ecto Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 19 hours ago, rb123! said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52881608 Positive discussions have taken place between SPFL and potential investor His investment will probably depend on reconstruction and Hearts staying up, maybe am just cynical 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1885 Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 A bribe it is then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 Paying for testing doesn't really help clubs, or doesn't really address the funding issues. Basically it's pointless if clubs are still able to generate matchday income as they were before. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 26 minutes ago, DA Baracus said: Paying for testing doesn't really help clubs, or doesn't really address the funding issues. Basically it's pointless if clubs are still able to generate matchday income as they were before. I can't see why not. The SPFL may put it that because they have made it safe to play by providing money for testing, clubs will not have an excuse not to play behind closed doors or not, as clubs will just have to budget for the new season accordingly as they do every season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainbowrising Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 9 minutes ago, johnnydun said: I can't see why not. The SPFL may put it that because they have made it safe to play by providing money for testing, clubs will not have an excuse not to play behind closed doors or not, as clubs will just have to budget for the new season accordingly as they do every season. Based on a feasible testing testing plan it could allow for at least a curtailed season of games. However, BCD and gate money is another issue for individual club incomes. I still don't know what the full plan is here (has it actually been outlined other than a significant, generous offer?) and will need the clubs to vote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 22 minutes ago, johnnydun said: I can't see why not. The SPFL may put it that because they have made it safe to play by providing money for testing, clubs will not have an excuse not to play behind closed doors or not, as clubs will just have to budget for the new season accordingly as they do every season. Because clubs can't afford to pay a full squad, all other staff and all other costs with no matchday income. Clubs budget based on having actual income. If games are in empty stadiums then the vast majority of clubs' income is gone. They'd pretty much have to play amateur players, and even then some clubs wouldn't be able to afford all the other costs. Why do you feel that clubs will somehow be able to afford to pay players, the manager, coaches, physios, groundsman, office staff, stadium running costs, player insurance, travelling costs etc just because someone will pay for testing? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, DA Baracus said: Paying for testing doesn't really help clubs, or doesn't really address the funding issues. Basically it's pointless if clubs are still able to generate matchday income as they were before. 29 minutes ago, johnnydun said: I can't see why not. The SPFL may put it that because they have made it safe to play by providing money for testing, clubs will not have an excuse not to play behind closed doors or not, as clubs will just have to budget for the new season accordingly as they do every season. Well it depends on circumstances obviously. If we take Dundee as an obvious example, they clearly already have a squad of enough players to field a team. They need paying anyway so thats a sunk cost. The marginal decision for Dundee if playing is whether the additional costs of doing so outweigh any additional income streams or at least get close enough their owner is prepared to subsidise. Whilst there will be training costs, kit costs, probably some stewarding and utility overheads, clearly the biggest cost factor in playing is the testing costs. If somebody else covers those its probably an easy call for Dundee. At the other end of the scale you have us and others who have almost no players, can mothball easily and for whom testing is only half the problem. It wont address the unnecessary expense of hiring players to play loss making games. I dont know where Dunfermline sit in squad size? I know they let everyone out of contract leave but dont know if they have enough players to field a team anyway? I imagine they are probably closer to us than Dundee and would still lose money playing but cant be sure. The budget for the season accordingly line doesnt really work if existing costs already exceed potential income anyway. Edited June 2, 2020 by Skyline Drifter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 4 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said: Well it depends on circumstances obviously. If we take Dundee as an obvious example, they clearly already have a squad of enough players to field a team. They need paying anyway so thats a sunk cost. The marginal decision for Dundee if playing is whether the additional costs of doing so outweigh any additional income streams or at least get close enough their owner is prepared to subsidise. Whilst there will be training costs, kit costs, probably some stewarding and utility overheads, clearly the biggest cost factor in playing is the testing costs. If somebody else covers those its probably an easy call for Dundee. At the other end of the scale you have us and others who have almost no players, can mothball easily and for whom testing is only half the problem. It wont address the unnecessary expense of hiring players to play loss making games. I dont know where Dunfermline sit in squad size? I know they let everyone out of contract leave but dont know if they have enough players to field a team anyway? I imagine they are probably closer to us than Dundee and would still lose money playing but cant be sure. The budget for the season accordingly line doesnt really work if existing costs already exceed potential income anyway. Think we have 10 players still at the club. Without outside subsidy (like a wealthy owner or the old 'local businessman' type) then I can't see how any club can afford to run when games are played in empty stadiums for a prolonged period, especially since many clubs don't have cash reserves and rely on income coming in before they can do things like make signings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 5 minutes ago, DA Baracus said: Because clubs can't afford to pay a full squad, all other staff and all other costs with no matchday income. Clubs budget based on having actual income. If games are in empty stadiums then the vast majority of clubs' income is gone. They'd pretty much have to play amateur players, and even then some clubs wouldn't be able to afford all the other costs. Why do you feel that clubs will somehow be able to afford to pay players, the manager, coaches, physios, groundsman, office staff, stadium running costs, player insurance, travelling costs etc just because someone will pay for testing? 2 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said: Well it depends on circumstances obviously. If we take Dundee as an obvious example, they clearly already have a squad of enough players to field a team. They need paying anyway so thats a sunk cost. The marginal decision for Dundee if playing is whether the additional costs of doing so outweigh any additional income streams or at least get close enough their owner is prepared to subsidise. Whilst there will be training costs, kit costs, probably some stewardimg and utility overheads, clearly the biggest cost factor in playing is the testing costs. If domebody else covers those its probably an easy call for Dundee. At the other end of the scale you have us and others who have almost no players, can mothball easily and for whom testing is only half the problem. It wont address the unnecessary expense of hiring players to play loss making games. I dont know where Dunfermline sit in squad size? I know they let everyone out of contract leave but dont know if they have enough players to field a team anyway? I imagine they are probably closer to us than Dundee and would still lose money playing but cant be sure. The budget for the season accordingly line doesnt really work if existing costs already exceed potential income anyway. If we know that fans will be allowed, say in January, then you have a budget of around 50% of what you would of had for the full season, not ideal, but a budget none the less. If the extreme case of no fans all season happens then the SPFL could argue, as has already been stated, that you could field a team of amateurs or part timers, again not ideal but you would still be able to field a squad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoBNob Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 17 hours ago, RiG said: Nah he's away, almost certainly off to Motherwell. 12 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said: Well it depends on circumstances obviously. If we take Dundee as an obvious example, they clearly already have a squad of enough players to field a team. They need paying anyway so thats a sunk cost. The marginal decision for Dundee if playing is whether the additional costs of doing so outweigh any additional income streams or at least get close enough their owner is prepared to subsidise. Whilst there will be training costs, kit costs, probably some stewarding and utility overheads, clearly the biggest cost factor in playing is the testing costs. If somebody else covers those its probably an easy call for Dundee. At the other end of the scale you have us and others who have almost no players, can mothball easily and for whom testing is only half the problem. It wont address the unnecessary expense of hiring players to play loss making games. I dont know where Dunfermline sit in squad size? I know they let everyone out of contract leave but dont know if they have enough players to field a team anyway? I imagine they are probably closer to us than Dundee and would still lose money playing but cant be sure. The budget for the season accordingly line doesnt really work if existing costs already exceed potential income anyway. Think we could field a side. Gill Comrie-Murray-Lang-Martin Dow-Turner-Todd-Edwards Nisbet-McGill Subs Allan, Bowman, McCann, Bragg, Berry, Fenton, Swinton It wouldn't be a good side, but it would be a side. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 49 minutes ago, johnnydun said: I can't see why not. The SPFL may put it that because they have made it safe to play by providing money for testing, clubs will not have an excuse not to play behind closed doors or not, as clubs will just have to budget for the new season accordingly as they do every season. I'm pretty sure that the "excuse" would be having no income, which in fairness seems a pretty good one to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 4 minutes ago, johnnydun said: If we know that fans will be allowed, say in January, then you have a budget of around 50% of what you would of had for the full season, not ideal, but a budget none the less. If the extreme case of no fans all season happens then the SPFL could argue, as has already been stated, that you could field a team of amateurs or part timers, again not ideal but you would still be able to field a squad. In the first scenario of empty stadium games until January it might be feasible, but would still be a struggle for many, perhaps most, clubs, and they'd have to run with a shit squad until January before they could make signings of decent players. This is due to aforementioned issue that clubs don't have cash reserves so need the money first before they can spend it. With the vast majority of their revenues cut it will be very hard to keep going. In your second scenario there is zero chance of clubs being able to run for a full season, even with amateur players, without significant subsidies from somewhere. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 20 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said: I would guess he is offering to fund covid testing in some manner...Anything on a grand scale would be positive... It better not be if we want to see football any time soon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 15 minutes ago, DA Baracus said: Think we have 10 players still at the club. Without outside subsidy (like a wealthy owner or the old 'local businessman' type) then I can't see how any club can afford to run when games are played in empty stadiums for a prolonged period, especially since many clubs don't have cash reserves and rely on income coming in before they can do things like make signings. 100% this. I'd also add that there won't be so much advertising money coming in as that will be the last thing in the minds of small local businesses who are the ones who tend to support clubs like our the most. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DA Baracus Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 Just now, WATTOO said: 100% this. I'd also add that there won't be so much advertising money coming in as that will be the last thing in the minds of small local businesses who are the ones who tend to support clubs like our the most. Yup, would imagine sponsorship will be significantly down. Folk say that you can have sponsors on streamed games, and they are correct, you can, but it would almost certainly not be for the same money as the number of eyes on it will be way down. Remember as well that with streamed games you're removing fully a quarter of the pitchside boards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyline Drifter Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, johnnydun said: If we know that fans will be allowed, say in January, then you have a budget of around 50% of what you would of had for the full season, not ideal, but a budget none the less. If the extreme case of no fans all season happens then the SPFL could argue, as has already been stated, that you could field a team of amateurs or part timers, again not ideal but you would still be able to field a squad. Sorry but that makes no sense at all. You cant do these things retrospectively. Firstly we cant "know" fans will be allowed in January. We can predict, plan and hope, but there may be a second spike, we may make slower progress than hoped. Dont know about Dundee but Dumfries has barely had any Covid. We have had less than 300 cases regionwide, and under 10 deaths. There is pretty much no immunity here and a countrywide easing of lockdown is likely to send us into a localised spike at least. Then we have no crowds and where is your 50% budget? You have to pay your pro players now when you hire them. You cant tell them we arent going to pay you for 6 months but if all goes to plan we will have crowds in January and we will pay you then. And yoy certainly cant go back in time if there are no crowds in January and hire amateurs instead. And what exactly is the point of lining up amateur players against the likes of Steven Naismith and Graham Dorrans anyway? As bad as Hearts were last season, does anybody really want to see them beating teams of kids 10-0 every other week? You wont sell many closed door online subs to watch that! Edited June 2, 2020 by Skyline Drifter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 1 minute ago, Skyline Drifter said: Sorry but that makes no sense at all. You cant do these things retrospectively. Firstly we cant "know" fans will be allowed in January. We can predict, plan and hope, but there may be a secknd spike, we may make slower progress than hoped. Dont know about Dundee but Dumfries has barely had any Covid. We have had less than 300 cases regionwide, and under 10 deaths. There is pretty much no immunity here and a countrywide easing of lockdown is likely to send us into a localised spike at least. Then we have no crowds and where is your 50% budget? You have to pay your pro players now when you hire them. You cant tell them we arent going to pay you for 6 months but if all goes to plan we will have crowds in January and we will pay you then. And yoy certainly cant go back in time if there are no crowds in January and hire amateurs instead. And what exactly is the point of lining up amateur players against the likes of Steven Naismith and Graham Dorrans anyway? As bad as Hearts were last season, does anybody really want to see them beating teams of kids 10-0 every other week? You wont sell many closed door online subs to watch that! Of course you can, it's Scottish football, anything goes if the votes are there..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 4 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said: Firstly we cant "know" fans will be allowed in January This was a hypothetical statement about a January start for fans. 6 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said: what exactly is the point of lining up amateur players I am just trying to point out that the SPFL could argue that you could field a team. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 4 hours ago, johnnydun said: I can't see why not. The SPFL may put it that because they have made it safe to play by providing money for testing, clubs will not have an excuse not to play behind closed doors or not, as clubs will just have to budget for the new season accordingly as they do every season. Yes, they'll just have to budget for having virtually no income. Don't be daft. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnydun Posted June 2, 2020 Share Posted June 2, 2020 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: Yes, they'll just have to budget for having virtually no income. Don't be daft. Well that's not true is it. What was the prize money for finishing bottom of the Championship last season? £175k? Edited June 2, 2020 by johnnydun 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.