Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Jan mosniack]

Would much rather have a definite Oct start than a mibees Aug or Sep. More chance of fans being allowed to attend.  Have watched bits and pieces of the English games on TV, Jock Stein was right.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, TxRover said:

Not quite. The reality is reopening is best done in a slow and steady manner, carefully observing if any adverse trends are found in each stage. Given a two week delay in the ability to see impacts from actions, it is prudent to not rush, as other locations have shown.

OK, so then let’s talk money. We know that most clubs in Scotland lost around 25% of their income from last season, while experiencing costs beyond the shutdown. That means all the clubs have lost money versus budget, and some will have posted a larger loss than anticipated. With next year’s campaign truncated, the clubs also have to take steps to reduce expenses in line with the reduced income. It is reasonable to recognize that the clubs are doing the prudent thing here, especially as while they could perhaps start operating now, it would be with increased costs and literally no revenue.

If the Government says you can have full crowds at games, the SPFL would possibly open up on time, but with limits still imposed, it makes sense to use the available furlough scheme to the best advantage. It would be crassly unfair for the scheme to be terminated while still prohibiting a business from earning any profits.

Yes, I agree with this completely, however given the current circumstances and quickly developing situation I don't see why any business should still be closed come October.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, TxRover said:

Agreed, money is a huge portion of it. However, how quickly can the Championship teams sign a team? How quickly can you perform all those tasks, especially as several take other actions to be done first. I’ll cut it to one month, happy? So, if pubs can open on July 4th, football teams should be able to begin preparations for a season about the same time.. You now have to possibly sign your staff, sign a team, equip a team and train a team, and you still think a month is reasonable? The facility might be ready, but the team won’t be...so there your club sits, burning cash with no incoming funds.

So we have the teams spinning up and possibly able to play by around August 4th or so...for what, playing behind closed doors, which has already been declared catastrophic by the Championship teams. Now, let’s look at your average summer...games in earnest begin about two months after the “season” really starts with mid to late June signings (funny how two months comes up, eh?) and players returning from their June break. Note that the club didn’t take a June break, so that’s about a month of preparation time they get before the players even play into it. So we want to rush teams to play quickly, and in a state that assures little to no income, why? Instead we have a clearly planned return for 75% of the games of a full season, giving the clubs the clear planning data they need.

We’re both agreeing on the fact that games are not going to happen earlier because of money as a major point...however, I’m suggesting that there is also the aspect of housekeeping that would normally already have been done hasn’t even been started yet, and will also take time.

On reflection I do actually see your point, basically there's no reason for the clubs to return while there's ANY doubt over whether or not they can adopt a BAU or as close to it model when returning.

I suppose i'm venting my frustrations in the wrong direction.

[vikingTON]

15 hours ago, TxRover said:

Since reading for comprehension seems difficult for you, I’ll try to make it simpler.

You cannot “start” a football season with less than a couple of months notice. It is not a matter of players needing all that time, but rather the clubs needing the time to organize the games and prepare the stadia.

Much larger businesses than Scottish football clubs have been able to mothball and then successfully restart trade in a space of days at either end of the lockdown in the UK - there's absolutely no reason why so-called professional football clubs can't do so as well. This is all just various degrees of special pleading now.

Once the financial viability of starting football is assured then the onus should be on clubs to take advantage of the largest window possible to get games played under minimal restrictions. Otherwise the entire season would be left hostage to even a *local* lockdown in winter that interrupted play for three or four weeks. If football clubs aren't prepared to be flexible then it's worth questioning whether their business model even deserves to survive in the context of an ongoing pandemic.

Edited June 28, 2020 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

11 hours ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Yeah this roughly. Organising the club and games isnt going to take 2 months though there will be more challenges than usual. Its all about furlough really. And the fact that starting a week or two earlier, should that prove feasible, will achieve little. As I have said before, if you cant play 36 games you arent going to try to arrange more than 27 or you have an imbalanced fixture list.

There is something very worthwhile to be achieved: room for maneuvre. The SPFL needs to account as much as it feasibly can for either i) at least a significant local outbreak returning to Scotland over the autumn-spring period (quite possible if not probable) or ii) another protracted cold spell cancelling matches like in the 08/09 or 09/10 seasons. We'll have a clearer picture when the published fixture list comes out but playing 27 league games from October as well as the entirety of the Betfred Cup Scottish Cup before wrapping up the domestic season by the usual dates simply cannot provide scope for dealing with either of those disruptive events. 

Calling the 19/20 season due to an unforeseen global event was a reasonable decision; having to abandon or call the following campaign because you didn't actually make better use of your playing calendar when you already knew about substantial risks would be a farce.

Edited June 28, 2020 by vikingTON

[Skyline Drifter]

46 minutes ago, virginton said:

There is something very worthwhile to be achieved: room for maneuvre. The SPFL needs to account as much as it feasibly can for either i) at least a significant local outbreak returning to Scotland over the autumn-spring period (quite possible if not probable) or ii) another protracted cold spell cancelling matches like in the 08/09 or 09/10 seasons. We'll have a clearer picture when the published fixture list comes out but playing 27 league games from October as well as the entirety of the Betfred Cup Scottish Cup before wrapping up the domestic season by the usual dates simply cannot provide scope for dealing with either of those disruptive events. 

Calling the 19/20 season due to an unforeseen global event was a reasonable decision; having to abandon or call the following campaign because you didn't actually make better use of your playing calendar when you already knew about substantial risks would be a farce.

Its an economic decision. Doesnt matter how many times you try to make any sort of case for something different. Clubs are not going to give themselves 2, 3, 4 weeks or whatever extra costs to allow for breathing space that may never be needed. They will prefer to deal with that by 3 games in a week if they have to. They will hope not to but if its necessary then so be it. 

You can talk about your idealities all you like but this is all about cash. If somebody said tomorrow all restrictions are over, we are stopping the JRS early, you can have crowds as normal and there are no testing requirements then they would inevitably go back asap. That hasnt happened and with the JRS subsidising full wages till end of August the clubs arent coming off it early without an absolute guarantee of normal trading conditions. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[Paco]

Can there be any problems with aiming for a 27 game season but simply starting somewhere between late August and mid September? Would give an extra four to six weeks to complete the games which might legislate for localised lockdowns/spikes in infection.

 

Are we really going to get to a scenario where the Premiership is playing with (socially distant) crowds in August and we’re just sitting watching because we didn’t want to miss out on July’s furlough?

 

Seems like our entire model is that October will somehow be impossible to have any crowds, Nov/Dec we might manage some socially distanced spectators before a magic wand is waved in January and all will be well. The world’s scientific community is almost unanimous that if there is another spike, it’ll come in winter - but we’re waiting until that begins before we play?

 

The decision was made with sound reason at the time. The goalposts have now moved. I would be beyond surprised if we’re getting four or five new cases a day come October. Surely it makes sense to play while we can?

 

Additionally there’s surely some sort of contingency plan in place about what happens if we have to cancel it. Maybe threshold of games where calling it as it is becomes default, versus null and void if we only play a certain amount of games, etc. Surely... right? Governments will be far more cautious this time. It won’t take mass death for football to be cancelled, it’ll be the very first thing to go behind closed doors at a minimum if there’s any kind of worrying rise in infections. Do we play all the season with no crowds if we have to? Or is it unaffordable so we just pack it in?

 

A lot of questions and not really any answers. Feels like a completely avoidable fiasco is on the cards for next season to be honest.

 

[HoBNob]

8 minutes ago, Paco said:

Can there be any problems with aiming for a 27 game season but simply starting somewhere between late August and mid September? Would give an extra four to six weeks to complete the games which might legislate for localised lockdowns/spikes in infection.

 

Why would we? That's longer paying players without any extra income, next season when the budget is going to be tight as it is! 

[vikingTON]

53 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Its an economic decision. Doesnt matter how many times you try to make any sort of case for something different. Clubs are not going to give themselves 2, 3, 4 weeks or whatever extra costs to allow for breathing space that may never be needed. They will prefer to deal with that by 3 games in a week if they have to. They will hope not to but if its necessary then so be it.

There's no guarantee that clubs will have the luxury of playing three games a week to deal with a fixture backlog next season: if a lockdown is enforced again in March/April 2021 again then that solution is toast. The idea that it is in the best economic interests of a business to leave itself entirely at the mercy of events outwith its control - having just had its previous season's model shredded by the first wave of an ongoing pandemic - sums up the short-sighted thinking that has got Scottish football into this and so many other messes over the past two decades.

Edited June 28, 2020 by vikingTON

[Skyline Drifter]

35 minutes ago, Paco said:

Can there be any problems with aiming for a 27 game season but simply starting somewhere between late August and mid September? Would give an extra four to six weeks to complete the games which might legislate for localised lockdowns/spikes in infection.

 

Are we really going to get to a scenario where the Premiership is playing with (socially distant) crowds in August and we’re just sitting watching because we didn’t want to miss out on July’s furlough?

 

Seems like our entire model is that October will somehow be impossible to have any crowds, Nov/Dec we might manage some socially distanced spectators before a magic wand is waved in January and all will be well. The world’s scientific community is almost unanimous that if there is another spike, it’ll come in winter - but we’re waiting until that begins before we play?

 

The decision was made with sound reason at the time. The goalposts have now moved. I would be beyond surprised if we’re getting four or five new cases a day come October. Surely it makes sense to play while we can?

 

Additionally there’s surely some sort of contingency plan in place about what happens if we have to cancel it. Maybe threshold of games where calling it as it is becomes default, versus null and void if we only play a certain amount of games, etc. Surely... right? Governments will be far more cautious this time. It won’t take mass death for football to be cancelled, it’ll be the very first thing to go behind closed doors at a minimum if there’s any kind of worrying rise in infections. Do we play all the season with no crowds if we have to? Or is it unaffordable so we just pack it in?

 

A lot of questions and not really any answers. Feels like a completely avoidable fiasco is on the cards for next season to be honest.

 

 

25 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

Why would we? That's longer paying players without any extra income, next season when the budget is going to be tight as it is! 

Grant's dealt with this already really but why on earth would anyone deliberately give themselves a month of extra expenses, probably £50k + for most clubs in payroll alone, for absolutely no extra income? That's utter lunacy.

The "entire model" was actually draw up on the assumption there would be no crowds to January and to minimise the amount of games required with no crowds. That's still the case. For all the assumptions that it will now ease earlier (which does seem likely and maybe we'll have crowds by October) there are currently no plans from the Scottish Govt to relax those restrictions. The clamour to take risks with the future of clubs in the at this stage hope that crowds might even be allowed before October is absolutely mental.

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

There's no guarantee that clubs will have the luxury of playing three games a week to deal with a fixture backlog next season: if a lockdown is enforced again in March/April again then that solution is toast. The idea that it is in the best economic interests of a business to leave itself entirely at the mercy of events outwith its control - having just had its previous season's model shredded by the first wave of a pandemic - sums up the short-sighted thinking that has got Scottish football into this and so many other messes over the past two decades.

There's no guarantee they'll have crowds at all by October either but you're positively desperate to gamble on them not only being allowed but being allowed as normal.

The idea that it's in the best economic interests of football to incur say £50k to £100k extra costs so that you have a few spare weeks in case of a worst case scenario is batshit mental.

[vikingTON]

32 minutes ago, Grant228 said:

Why would we? That's longer paying players without any extra income, next season when the budget is going to be tight as it is! 

Companies take on extra costs to secure the viability of their business model all the time: it's called 'insurance'.

[vikingTON]

17 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

There's no guarantee they'll have crowds at all by October either but you're positively desperate to gamble on them not only being allowed but being allowed as normal.

Erm no, we're clearly back to another straw man argument from yourself.

It is currently the end of June. The SG is expected to move into Phase 3 of lifting restrictions in the first half of July. If the SG then logically proceeds to Phase 4 of lifting restrictions by, say, August 15 - at which point fans may be allowed into matches - then it is entirely sensible for the SPFL to accelerate its own restart plan to take advantage of that extended window and to schedule matches for September as well. Nobody is saying that the SPFL should shift its starting date in advance of government restrictions being lifted. Any restart plan however ought to be flexible enough to respond to this rapidly developing situation. Sticking to October as the starting date no matter would be proven to be the height of folly if the country ends up even close to the same predicament in the spring of 2021 as it was this year and quite why SPFL clubs choose to neglect that very real risk to their business model is mind-boggling.

Quote

The idea that it's in the best economic interests of football to incur say £50k to £100k extra costs so that you have a few spare weeks in case of a worst case scenario is batshit mental.

As opposed of course to the trifling losses incurred by failing to actually complete next season and the potential losses of a similar failure next season, as well as the lost income that will come from shoehorning in nearly 40 matches during the worst conditions of the calendar year with stacks of midweek games.

Edited June 28, 2020 by vikingTON

[Trogdor]

This thread...

[Skyline Drifter]

15 minutes ago, virginton said:

Erm no, we're clearly back to another straw man argument from yourself.

It is currently the end of June. The SG is expected to move into Phase 3 of lifting restrictions in the first half of July. If the SG then logically proceeds to Phase 4 of lifting restrictions by, say, August 15 - at which point fans may be allowed into matches - then it is entirely sensible for the SPFL to accelerate its own restart plan to take advantage of that extended window and to schedule matches for September as well. Nobody is saying that the SPFL should shift its starting date in advance of government restrictions being lifted. Any restart plan however ought to be flexible enough to respond to this rapidly developing situation. Sticking to October as the starting date no matter would be proven to be the height of folly if the country ends up even close to the same predicament in the spring of 2021 as it was this year and quite why SPFL clubs choose to neglect that very real risk to their business model is mind-boggling.

As opposed of course to the trifling losses incurred by failing to actually complete next season and the potential losses of a similar failure next season, as well as the lost income that will come from shoehorning in nearly 40 matches during the worst conditions of the calendar year with stacks of midweek games.

This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever no matter how often you keep repeating it and throwing your standard catchphrases around.  "may be", "expected", "logically". In other words absolutely no facts except for the one that if we start earlier we definitely lose all the subsidy support.

To use one of your other catchphrases, what losses will come at Championship level (the Premiership is already starting on time and doing everything it can to ensure fulfillment of the commercial tv contract which does not apply to the Championship) from failing to complete the season in the event that did happen? Be very specific.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[Paco]

Grant's dealt with this already really but why on earth would anyone deliberately give themselves a month of extra expenses, probably £50k + for most clubs in payroll alone, for absolutely no extra income? That's utter lunacy.

The "entire model" was actually draw up on the assumption there would be no crowds to January and to minimise the amount of games required with no crowds. That's still the case. For all the assumptions that it will now ease earlier (which does seem likely and maybe we'll have crowds by October) there are currently no plans from the Scottish Govt to relax those restrictions. The clamour to take risks with the future of clubs in the at this stage hope that crowds might even be allowed before October is absolutely mental.

Are clubs better off playing three home matches in front of crowds while they can, based on a September 5th opener, or clinging onto July’s free furlough?

I suppose that’s the key question. I genuinely don’t know the answer, and if the answer is they’re not better off then of course it might make short-term financial sense to hold off until October as planned. But long-term our entire strategy is that the magic wand will save us come January. It’s not like we’d be risking some foolproof plan here, we could easily walk into a scenario where we have crowds in at the a few matches and then none on the horizon for the rest of the season, or indeed no crowds whatsoever as the virus situation has worsened. In that scenario a) the income those few matches with crowds brought in might help, b) in the event of the season having to be paused, we’ll be a few more matches down the line increasing the possibility of coming back in March/April, and c) in the event of the season having to be scrapped entirely, we’ll again be further down the line so it raises the possibility of the season being declared with conclusions rather than voiding the whole thing.

I don’t think there’s a definitive and obvious right answer here, it’s hard, but the basic facts are that we can’t play football because of a virus, we’re going to sit on our hands while it’s suppressed to the point of elimination and try to come back through the winter when experts say it’ll undoubtedly worsen.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 minute ago, Paco said:

 

Are clubs better off playing three home matches in front of crowds while they can, based on a September 5th opener, or clinging onto July’s free furlough?

I suppose that’s the key question. I genuinely don’t know the answer, and if the answer is they’re not better off then of course it might make short-term financial sense to hold off until October as planned. But long-term our entire strategy is that the magic wand will save us come January. It’s not like we’d be risking some foolproof plan here, we could easily walk into a scenario where we have crowds in at the a few matches and then none on the horizon for the rest of the season, or indeed no crowds whatsoever as the virus situation has worsened. In that scenario a) the income those few matches with crowds brought in might help, b) in the event of the season having to be paused, we’ll be a few more matches down the line increasing the possibility of coming back in March/April, and c) in the event of the season having to be scrapped entirely, we’ll again be further down the line so it raises the possibility of the season being declared with conclusions rather than voiding the whole thing.

I don’t think there’s a definitive and obvious right answer here, it’s hard, but the basic facts are that we can’t play football because of a virus, we’re going to sit on our hands while it’s suppressed to the point of elimination and try to come back through the winter when experts say it’ll undoubtedly worsen.

So your case is based on an assumption that crowds, which are not currently allowed and even VT admits won't be before mid August, will be allowed as normal for a short while before we are likely to shut down again? If that's your prediction (and you are absolutely entitled to think that's what will happen) then we may as well draw a line under season 20/21 altogether. The notion that income from a few games between August and winter will see us through a closed door playing of several months is a fallacy. Closed doors is not a realistic option in anything other than very short term at championship level.

[vikingTON]

17 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

This argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever no matter how often you keep repeating it and throwing your standard catchphrases around.  "may be", "expected", "logically". In other words absolutely no facts except for the one that if we start earlier we definitely lose all the subsidy support.

You can't really state 'facts' about an uncertain set of potential scenarios in the future, wrapped around the progression of a novel virus m8. It's a problem that applies equally to your beloved 'starting from October no matter what' plan as well though.

If crowds aren't allowed back in grounds then there's no reason for the season to start earlier than scheduled. If they are allowed however then the season should be started earlier to make use of that window to play matches. That is the M.O. of a professional football club, not grubbing around on government subsidies for as long as possible.

Edited June 28, 2020 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

11 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

So your case is based on an assumption that crowds, which are not currently allowed and even VT admits won't be before mid August, will be allowed as normal for a short while before we are likely to shut down again? If that's your prediction (and you are absolutely entitled to think that's what will happen) then we may as well draw a line under season 20/21 altogether. The notion that income from a few games between August and winter will see us through a closed door playing of several months is a fallacy. Closed doors is not a realistic option in anything other than very short term at championship level.

Erm no, I simply provided one plausible timeframe for measures being lifted, not a prediction nor an earliest possible date. Scotland could progress to phase 4 at the end of July, or earlier in August, or at no point this year. The fact that you've purposely misrepresented that obvious point confirms that you're not actually arguing in good faith. 

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by vikingTON

[Paco]

So your case is based on an assumption that crowds, which are not currently allowed and even VT admits won't be before mid August, will be allowed as normal for a short while before we are likely to shut down again? If that's your prediction (and you are absolutely entitled to think that's what will happen) then we may as well draw a line under season 20/21 altogether. The notion that income from a few games between August and winter will see us through a closed door playing of several months is a fallacy. Closed doors is not a realistic option in anything other than very short term at championship level.

I think it’s more likely than the magic wand saving us all in January approach. I’d be exceptionally surprised, but delighted, if in January the 7 day average of new cases is lower than 11, as it is currently. We seem to be planning for a month or two of closed-doors so I’d argue we try to front-load the crowds, take the hit if it’s needed through the winter and try to come back out the other side with crowds in spring. That while still ultimately guesswork would at least be based on the expectations of science. I’ve not seen what January being fine for unrestricted crowds is based on but I suspect it was a now very out-of-date Scottish Government estimate.

Make hay while the sun shines, essentially, would be my plan. I agree closed doors is nothing other than a short-term emergency solution which is why, as I alluded to earlier, I really think we should be beginning this season with a clear statement about what happens if we start behind closed-doors and come January we still have no crowds, with no prospect of them either. I think it’d be lunacy not to but I don’t see any mention of it anywhere - it’s all based on the magic wand.

[TxRover]

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

You can't really state 'facts' about an uncertain set of potential scenarios in the future, wrapped around the progression of a novel virus m8. A problem that applies just as much to your beloved 'starting from October no matter what' plan.

If crowds aren't allowed back in grounds then there's no reason for the season to start earlier than scheduled. If they are however then the season should be started earlier to make use of that window to play matches. That is the M.O. of a professional football club.

 

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

Erm no, I simply provided a plausible timeframe for measures being lifted, not a prediction nor an earliest possible date. Scotland could progress to phase 4 at the end of July, or earlier in August, or not at all. The fact that youve purposely misrepresented that obvious point confirms that you're not actually arguing in good faith. 

 

On the face of it, this seems reasonable, but much like an iceberg, there’s trouble ahead.

A 27 game season is a stick-on for 2020-2021, at least until the sky falls. The league has planned on 27 games in a period that matches normal scheduling because then you are incurring 75% of the usual costs with roughly 75% of the usual income possible (it’s actually between 72% and 78% base, adjusted by what home games you get). But starting several weeks earlier, but not early enough to get in 36 games, you simply incur salary costs without additional income.

Lets say you need the house replumbed and the Polish lad that’s doing it takes three days to do it, would you pay him for four days?

Thats the money aspect. I still respectfully disagree with posters who suggest we can get the whole shebang going in a trice.