Celtic says it is achievable because people can go on planes and stuff. It is about stopping the 200 daily deaths rather than wait till they happen. 

Is it safe for fans to go to an outdoor stadium, socially distance and have a low risk of catching anything? yes 

Is allowing thousands of fans to migrate across the country to go in to the same area, which they haven't been able to do since the start of the pandemic, going to increase infection rates? yes. Baring in mind some of the first clusters were caused by three sporting events. 

 

[No_Problemo]

Just now, diegomarahenry said:

Opening up another round of restrictions is going to increase the death toll, whether that is schools returning, pubs opening or football fans returning. The figures this week were a stark warning of what could be happening and the daily rise since then (today is the UK's highest figure to date) shows that it is realistic. 

Students going back was a big step and it is going very badly. 

To appeal to his support by saying he wan't fans in, Lennon put more pressure on the government to relax these rule...... because an official at Celtic says it is achievable because people can go on planes and stuff. It is about stopping the 200 daily deaths rather than wait till they happen. 

Is it safe for fans to go to an outdoor stadium, socially distance and have a low risk of catching anything? yes 

Is allowing thousands of fans to migrate across the country to go in to the same area, which they haven't been able to do since the start of the pandemic, going to increase infection rates? yes. Baring in mind some of the first clusters were caused by three sporting events. 

 

Schools opening, pubs opening and students returning are much much higher in terms of risk factor than going to the football. 

I don’t think there’s a particular issue with pressure being put on the government though, every business is advocating for itself so I don’t see why football shouldn’t. I think some form of pressure will be needed as cases lower again. 

Obviously agree with your last point that it would need to be done sensibly and locally though.