Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Guest Flash]

10 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said:

https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-clubs-reject-call-for-inquiry

Murdoch MacLennan - "In reality, we must do everything humanly possible to get games back up and running by the end of July."

There seems to be a consensus that games with fans are unlikely until towards the end of 2020, and more likely until early 2021.  There also seems to be a consensus that creating significant new income streams is going to be very difficult for a lot of clubs, making it hard to see how they can afford to field teams until fans return.

Obviously the SPFL desperately needs the Premiership to start ASAP to avoid Sky pulling the plug on the TV deal, or at least negotiating the terms down to take account of a loss of games in 2019/20 and a delay in 2020/21.  Equally obviously that will involve games behind closed doors.   

The interesting question is what happens in the other leagues? It's reasonable to assume that almost all clubs in Leagues 1/2 will prefer to delay the start of the league season until fans are allowed back, and that would also mean delaying the start of the cups.   Being realistic (optimistic even) there could be a season with 2 rounds of games in the leagues plus the cups.

The Championship is messier.  Some teams are likely to prefer putting the Championship into hibernation until games with fans are allowed, but we have the obvious problem of how many fans might be allowed with social distancing if measures are relaxed.  Other clubs may take a different view, and want to start straight away.  That could be driven by the fact that they have a fair number of players under contract and/or a belief that they can generate income through live streaming of games on their platforms.

Lots of players' contracts are about to run out.  Could the SPFL Board get to a position where they have to ask who is prepared to play in the Championship?  The fun could then begin as we could easily see the likes of Queens, Arbroath and Alloa say that they no desire to risk their future by saying 'yes' with the likes of Partick and Falkirk saying they will give it a go.

Thoughts?  

 

 

 

 

Clubs would have to sign the players they could afford in the period to the next window opening in January. So, if they were forced to play behind closed doors, they’d need to play their youth teams or other lower paid players. They would then try to sign “normal” players in January. It would mean the clubs who had to do that would be the main candidates for relegation, obviously.

If we took no points in the first half of the season with the youth team, if we sign the same level of full-time professional players that we had from January, everything else being equal, we’ll have 3 points after 28 games.

[rb123!]

It's jis lies, lies an moar lies. 

Ah think thit Rb123 is actually Scot Gertnir. 

Yes it is, I shall use this page as evidence to give to all the clubs as to begin an inquiry against the spfl and the daily record!

 

It's outrageous that Partick Thistle fans whish clubs to go bust!

[DA Baracus]

Games in empty stadiums is a total non starter. It just isn't affordable at all. Anyone who thinks clubs can make up any lost income through streaming games is either hopelessly naive or not being realistic.

Given all the issues, the only options are to start in January with a shortened season or cancel 20/21 altogether.

[Parttimesupporter]

50 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

First things first, before we get ahead of ourselves, the present media rights do not allow clubs to sell domestic live stream coverage of their games in the UK. I appreciate in a circumstance of no crowds, then this may need to be renegotiated but as it stands they can only stream outside the UK. The broadcast deal with Sky won't allow for coverage at all on games they choose to take so, given the vast majority of those will be Celtic and Rangers, it's unlikely the main obvious rights sellers would be able to sell much at all. Nor would home clubs be able to sell online their most marketable fixtures.

Personally I think closed door football for anything other than maybe finishing this season's Premiership, is a non starter or a very short term basis for next season maybe (half a dozen games at most). I don't see it remotely feasible for Championship clubs to play closed door, the bigger the club the more difficult it will be as their crowds will make up a greater percentage of their income.

If the Premiership feel that economically it's less damaging to play closed door than not at all, they would presumably be quite within their rights to want 100% of any tv money going for that period as they'll be ones losing money to minimise whole league losses. That presumably cuts income for all non Premiership clubs. There are an awful lot of hurdles to cross before the Premiership can consider playing closed doors I suspect. That's before we consider if it's even safe for it to do so. Even the English Premiership has confirmed play won't be possible before mid June. We're further behind according to the Scottish Govt. Murdoch is optimistically looking at end of July. I don't see finishing last season for the top level, even closed door, is terribly likely. Too many player contract issues to conquer by then.

First things first - I think we agree that the chance of any more games this season in Scotland is nil.

Point noted on media rights, but in this debate I want us to focus purely on the Championship.  Sky may have an interest here but it will be limited, so if clubs feel that they can monetise games I can't really see Sky standing in their way.   

There is absolutely no doubt that the SPFL intend to start games ASAP, and by definition these will be behind closed doors at the start.  If we don't Sky may well pull the plug.  It is equally certain that the decision to move from closed doors to games with fans will not lie with the SPFL alone.  It is likely that there will be a move from no fans to limited fans to no restriction on fans, but that could take a long time and there is a serious risk that we could move forward and poor health data could lead to backward steps.  This is scary stuff.

I totally understand why going into hibernation is the right thing for Queens to do.  Clubs like Dundee and Dunfermline may have a different view.

 

 

[DA Baracus]

3 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said:

First things first - I think we agree that the chance of any more games this season in Scotland is nil.

Point noted on media rights, but in this debate I want us to focus purely on the Championship.  Sky may have an interest here but it will be limited, so if clubs feel that they can monetise games I can't really see Sky standing in their way.   

There is absolutely no doubt that the SPFL intend to start games ASAP, and by definition these will be behind closed doors at the start.  If we don't Sky may well pull the plug.  It is equally certain that the decision to move from closed doors to games with fans will not lie with the SPFL alone.  It is likely that there will be a move from no fans to limited fans to no restriction on fans, but that could take a long time and there is a serious risk that we could move forward and poor health data could lead to backward steps.  This is scary stuff.

I totally understand why going into hibernation is the right thing for Queens to do.  Clubs like Dundee and Dunfermline may have a different view.

 

 

Why?

[Parttimesupporter]

18 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Games in empty stadiums is a total non starter. It just isn't affordable at all. Anyone who thinks clubs can make up any lost income through streaming games is either hopelessly naive or not being realistic.

Given all the issues, the only options are to start in January with a shortened season or cancel 20/21 altogether.

Just to be clear, do you mean from the point of view of the Championship or Scottish football?  Reason I ask is that there is absolutely no doubt that the SPFL know that games with fans is not an option and that they are talking about starting ASAP.  FWIW I think this is short hand for them only being interested in the 'big hitters' and they don't care about the diddy teams.

[DA Baracus]

6 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said:

Just to be clear, do you mean from the point of view of the Championship or Scottish football?  Reason I ask is that there is absolutely no doubt that the SPFL know that games with fans is not an option and that they are talking about starting ASAP.  FWIW I think this is short hand for them only being interested in the 'big hitters' and they don't care about the diddy teams.

At least Championship down, but probably the Premiership too.

[Parttimesupporter]

1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

At least Championship down, but probably the Premiership too.

Nope - Premiership games will start as soon as the SPFL get the nod from the government.

One of the SPFL board's key arguments for ending this season was that it could not delay the start of next season, or the Sky contract would be in jeopardy.  Games have to be played in the top league in August or it could be 'Armageddon', to coin a phrase.  The fact that closed door games are not economical for some teams is an issue.

My cynical prediction - games behind closed doors and the home team is allowed to stream the game unless the game is on Sky.   Hamilton v Celtic on Sky - tough shit for Hamilton who miss out the away support.  Celtic v Hamilton - happy days for Celtic. 

I think we all know that the 2019/20 season is done.  If broadcasters ask for their £10m back (or even half of it) then there is very little left in the pot even if Sky pay their first instalment of £12.3m to keep the lights on.

[rb123!]

1 hour ago, DA Baracus said:

Games in empty stadiums is a total non starter. It just isn't affordable at all. Anyone who thinks clubs can make up any lost income through streaming games is either hopelessly naive or not being realistic.

I reckon this is where Doncaster & Co hope the Scottish Goverment is going to step in with a substancial financial support package which they can dish out to all the clubs to try and make it not as punishing financially to play behind closed doors.

I'm aware that would probably require a substantial financial package from govt, probably in the millions?? if it was to cover almost a whole season behind closed doors. The reality unfortunately is if Scottish Football gets anything, it'll be peanuts. 

I'm in no way a financial guru so that's a guess as to how much money would be required to compensate clubs for not getting match income for possibly near enough a whole season, maybe @Skyline Drifter would have a rough idea.

[Skyline Drifter]

36 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said:

I totally understand why going into hibernation is the right thing for Queens to do.  Clubs like Dundee and Dunfermline may have a different view.

I have my doubts. I think it will be worse for the likes of Dundee and Dunfermline who make up a bigger percentage of their income from matchday income. However, I say that without knowing what their existing player contract commitment is for next season so it's with a caveat.

I still think playing closed door for more than a handful of games is a complete non starter in the Championship. It's more likely to be feasible at a part time / amateur level so I wouldn't completely rule it out below the Championship but the problem inevitably remains that in a League scenario, everyone plays or nobody does. It's going to be much more costly for a Thistle or Falkirk to play closed door (assuming they remain full time) than for an Annan Athletic or Albion Rovers to do so.

32 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said:

Just to be clear, do you mean from the point of view of the Championship or Scottish football?  Reason I ask is that there is absolutely no doubt that the SPFL know that games with fans is not an option and that they are talking about starting ASAP.  FWIW I think this is short hand for them only being interested in the 'big hitters' and they don't care about the diddy teams.

 

5 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said:

Nope - Premiership games will start as soon as the SPFL get the nod from the government.

One of the SPFL board's key arguments for ending this season was that it could not delay the start of next season, or the Sky contract would be in jeopardy.  Games have to be played in the top league in August or it could be 'Armageddon', to coin a phrase.  The fact that closed door games are not economical for some teams is an issue.

My cynical prediction - games behind closed doors and the home team is allowed to stream the game unless the game is on Sky.   Hamilton v Celtic on Sky - tough shit for Hamilton who miss out the away support.  Celtic v Hamilton - happy days for Celtic. 

I think we all know that the 2019/20 season is done.  If broadcasters ask for their £10m back (or even half of it) then there is very little left in the pot even if Sky pay their first instalment of £12.3m to keep the lights on.

I think you are reading too much into the inevitably necessary public "hopes" of figureheads. The numbers in England are massively bigger and even they are still far from certain to start as soon as they can. If it costs more to play than not to play we'll not be playing no matter what they say right now. I'm not remotely convinced we'll play "as soon as we get a nod from the Govt". It's critical that we start next season as soon as they economically can, that's part of the reason why this season needed to be ended. However, that's not the same thing.

It's as likely to be "Armageddon" with games played closed door as it is with them not played at all unless the Govt are going to underwrite it in some way. Sky contracts for next year can be renogotiated. They've not paid any of that yet. If it's delayed then it's delayed. Sky will still want to show it when it comes back, albeit there will likely be a renegotiation of terms and potentially some adjustment to reflect the incomplete portion of the last deal. If they physically need the £10m back as soon as the Premiership is called off then the Premiership clubs would be quite within their rights, and almost certainly would, to require the other thirty clubs to refund their percentage of prize money too. It's much more likely it will come into a renegotiation of the next deal surely? It's not in Sky's interest to bankrupt the SPFL either.

Any streaming deal would surely have to be more pooled in some way but I don't know where you'd start with the negotiations. Any pooled approach will be resisted by the OF inevitably whilst your approach would massively benefit the OF. Furthermore, if the tv deal is being fulfilled only by the Premiership clubs and the rest aren't playing, the Premiership clubs would surely want ALL of the money. Thereby removing all football income from the other 30.

There will be a lot of big and complicated decisions to be made but I think we're a long way away from just restarting closed door as soon as the Govt says we can, which is in itself likely to be a while away anyway.

[Skyline Drifter]

9 minutes ago, rb123! said:

I reckon this is where Doncaster & Co hope the Scottish Goverment is going to step in with a substancial financial support package which they can dish out to all the clubs to try and make it not as punishing financially to play behind closed doors.

I'm aware that would probably require a substantial financial package from govt, probably in the millions?? if it was to cover almost a whole season behind closed doors. The reality unfortunately is if Scottish Football gets anything, it'll be peanuts. 

I'm in no way a financial guru so that's a guess as to how much money would be required to compensate clubs for not getting match income for possibly near enough a whole season, maybe @Skyline Drifter would have a rough idea.

It would presumably be massive. The problem is there's no fair way to establish it either. What clubs lose by playing closed door isn't central funding, it's their own specific income. Depends what prices they charge, what crowds they get, how profitable their hospitality is, whether they can sell pitch advertising with no crowds about (seems unlikely outside the Premiership grounds for tv games), etc, etc, etc. I imagine Celtic and Rangers probably pull in something like £1m per home game ballpark, probably more . Factor back for clubs progressively. I wouldn't like to even hazard a guess but it would be several million a week presumably to be "cost neutral".

Of course it's never in a million years going to be cost neutral..........

[Homer Thompson]

1 hour ago, Parttimesupporter said:

First things first - I think we agree that the chance of any more games this season in Scotland is nil.

Point noted on media rights, but in this debate I want us to focus purely on the Championship.  Sky may have an interest here but it will be limited, so if clubs feel that they can monetise games I can't really see Sky standing in their way.   

There is absolutely no doubt that the SPFL intend to start games ASAP, and by definition these will be behind closed doors at the start.  If we don't Sky may well pull the plug.  It is equally certain that the decision to move from closed doors to games with fans will not lie with the SPFL alone.  It is likely that there will be a move from no fans to limited fans to no restriction on fans, but that could take a long time and there is a serious risk that we could move forward and poor health data could lead to backward steps.  This is scary stuff.

I totally understand why going into hibernation is the right thing for Queens to do.  Clubs like Dundee and Dunfermline may have a different view.

 

 

The media rights issues around not being able to stream games to the UK are not connected to Sky. SD is referring to the media rights granted by the SPFL to the clubs. They're pretty clear and cover all the divisions. 

If games were to be played behind closed doors, you'd like to think that common sense would prevail and those rights would be changed.

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, Mr X said:

The media rights issues around not being able to stream games to the UK are not connected to Sky. SD is referring to the media rights granted by the SPFL to the clubs. They're pretty clear and cover all the divisions. 

If games were to be played behind closed doors, you'd like to think that common sense would prevail and those rights would be changed.

Absolutely true, but it's all connected. Sky will absolutely be able to veto the streaming of any game they want to actually cover, which will mean those clubs featured live can't sell their rights while other clubs can. It's not impossible they may have an interest in showing the odd Hearts game. BT covered the Dundee derbys this past season. You also won't be able to stream games being played at the same time as a live Sky game. Not sure how that may also affect the Sky coverage of English games. It may not, but I'm not at all certain. It's also (I think) illegal to broadcast live between 3pm and 5pm on a Saturday currently, albeit I imagine that would quickly be changed temporarily if it had to be.

It's a lot more complex than just changing a rule but yes, you'd have to assume if crowds were not allowed something would be done to allow for fans to see the games, at worst on a delayed coverage.

[rb123!]

18 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

It would presumably be massive. The problem is there's no fair way to establish it either. What clubs lose by playing closed door isn't central funding, it's their own specific income. Depends what prices they charge, what crowds they get, how profitable their hospitality is, whether they can sell pitch advertising with no crowds about (seems unlikely outside the Premiership grounds for tv games), etc, etc, etc. I imagine Celtic and Rangers probably pull in something like £1m per home game ballpark, probably more . Factor back for clubs progressively. I wouldn't like to even hazard a guess but it would be several million a week presumably to be "cost neutral".

Of course it's never in a million years going to be cost neutral..........

Yeah it's not going to be easy at all, plus the clubs at our level which have big stadiums will have much higher stadium running costs and make a substancial amount from hospitality meaning no fans which result in a higher amount of money not being pulled in for the club. 

Would a neutral venue solution up here be of any benefit to clubs instead of using their own grounds. That would possibly be more feasible if were only doing that for one Scottish league but for all 4 leagues would be impossible to organise. 

[Skyline Drifter]

Just now, rb123! said:

Yeah it's not going to be easy at all, plus the clubs at our level which have big stadiums will have much higher stadium running costs and make a substancial amount from hospitality meaning no fans which result in a higher amount of money not being pulled in for the club. 

Would a neutral venue solution up here be of any benefit to clubs instead of using their own grounds. That would possibly be more feasible if were only doing that for one Scottish league but for all 4 leagues would be impossible to organise. 

Games will cost the same to put on no matter where you play them. Size isn't an issue when there's no crowd anyway. It's not cheaper to use a neutral venue. The reasons for neutral venue proposals in England were mainly because police were concerned about the gathering of people around those stadiums such as the London ones, Liverpool ones, Newcastle, Manchester, etc which are in the middle of cities. It's easier to control crowd gathering if the stadium is on the outskirts at an industrial estate location. That may or may not be also relevant here (Celtic and Rangers grounds are certainly in the middle of residential areas) but it's not a cost factor, except I suppose if the policing costs would be higher.

In practical terms of course with Scotland being smaller, and the vast majority of clubs and their players in a relatively small geographical area, a neutral venue would work better here. Obviously the likes of ICT, Ross County, Elgin, Aberdeen, the Tayside clubs, Stranraer, us, Annan, etc would be more inconvenienced by such an arrangement but it's not a massive deal and only two or three of those clubs are Premiership. But I don't really see it being massively important, certainly not in economic debates. As a safety concern maybe.

 

[SUPERSOUTH]

Can clubs extend the contract of players that are out of contract in June but want to keep them and continue their furlough till possibly October? 

Edited May 13, 2020 by SUPERSOUTH

[D'Jaffo]

Can clubs extend the players that are out of contract in June but want to keep them and continue their furlough till possibly October? 

Under normal circumstances I believe it has to be until at least January.

 

However iirc Falkirk offered Denny Johnstone a one month deal last summer for him to prove his fitness. No idea how they did that though.

 

Edit: Just realised I’ve totally misread your question. Itzdrk is right I think.

[itzdrk]

2 hours ago, SUPERSOUTH said:

Can clubs extend the contract of players that are out of contract in June but want to keep them and continue their furlough till possibly October? 

Any employee that gets their contract extended while on furlough can remain on it, any new player would have to be paid. 

[itzdrk]

I wonder what will eventually come out of Inverness.  

Given what the Morton chairman (and others) have said it's obvious something is no right up there. 

Inverness seem pretty adamant they had no part or plans to be part of such a proposal, so had Gardiner gone rogue in this regard when he mentioned it to other member clubs? 

His behaviour throughout the whole thing has been suspect ever since the start of his radio interview the day after the vote. 

[Guest Flash]

8 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Absolutely true, but it's all connected. Sky will absolutely be able to veto the streaming of any game they want to actually cover, which will mean those clubs featured live can't sell their rights while other clubs can. It's not impossible they may have an interest in showing the odd Hearts game. BT covered the Dundee derbys this past season. You also won't be able to stream games being played at the same time as a live Sky game. Not sure how that may also affect the Sky coverage of English games. It may not, but I'm not at all certain. It's also (I think) illegal to broadcast live between 3pm and 5pm on a Saturday currently, albeit I imagine that would quickly be changed temporarily if it had to be.

It's a lot more complex than just changing a rule but yes, you'd have to assume if crowds were not allowed something would be done to allow for fans to see the games, at worst on a delayed coverage.

UEFA lifted the broadcasting restriction for the remainder of 2019/20 at the request of the FA and SFA at the beginning of April. Presumably they would also do this if the circumstances were the same at the start of next season.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52161561

 

 

Edited May 13, 2020 by Flash