Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[johnnydun]

44 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I'm trying to think it through, and I'm not seeing huge problems, beyond what it costs us emotionally as fans.  

It leaves hundreds of people out of work.

[btb]

3 hours ago, Spikethedee said:

What about some kind of experiment? If, as seems likely, the 19/20 is called in the next few days, and we don't know how, when or if the 20/21 season will start, why not have a series of one day football festivals on streaming/pay-per-view?

 

Basic idea - four or five venues, with staggered kick-off times throughout a day or weekend. Local-ish teams, so you could have Dundee v Arbroath at 10am, Montrose v Brechin at 1pm, Dundee Utd v St Johnstone at 4pm, Brechin v Forfar at 7pm, all at the same stadium. One set of groundstaff/safety people etc so less risk of multiple people like that needed, teams staggered throughout the day to allow for cleaning of changing rooms etc. Revenue can be shared amongst all teams as a one-off trial to see if it would prove popular (obviously extra paid to the host club) and if doesn't get enough subscribers, then it can be seen as a notice that closed-door games aren't going to be a money spinner. Obviously you have teams clustered where possible to minimise travel as much as you can, Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Edinburgh, Forth Valley, Fife etc, so you get some derby games and possibly a bit more interest. Obviously, there are things to work out, but it's a basic idea that doesn't need all 42 clubs to have players signed for a season until we know what's going to happen.

Warm down after game,  staggered showring and changing, clean down between teams coming & going and again staggered changing and warm up. I doubt this could all be done in an hour. I'd say even starting at 10am you'd be looking at 3 matches maximum with the others starting at say 3pm & 8pm - more likely 2 per day per venue.

Edited May 15, 2020 by btb

[Parttimesupporter]

6 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Well its not quite that simple and they arent entirely different things.

First of all the Govt would have to either allow contact sport generally, or make a specific exemption for SPFL professional sport which would no doubt come with conditions such as testing, limited or no crowds, sanitised surroundings, perhaps certain neutral locations, etc

Then the SFA would have to lift the existing suspension of organised football in this country, thereby presumably also removing the ability of clubs to cancel existing contracts under the clause 12 you keep mentioning.

Then the SPFL would no doubt ask approval from their members, perhaps by division, to go back. I suspect the SPFL Board would make a proposal and ask members to vote on it. Pretty sure they cant unilaterally tell members they have to play. At the end of the day the Board is elected by and answerable to its members. If they act contrary to the wishes of most they would be replaced. 

In practice of course all of these things would happen pretty concurrently. The JAG is talking to the Govt daily already, the SFA and SPFL would work together on this and clubs would be kept in the loop. The league isnt likely to push for a formal restart without detail of what conditions would be and having already confirmed a majority of members are happy they can comply. Its inevitably likely to start at the top so Premiership clubs would have to go back first.

I get that a hell of a lot needs to happen before football is in a position to make a decision.  I also take the point that it would be daft for the SPFL Board to try and force teams to play, so maybe my original question is not that relevant.  However, I do wonder what happens when we reach the point that football is permitted behind closed doors.

It is reasonably likely that closed doors games will be allowed by the end of October subject to conditions, but I’m pretty sure we won’t have a date for games with fans by then.  The end of furlough means that clubs have to meet players' wages in full from that point on. 

A lot of clubs may conclude that the limited income from closed doors games isn't worth it and/or that they can't comply with the conditions.  However, they still have players to pay.

It’s reassuring that Queens are in a good position, but there must be a number of clubs outside the Premiership who could run out of cash pretty quickly.  Presumably clubs could make players redundant as a last resort?  I don’t envy directors having to work all this through, and the uncertainty must be pretty grim for players and their families.

I think I could do with a beer………………

 

[vikingTON]

8 minutes ago, Morton Supporter said:

Can anyone here tell me what the benefit is to getting back to playing football any time soon?

Even if you’re comfortable with the ethics of taking up testing capacity and health care resources, as well as asking people to pay on the back of swathes of unemployment and wage reductions - be that through gate receipts or streaming subscriptions - clubs will tie themselves into contracts and costs that they can otherwise avoid with the very real risk that restrictions return in their current which makes any football impossible.

So why bother? What is the benefit here, other than a bit of entertainment for one section of society?

For most clubs, it will be much safer for them to suspend their operations indefinitely. That of course won’t suit all clubs - particularly those committed to long-term contracts, ground leases or which have debts to service - but there isn’t a solution that suits all.

I appreciate, and sympathise, that this would effectively mean unemployment for a swathe of full-time players (and a significant reduction in income for part-time players) as well as club employees - but they could be looking at redundancies anyway if the game tries to restart in such uncertain circumstances.

Your indefinite suspension idea rests on the assumption that the virus is definitely going to stick around but then magically go away within a narrow timescale, presumably between 9 and 18 months' time from now. That's simply not something that the SPFL nor any competent chief executive can count on happening, which is why all possible options for resumption have to be explored as the situation and public health advice develops.

[johnnydun]

5 minutes ago, virginton said:

Your indefinite suspension idea rests on the assumption that the virus is definitely going to stick around but then magically go away within a narrow timescale, presumably between 9 and 18 months' time from now. That's simply not something that the SPFL nor any competent chief executive can count on happening, which is why all possible options for resumption have to be explored as the situation and public health advice develops.

After our fall out last week I find myself agreeing with you a lot today.

[Parttimesupporter]

1 hour ago, virginton said:

Incidentally, Morton's chief executive Dave McKinnon set out the current line of thinking about a restart in the local newspaper yesterday. It could just be his version of events but he has tacked fairly close to the most common stance of other SPFL clubs since the crisis began:

I'm not keen at all on the first phase of the restart as suggested above and also wonder if it makes sense to have games played in front of ST holders as well. For some clubs in the division that will be a significant amount but Morton themselves have never had a high season ticket uptake. If access is based on this current season's tickets (which had particularly piss-poor sales for a laundry list of reasons) then we would get very little return from it; if it is based on sales made later this year then what is there to stop any semi-casual fan getting a ticket and so negating the point of a limited crowd from a shan social distancing aim in the first place?

Dave McKinnon - 'I reckon we've got 10 weeks to get this sorted and know where we're going.

There are huge challenges for us. We're looking initially at games behind closed doors that would be streamed live, and introducing season ticket holders only, and then gradually bringing the public back in to watch the games.'

--------------------------------

I couldn't find the article on line so have a question.  Was it clear that by 'we' he meant Morton?   Celtic have over 50,000 season ticket holders so I can't see that working for them!  As others have said before the idea of a socially distanced crowd seems fraught with difficulty.   Where there is seating do fans have to enter and exit in order, and cross their legs if they need a pee?

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, johnnydun said:

Imo you charge just under a ticket price, so it comes a bit closer to real revenue.

I would happily pay £20 per week to watch Dundee on a live feed than £15 a month to watch some pish EPL game on BT sport.

Yes, but you, and all of us on here, are a million miles from typical.

This is madness.

[eindhovendee]

5 hours ago, Dele said:

What's happening to the proven, seasoned pros? 

Taken out the back.

[johnnydun]

4 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, but you, and all of us on here, are a million miles from typical.

This is madness.

How so? Are you saying if someone is not on a football forum they can't be as committed?

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

It would obviously be a matter of personal choice.  I’d happily do it if I thought the alternative was the club going bust, and make no mistake that will be a real alternative for many clubs.

 

But it's not going to be a stark, gun to the head 'do this, or the club gets it' ultimatum for any fanbase let alone fan.  

It's not as you portray it, and fans are generally less invested than many on here suppose.

[Derry Alli]

I think it's all good and well sitting on here saying that you'd happily chuck £500 at sitting in the house watching dodgy streams of soulless hoofba' football but when push come to shove I reckon about 2 folk would be silly enough to actually do that. 

And one of those would have their £500 note rejected. 

[johnnydun]

2 minutes ago, Dele said:

I think it's all good and well sitting on here saying that you'd happily chuck £500 at sitting in the house watching dodgy streams of soulless hoofba' football but when push come to shove I reckon about 2 folk would be silly enough to actually do that. 

And one of those would have their £500 note rejected. 

That's United fucked then .

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

How so? Are you saying if someone is not on a football forum they can't be as committed?

Of course not.

I am saying, however, that the more committed are generally likely to be found on a football forum.  Your club is very much bigger than mine, but we're still probably too few in number.

[vikingTON]

18 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said:

Dave McKinnon - 'I reckon we've got 10 weeks to get this sorted and know where we're going.

There are huge challenges for us. We're looking initially at games behind closed doors that would be streamed live, and introducing season ticket holders only, and then gradually bringing the public back in to watch the games.'

--------------------------------

I couldn't find the article on line so have a question.  Was it clear that by 'we' he meant Morton?   Celtic have over 50,000 season ticket holders so I can't see that working for them!  As others have said before the idea of a socially distanced crowd seems fraught with difficulty.   Where there is seating do fans have to enter and exit in order, and cross their legs if they need a pee?

It'll probably be posted on the Greenock Telegraph's online version in the next few days. As I said it isn't clear who he's speaking for but I'd assume that he's talking about Championship clubs alone or at most the lower three divisions. They're already been making decisions on a separate basis to the top flight, and the only other logic I can see in the season ticket idea is to stop hundreds of top flight fans rocking up at, say, Cliftonhill for a public match instead.

Edited May 15, 2020 by vikingTON

[johnnydun]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Of course not.

I am saying, however, that the more committed are generally likely to be found on a football forum.  Your club is very much bigger than mine, but we're still probably too few in number.

Your average gate for the season just past was around 1300, are you saying, globally, you couldn't find about 800 QOTS supporters to each pay £20, if this was the only way they could watch their team after months of no football?

[Granny Danger]

11 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

But it's not going to be a stark, gun to the head 'do this, or the club gets it' ultimatum for any fanbase let alone fan.  

It's not as you portray it, and fans are generally less invested than many on here suppose.

I’m not trying to portray it any way.  Fans will either be willing to make the necessary financial sacrifice or not.

[DA Baracus]

1 hour ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

We absolutely could. The far ends of both sides of the Cow Shed aren't busy. Sinclair Street end is, at best, a quarter full most days and the Wee Dublin End sits empty. When ICT or Alloa come through the small number of fans they bring practically social distance anyway.

Whether we would, or should, are different questions but we clearly could.

What was your average attendance last season? About 1800-2000? 

There is no way that many people could be 2m apart from everyone else in Cappielow. 

[Parttimesupporter]

15 minutes ago, virginton said:

It'll probably be posted on the Greenock Telegraph's online version in the next few days. As I said it isn't clear who he's speaking for but I'd assume that he's talking about Championship clubs alone or at most the lower three divisions. They're already been making decisions on a separate basis to the top flight, and the only other logic I can see in the season ticket idea is to stop hundreds of top flight fans rocking up at, say, Cliftonhill for a public match instead.

OK, thanks.  

[Granny Danger]

23 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Of course not.

I am saying, however, that the more committed are generally likely to be found on a football forum.  Your club is very much bigger than mine, but we're still probably too few in number.

I don’t want to give the appearance that I am disagreeing with you for the sake of it, but I think there’s as many committed fans who don’t post on football forums as do.

 

[RandomGuy.]

16 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

Your average gate for the season just past was around 1300, are you saying, globally, you couldn't find about 800 QOTS supporters to each pay £20, if this was the only way they could watch their team after months of no football?

Issues I see with this are older people having no interest in watching games on a laptop (my dads gone to Saints games with me regularly for about 15 years now, but hates watching games on TV).

Deduct them from your crowd.

You then have family groups (theres families of 4 around me who dont qualify for the free U12 deal). If they all live together then you're only getting the money for one person instead of four.

Deduct them.

A lot of International subscribers might exist, but currently they get charged about double UK customers. I dont know why but if theres a reason for that then you're having to charge them £160 a month to watch 4 games, that's about what Saints currently charge them for 12 months.

I cant see any way clubs make money off that without running amateur squads