Jump to content
Granny Danger

Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, super_carson said:

 

 

I’m not denying your point, I was just more speaking about Scotland as a whole, if it was at a negligible rate throughout entire country (ifs and buts, I know). Of course, the scenario you’re discussing is just as applicable even if we have no return to football.

 

 

Just taking my own job as a comparison...I’ll be back teaching pupils in August, yet testing will be only available to me should I (or a colleague/pupil) develop symptoms. It might be there is less demand for testing in the wider population, if those rates were falling. Some of that could be allocated to professions where it would deem necessary (professional sport seemingly the only sector I can see where everyone connected is to be tested at set regular intervals ).

 

Yes, all very fair, albeit I'm not sure it's "just as applicable" even with no return to football. It's widely suspected that the large spike in cases in Liverpool early on for instance was as a result of their Champions League match going ahead just before lockdown and several thousand infected Spaniards appearing. We're obviously not talking about the same scales but one of the likelier ways a large spike might occur would be a mass migration of, for instance, a couple of thousand Hearts fans (boycotts and reconstruction bribes notwithstanding) or even 400 - 500 Ayr fans appearing in Dumfries for football. It's likely to be a bigger problem than day trippers, shoppers and holidaymakers. Of course that risk only increases when crowds are allowed. Even without crowds though there is a required amount of physical contact in football that doesn't really occur in most other occupations and if it does then PPE can be worn which it can't be in sport.

I absolutely take the point about teaching and other jobs though. My day job has never been closed as such (although most of the staff have been able to work from home). I've largely had to isolate as my children were high risk though their category has now been reduced. I started working through the night in the office when nobody else was here instead of when others were around but that will imminently have to change. I also haven't been able to visit clients since March and have a backlog of work to do now that will be a major problem. Yet as you say I won't be tested when I go back to it. The difference I guess is that in theory at least it's possible to maintain a bit of social distancing when working in an office environment (less so teaching)  that simply isn't the case with a professional contact sport. Ironically it's conceivable that my voluntary role at Queen of the South might actually see me tested anyway.

Edited by Skyline Drifter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, all very fair, albeit I'm not sure it's "just as applicable" even with no return to football. It's widely suspected that the large spike in cases in Liverpool early on for instance was as a result of their Champions League match going ahead just before lockdown and several thousand infected Spaniards appearing. We're obviously not talking about the same scales but one of the likelier ways a large spike might occur would be a mass migration of, for instance, a couple of thousand Hearts fans (boycotts and reconstruction bribes notwithstanding) or even 400 - 500 Ayr fans appearing in Dumfries for football. It's likely to be a bigger problem than day trippers, shoppers and holidaymakers. Of course that risk only increases when crowds are allowed. Even without crowds though there is a required amount of physical contact in football that doesn't really occur in most other occupations and if it does then PPE can be worn which it can't be in sport.
I absolutely take the point about teaching and other jobs though. My day job has never been closed as such (although most of the staff have been able to work from home). I've largely had to isolate as my children were high risk though their category has now been reduced. I started working through the night in the office when nobody else was here instead of when others were around but that will imminently have to change. I also haven't been able to visit clients since March and have a backlog of work to do now that will be a major problem. Yet as you say I won't be tested when I go back to it. The difference I guess is that in theory at least it's possible to maintain a bit of social distancing when working in an office environment (less so teaching)  that simply isn't the case with a professional contact sport. Ironically it's conceivable that my voluntary role at Queen of the South might actually see me tested anyway.



All good points, and I guess that’s where limits on crowd sizes/distanced terraces etc. should be looked at.

We are dealing with hypotheticals. Perhaps it’s my own bias as a football fan/sporty person that (again, hypothetically) there could still be measures put in place that could take away these interests from us in the long term (for example, a deferred season, bust clubs etc.) and I don’t see government support forthcoming.

Of course there are more important things (the health of your kids, being an excellent example) but it’s still a part of our daily lives that could be being removed from us due to (what could be construed) as potentially unnecessary restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would I pay to watch 11 fans from each team (Minimum total pack weight of 175 stone) bumble about the park scything each other down at every opportunity? Yes, yes I would. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alert Mongoose said:

Would I pay to watch 11 fans from each team (Minimum total pack weight of 175 stone) bumble about the park scything each other down at every opportunity? Yes, yes I would. 

Didnt you get enough of that when Mohsni played for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr X said:

Didnt you get enough of that when Mohsni played for you?

Leave Bilel alone you bully. He was actually one of our better players during that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 14 team top flight gets pushed through because of this new “investment” it will just typify the shit show that is Scottish football. It’s been farcical from start to finish during this covid situation. Fcking soap opera  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AyrExile said:

You obviously missed the part about regional hubs being set up to avoid all clubs splashing out on a machine. Would guess Annan or Brechin’s costs might be a bit less than Ross County 

You've both missed the part about McGregor being a blethering old goat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the SPFL are tacitly signalling that rules are irrelevant and can be disregarded for a price, how much money would it take to expand the league to 16 and just hand Dundee FC the title? While we're at it, I'd also like to know how much it would cost to simply have Rangers expelled from the league permanently.

Edited by Boo Khaki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Actually in theory I'd imagine part time is a problem. Part of the plan for a return to full time football is that players should isolate and not make contact with anyone else outside their household when they are not training and playing. If you are a part time footballer and that's not your main source of income you physically can't do that.

Of course it will cost less than before but it's far from as simple as "we'll just field 18 amateurs then". Firstly there remains the issue of all the existing players with contracts in place. I accept that problem remains whether we play or don't but if we don't play there is probably grounds to make them redundant. If we are playing you'd have a difficult job making them redundant and then replacing them with cheaper players.

Also, if you do field a side packed out with amateurs, it's reasonably unlikely we'll be able to field the same quality for next to nil wages. A lot of better players will simply drop out of the game, certainly the full time game, and pick up other work. It's not inconceivable for instance that a club like us effectively fields something akin to last season's reserve squad, which finished bottom and won one game all season in the Reserve League. Does anyone really want to watch that team get ragdolled by Hearts or Dundee's full team with internationals in it? With the greatest of respect to our young lads, they were losing by 5 or 6 to other reserve squads sometimes. Are people really going to pay to watch that online? 36-0 might be in danger!

And whether people like it or not, it's NOT just about getting a team on the pitch and no more. Apart from testing there are other incidental costs in playing a football match that don't occur if you don't play. First aiders, some degree of stewarding / security (even if it's only to keep people out), heat and light for floodlights, showers (if they are allowed to shower on the premises), pitch maintenance, training facility costs, kit, laundry, potentially other matchday staffing (although for us that's largely volunteers), all the additional sanitisation processes that will be required, etc. That doesn't come for buttons and will certainly result on a few thousand pounds a game.

I don't think it's likely they would be any less to be honest except insofar as the squad sizes are presumably smaller and therefore testing in total would be lower. Regional hubs is a bit of a red herring in Scotland's extreme areas anyway. I guess Annan might be obliged to play at Palmerston if that's the case whilst we're closed door anyway. It's only going to result in a slight split of costs though. There's nobody else near the two of us in SPFL football. 

My main concern is that the REASON infection rates are negligible in rural areas like Dumfries and to an extent Ayr is because it's never really been here in the first place and we largely locked down before it reached us in exactly the same way as London didn't! As a result we've avoided getting much infection here but it didn't wash past and won't return. There's no herd immunity at all in these areas and when lockdown is eased it will almost certainly result in localised infection rate increases in those areas.

This type of situation is unprecedented and most football clubs just aren’t really built to withstand. Can’t say I expect every team to get going again however this cash should make it easier for some. Whilst fans may not be allowed into the ground income could be had from season tickets, donations, cash from the league, sponsorship, lottery and directors putting cash in. I noticed today Thistle had been given £150,000 from their fans over the last few months. For some clubs this will cover the incidental costs you mention plus pay for some sort of wages. I also think the fans realise the severity of this situation, will cut some slack about the quality and end up stepping up to help their clubs.  For the good of the game as many teams need to keep playing as possible. For the rest the 50k will help with costs whilst in hibernation. The regional hubs I am referring to are testing centres and not ground sharing as mooted before. Was talk of clubs using these on a local level to avoid the outlay if a machine 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Alert Mongoose said:

Would I pay to watch 11 fans from each team (Minimum total pack weight of 175 stone) bumble about the park scything each other down at every opportunity? Yes, yes I would. 

😳 ^^^ EastEnders fan found. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

While we're at it, I'd also like to know how much it would cost to simply have Rangers expelled from the league permanently.

To get the ball rolling for the last version only cost a pound.

 

murray2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not really been following this debate to be honest so forgive me but have I missed something or am I being really fucking stupid?

£2 million divided by 42 is nearly £48k. Every club in the current SPFL would receive the same amount, presumably so one club can be kept in the enlarged top division. One "needy" club uses it to cover Scott Browns wages for a fortnight & another club in desperate need has just spent £3 million on one player. 

Am I correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, da_no_1 said:

I've not really been following this debate to be honest so forgive me but have I missed something or am I being really fucking stupid?

£2 million divided by 42 is nearly £48k. Every club in the current SPFL would receive the same amount, presumably so one club can be kept in the enlarged top division. One "needy" club uses it to cover Scott Browns wages for a fortnight & another club in desperate need has just spent £3 million on one player. 

Am I correct?

You're correct in that what you've posted is one of the completely unsourced rumours spinning around currently. Whether correct as to the actuality: probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, da_no_1 said:

I've not really been following this debate to be honest so forgive me but have I missed something or am I being really fucking stupid?

£2 million divided by 42 is nearly £48k. Every club in the current SPFL would receive the same amount, presumably so one club can be kept in the enlarged top division. One "needy" club uses it to cover Scott Browns wages for a fortnight & another club in desperate need has just spent £3 million on one player. 

Am I correct?

Unless someone can link me something different.

 - Mystery benefactors, later unveiled to be James Anderson or at least led by him, have offered a large sum of money to assist the SPFL in getting back to playing asap. Whilst there were original quotes from Ann Budge which suggested this funding would help "lower league clubs meet testing requirements" it was also claimed it would be unconditional, by which I think it was meant it didn't require reconstruction or Hearts to be "saved".

 - Neil Doncaster was quoted two days later as saying initial talks had gone very well and a very generous donation was on the table.

 - Kheredine Idsanne then tweeted the sum involved was "more than £4m". The Sun later claimed it was £4.75m.

 - By yesterday morning the BBC was reporting the sum involved was now £2m with no explanation as to why it's half the originally reported amount (though that may have been pure speculation of course) and that it was to be split equally across all 42 clubs irrespective of status, player numbers, division, etc.

 - Possibly entirely coincidentally 🙄 about the same time the SPFL circulated all members asking "what it would take" to get them to support a 14 team top league, something ruled out only a week earlier by a large majority and accepted just 2 days earlier as doomed to fail by it's architect, Ann Budge. Any semblence of suggestion it's for the overall good of Scottish football is somewhat diminished by the throwaway that the Lower Division can do whatever they want with their structure. It's all about the Premier and the only obvious beneficiaries are Hearts and Inverness.

I think that's roughly where we are. Interesting to see where we go from here but I imagine all clubs would welcome £48k of unconditional donation whatever their circumstances. Will they welcome it enough to entirely change their views on a 14 team top league which were fairly overwhelmingly negative 7 days earlier? If they don't, will the unconditional donation remain or vanish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



I'd also like to know how much it would cost to simply have Rangers expelled from the league permanently.


No need, they died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

 - Possibly entirely coincidentally 🙄 about the same time the SPFL circulated all members asking "what it would take" to get them to support a 14 team top league, something ruled out only a week earlier by a large majority and accepted just 2 days earlier as doomed to fail by it's architect, Ann Budge. Any semblence of suggestion it's for the overall good of Scottish football is somewhat diminished by the throwaway that the Lower Division can do whatever they want with their structure. It's all about the Premier and the only obvious beneficiaries are Hearts and Inverness.

 

Potentially when negotiating with SKY a proposal could have been put forward that if the top division was reconstructed to 14 teams(either saving Hearts and promoting Inverness or promoting Inverness and Dundee) it would generate more derbies which Sky could pick up as extra games to take instead of receiving the refund for the games not played in 2019/20[essentially, picking up X amount of extra games for £300,000(if reports are to be believed) extra a year]. The five year reconstruction would last the exact length of the new SKY TV deal - which would maybe explain why the language has changed from Doncaster to members. Keeping this money in the game could be spun to be "for the overall good of Scottish football" as everyone earns, a tiny amount, more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, South Lanarkshire Jag said:

Potentially when negotiating with SKY a proposal could have been put forward that if the top division was reconstructed to 14 teams(either saving Hearts and promoting Inverness or promoting Inverness and Dundee) it would generate more derbies which Sky could pick up as extra games to take instead of receiving the refund for the games not played in 2019/20[essentially, picking up X amount of extra games for £300,000(if reports are to be believed) extra a year]. The five year reconstruction would last the exact length of the new SKY TV deal - which would maybe explain why the language has changed from Doncaster to members. Keeping this money in the game could be spun to be "for the overall good of Scottish football" as everyone earns, a tiny amount, more.

Except there is no real reason they wouldnt inform their members that was why and in any event they already confirmed the terms of a renegotiated deal with Sky taking into account an adjustment for unplayed games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Unless someone can link me something different.

 - Mystery benefactors, later unveiled to be James Anderson or at least led by him, have offered a large sum of money to assist the SPFL in getting back to playing asap. Whilst there were original quotes from Ann Budge which suggested this funding would help "lower league clubs meet testing requirements" it was also claimed it would be unconditional, by which I think it was meant it didn't require reconstruction or Hearts to be "saved".

 - Neil Doncaster was quoted two days later as saying initial talks had gone very well and a very generous donation was on the table.

 - Kheredine Idsanne then tweeted the sum involved was "more than £4m". The Sun later claimed it was £4.75m.

 - By yesterday morning the BBC was reporting the sum involved was now £2m with no explanation as to why it's half the originally reported amount (though that may have been pure speculation of course) and that it was to be split equally across all 42 clubs irrespective of status, player numbers, division, etc.

 - Possibly entirely coincidentally 🙄 about the same time the SPFL circulated all members asking "what it would take" to get them to support a 14 team top league, something ruled out only a week earlier by a large majority and accepted just 2 days earlier as doomed to fail by it's architect, Ann Budge. Any semblence of suggestion it's for the overall good of Scottish football is somewhat diminished by the throwaway that the Lower Division can do whatever they want with their structure. It's all about the Premier and the only obvious beneficiaries are Hearts and Inverness.

I think that's roughly where we are. Interesting to see where we go from here but I imagine all clubs would welcome £48k of unconditional donation whatever their circumstances. Will they welcome it enough to entirely change their views on a 14 team top league which were fairly overwhelmingly negative 7 days earlier? If they don't, will the unconditional donation remain or vanish?

Kheredine Idessane just tweets whatever Scott Gardiner tells him to, so I wouldn't necessarily rely on him as a source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Except there is no real reason they wouldnt inform their members that was why and in any event they already confirmed the terms of a renegotiated deal with Sky taking into account an adjustment for unplayed games.

There could be another potential renegotiated deal with Sky which only takes effect in a 14 team top flight, one which would increase the games for the adjustment of unplayed games potentially. 

If the reconstruction to a 14 team top flight gets rejected by members then that deal doesn't happen and the status quo stands.

Edited by South Lanarkshire Jag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...