Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[TxRover]

Let’s see, Player A Is paid £500 per week on a one year contract. Player B os paid £500 per week on a two year contract. The season is running about 36 weeks, including preseason. Player A costs the team £18,000 for the season, Player B costs the team £18,000 for the season. Yea, we’re really hurting ourselves here.

So now you’ll pivot to the off-season, which is all of 4 or 5 weeks. So two players, or eight to ten weeks of salary, probably somewhere between £5,000 and £10,000. That’s the maximum impact, which is already mostly or completely covered by fan monthly contributions over that period. That is indeed scandalous mismanagement, I’m so happy an august figure such as yourself stepped down from football Olympus to proclaim this to the skies!

As for the revenue aspects, as I made clear, there are two outcomes, a business can continue or it cannot, period. The rest is details.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, Robbo63 said:

What’s the issue with giving 2 year contracts ? This season you are only paying the exact same money as if it was a 1 year contract , next season you would pay them the 2nd year of their contract , when it’s more likely fans will be in grounds , so it’s not costing anymore this season wether your players are on 1 or 2 year contracts , any 2 year contract potentially allows you to sell in summer and make some money or saves you looking for a potential new squad at end of season for next season , unless I am missing something obvious 

Well if clubs continue to have no income for much longer than they hope they may need to reduce budgets either in the current or succeeding season. It's much more costly to get shot of a player with 18 months on his contract than one with 6 months on it. Clause 12 which TxRover places such stock over only applies if the game is formally suspended by the SFA which it no longer is and probably won't be again I imagine unless we lose complete control of the virus as a country and get back to square one again. In order to make a player redundant and not be liable to pay up the remainder of his contract in full you'd pretty much have to enter an insolvency event.

Personally I think it's absolutely mental to offer a fairly standard Championship player like for instance Rhegan Tumilty or Jack Baird a 2 year contract right now unless it includes cancellation clauses of some sort (in which case it's not really a two year contract in practice). Different if you are making a value judgement on offering a longer term deal to a young self developed player who might become an asset in future granted. That then becomes a balancing act of which risk is greater. If clubs are happy that they can afford it then that's up to the Directors and that's fine as long as they bear the cost in the event of it backfiring.

 

[Skyline Drifter]

4 hours ago, TxRover said:

Yes, that statement alone, completely mischaracterizing my statements and trying to bang your pet square peg into a round hole shows which of us is the idiot. There are two conditions that may occur, and they vary by club...HOWEVER even one or two clubs tipping over the line from we can afford to play into we cannot afford to play will have huge knock on effects, for at least their League.

As for your £2500 player rant, the relatively few players on such wages, if their contracts were tolled, would justifiably treat their clubs as dead to them, not something a club can afford from star players. Don’t believe that, look at Hearts (your example team), who used Clause 12 to legally implement pay cuts, as did Dundee, Hibs, Celtic and Aberdeen to name a few...but they all did so WiTH the players, not unilaterally.

I'm not sure you're quite appreciating Clause 12 only applies in the event of the SFA suspending football, or at least suspending it at the level the club are playing. It doesn't apply just because crowds aren't allowed and things are financially difficult. Nor has anyone actually tested whether enforcing it (which "suspends" the contract) allows the effective cancellation or merely that it comes back into force when suspension is lifted. The clubs who used Clause 12 to negotiate player wage cuts and deferrals did so whilst football at their level was suspended. It no longer is and you can't use Clause 12 for anything at all currently.

Edited September 13, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[TxRover]

12 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Well if clubs continue to have no income for much longer than they hope they may need to reduce budgets either in the current or succeeding season. It's much more costly to get shot of a player with 18 months on his contract than one with 6 months on it. Clause 12 which TxRover places such stock over only applies if the game is formally suspended by the SFA which it no longer is and probably won't be again I imagine unless we lose complete control of the virus as a country and get back to square one again. In order to make a player redundant and not be liable to pay up the remainder of his contract in full you'd pretty much have to enter an insolvency event.

Personally I think it's absolutely mental to offer a fairly standard Championship player like for instance Rhegan Tumilty or Jack Baird a 2 year contract right now unless it includes cancellation clauses of some sort (in which case it's not really a two year contract in practice). Different if you are making a value judgement on offering a longer term deal to a young self developed player who might become an asset in future granted. That then becomes a balancing act of which risk is greater. If clubs are happy that they can afford it then that's up to the Directors and that's fine as long as they bear the cost in the event of it backfiring.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I'm not sure you're quite appreciating Clause 12 only applies in the event of the SFA suspending football, or at least suspending it at the level the club are playing. It doesn't apply just because crowds aren't allowed and things are financially difficult. Nor has anyone actually tested whether enforcing it (which "suspends" the contract) allows the effective cancellation or merely that it comes back into force when suspension is lifted. The clubs who used Clause 12 to negotiate player wage cuts and deferrals did so whilst football at their level was suspended. It no longer is and you can't use Clause 12 for anything at all currently.

Absolutely agree with the Clause 12 note. The point is that if one or more clubs in any given League decide they cannot continue to operate at some point because crowds do not return, there is a significant chance the whole League (at that level) gets shutdown because the financial resources simply don’t vary that much between clubs. That’s what I believe the club heads have likely discused amongst themselves at each level. Clause 12 can be applied on a level basis versus a whole or nothing basis.

As for the 1 versus 2 year contracts, again we aren’t privy to the details, and there is plenty of chance that there are relegation or promotion stipulations in a number of contracts across fitba. The decision to offer 2 versus 1 was likely a pragmatic decision to gain the services of a player who was believed necessary, for whatever reason. The financial “costs” of 2 versus 1 is pretty minuscule if things get rough, and if you are the team offering 2 when everyone else offers 1, you have an advantage in many cases.   

[D'Jaffo]

It’s only mental if the clubs in question are wholly reliant on crowds coming back.

If directors are willing to put their money up and commit to giving players 2 year deals regardless of crowds coming back or not then it’s really not a big deal.

[D'Jaffo]

It’s only mental if the clubs in question are wholly reliant on crowds coming back.

If directors are willing to put their money up and commit to giving players 2 year deals regardless of crowds coming back or not then it’s really not a big deal.

[Sergeant Wilson]

8 minutes ago, TxRover said:

 

Absolutely agree with the Clause 12 note. The point is that if one or more clubs in any given League decide they cannot continue to operate at some point because crowds do not return, there is a significant chance the whole League (at that level) gets shutdown because the financial resources simply don’t vary that much between clubs. That’s what I believe the club heads have likely discused amongst themselves at each level. Clause 12 can be applied on a level basis versus a whole or nothing basis.

As for the 1 versus 2 year contracts, again we aren’t privy to the details, and there is plenty of chance that there are relegation or promotion stipulations in a number of contracts across fitba. The decision to offer 2 versus 1 was likely a pragmatic decision to gain the services of a player who was believed necessary, for whatever reason. The financial “costs” of 2 versus 1 is pretty minuscule if things get rough, and if you are the team offering 2 when everyone else offers 1, you have an advantage in many cases.   

Really?

VT is taking the pish out you, but SD is drawing you pictures. 

Have you any idea how small margins are in Scottish football? "Miniscule" losses on top of all the other losses being sustained might be the difference between going tits up or not.

[TxRover]

2 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Really?

VT is taking the pish out you, but SD is drawing you pictures. 

Have you any idea how small margins are in Scottish football? "Miniscule" losses on top of all the other losses being sustained might be the difference between going tits up or not.

Yes, I do and the highlighted comment notes that. That's exactly why I'm very concerned that the increasing numbers of cases will kill crowds. Without people in the seats, I cannot see anything below the Premiership competing this season...the open question is when the reality of this might come crashing down, and if it will happen before or after some clubs have spent too much of their reserves to survive if crowds are out. If this season implodes, a 1 versus 2 year contract won't matter beans.

[Skyline Drifter]

11 hours ago, TxRover said:

Absolutely agree with the Clause 12 note. The point is that if one or more clubs in any given League decide they cannot continue to operate at some point because crowds do not return, there is a significant chance the whole League (at that level) gets shutdown because the financial resources simply don’t vary that much between clubs. That’s what I believe the club heads have likely discused amongst themselves at each level. Clause 12 can be applied on a level basis versus a whole or nothing basis.

As for the 1 versus 2 year contracts, again we aren’t privy to the details, and there is plenty of chance that there are relegation or promotion stipulations in a number of contracts across fitba. The decision to offer 2 versus 1 was likely a pragmatic decision to gain the services of a player who was believed necessary, for whatever reason. The financial “costs” of 2 versus 1 is pretty minuscule if things get rough, and if you are the team offering 2 when everyone else offers 1, you have an advantage in many cases.   

The notion that one or two clubs running into financial problems will cause the SFA to suspend football at the level is nonsense. Football will be suspended if for some reason it's unsafe to play (World War 3 breaks out or the virus is so out of control again that we are all locked in houses again). It will not be suspended because some clubs can't pay their bills. Understand what suspension of the game means. It means no kids teams playing, no amateur football, etc. It's probably not going to happen. There are protocols in place now to allow professional sport to be played under closed door circumstances so unless the country loses complete control I don't see it shutting down again easily. Every reference you've made to Clause 12 is completely irrelevant because it no longer applies and isn't likely to apply unless the game is completely shut down again.

The SPFL deciding the League cannot practically run is not the same thing at all and Clause 12 will not apply in those circumstances. Clause 12 is specifically about the SFA shutting down the ability to PLAY football. It has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of clubs to do so economically.

The financial cost of having to pay a player an extra year to go away if "things get rough" is not miniscule. It's likely tens of thousands of pounds. In practice it will probably be cheaper to keep him and try to raise the funds to cover it but it's an unnecessary gamble in my opinion at this time.

11 hours ago, D'Jaffo said:

It’s only mental if the clubs in question are wholly reliant on crowds coming back.

If directors are willing to put their money up and commit to giving players 2 year deals regardless of crowds coming back or not then it’s really not a big deal.

I literally said that myself. If directors are happy to carry the can if it goes tits up, and can afford it, then fair enough. It will give them a competitive advantage in recruiting players at this time no doubt. Baird has openly said that's why he signed for Ayr and Tumilty said the same about Raith. You don't offer two years, you don't get them. Personally I don't think those levels of players are good enough to justify the risk but that's a judgement for those in charge of the clubs in question to make, not me, I'm not the one who will pay for it.

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

The financial cost of having to pay a player an extra year to go away if "things get rough" is not miniscule. It's likely tens of thousands of pounds. In practice it will probably be cheaper to keep him and try to raise the funds to cover it but it's an unnecessary gamble in my opinion at this time.

 

It's the belief that a case can be made for longer contracts that surprised me.

Even in normal circumstances clubs in lower divisions won't gamble on a longer deal. Why on earth when things get worse would they do it?

The answer seems to be that a few players owed money will pale into insignificance in comparison to the other debts if clubs go bust.

[vikingTON]

12 hours ago, D'Jaffo said:

It’s only mental if the clubs in question are wholly reliant on crowds coming back.

If directors are willing to put their money up and commit to giving players 2 year deals regardless of crowds coming back or not then it’s really not a big deal.

That's true enough. I don't think you could describe Ayr for example as being 'bankrolled' to any significant degree under normal conditions but if your owner is able and willing to underwrite the risks of an exceptional loss this season or next then it gives you a competitive advantage. Any club that does not have someone ready to pick up the tab cannot commit to anything more than the bare minimum right now and so a two year deal for anyone is really out of the question. 

We all know however how often directors and their pledges of support have failed in Scottish football - never mind when the wider economic impact of the pandemic is yet to kick in - and any club that chooses to depend on outside backing right now is just taking a different form of risk rather than a safety-first approach. 

Edited September 14, 2020 by vikingTON

[Raith Against The Machine]

15 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

VT is taking the pish out you, but SD is drawing you pictures. 

This should appear as a PSA any time a new user registers. 

[TxRover]

Well, anyway, can’t find any statements from SG, NS or SPFL on this weekends “test events”, so what’s the word?

[Thereisalight..]

6 hours ago, TxRover said:

Well, anyway, can’t find any statements from SG, NS or SPFL on this weekends “test events”, so what’s the word?

Don’t think they gave any word on the Rugby test event at Murrayfield iirc

[Parttimesupporter]

Must confess I am bemused by the rules in England.  The 'rule of six' applies to meeting outdoors but there are games going ahead with crowds of up to 600.  If you scroll down this link a little you can find a reference to guidance for the men's National League System with Appendix C giving details of what crowds are allowed.

https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/jul/17/grassroots-guidance-for-competitive-football-restart-in-england-170720

Recent announcements don't seem to have had an impact on what is allowed.  For example - 

https://www.morpethtownfc.com/product/01-morpeth-v-grantham-town/

 

[TxRover]

On 14/09/2020 at 16:50, Parttimesupporter said:

Must confess I am bemused by the rules in England.  The 'rule of six' applies to meeting outdoors but there are games going ahead with crowds of up to 600.  If you scroll down this link a little you can find a reference to guidance for the men's National League System with Appendix C giving details of what crowds are allowed.

https://www.thefa.com/news/2020/jul/17/grassroots-guidance-for-competitive-football-restart-in-england-170720

Recent announcements don't seem to have had an impact on what is allowed.  For example - 

https://www.morpethtownfc.com/product/01-morpeth-v-grantham-town/

 

Christ, what a stitch-up of various ideas and thoughts. Ball handling to a minimum (mainly via boot), disinfection during breaks, goalies gloves to be disinfected regularity...next they’ll want the keepers to be wearing gloves made of disinfecting wipes...wiping down the goal posts, take corners and free kicks quickly to reduce close marking time, etc.

More tellingly, after following the link for more detailed information for restart, there is another link for men’s Northern League protocols, but it’s  been disabled. They still have the six person and social distancing theme, so I guess we need to see what the SG and SPFL have to say about the “test” matches thy just held.

[RedEd]

6 hours ago, TxRover said:

 

More tellingly, after following the link for more detailed information for restart, there is another link for men’s Northern League protocols, but it’s  been disabled. They still have the six person and social distancing theme, so I guess we need to see what the SG and SPFL have to say about the “test” matches thy just held.

There is plenty of information on the Northern League website, including risk assessments for each club and ticketing / track and trace info.

[Parttimesupporter]

An article from 'off the radar' Jackson here.  My understanding was that all clubs would have to test before they played in the Betfred as well as any other games against other clubs.  However, he states - 

"There are currently no requirements in place for testing to be rolled out from the Championship down when their season begins on October 17 due to the costs involved."

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/betfred-cup-sweat-lower-league-22689131

I wasn't aware that this dispensation had been granted.  However, Queens and Threave played a friendly yesterday and it seems unlikely they would have done so if testing was required in advance.

[Skyline Drifter]

17 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said:

An article from 'off the radar' Jackson here.  My understanding was that all clubs would have to test before they played in the Betfred as well as any other games against other clubs.  However, he states - 

"There are currently no requirements in place for testing to be rolled out from the Championship down when their season begins on October 17 due to the costs involved."

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/betfred-cup-sweat-lower-league-22689131

I wasn't aware that this dispensation had been granted.  However, Queens and Threave played a friendly yesterday and it seems unlikely they would have done so if testing was required in advance.

Formal testing is not required to train or play friendlies outwith the Premiership or other "testing" teams, although it is required to take daily temperature checks and submit daily track and trace questionnaires. If you test you can only play other testing teams. If you don't you can only play other non testing teams although the last I heard we were still going to have to test for the competitive stuff and certainly in order to play in the Betfred Cup against Premiership St Mirren.

I'm unsure where this leaves Hearts who ARE a testing team. I can't imagine everyone else will be expected to test just because Hearts are so presumably either the requirement for everyone to test to play competitively will remain or they'll drop the requirement to not play testing teams (or Hearts will stop testing but with the Betfred and the Scottish Cup semi final, presumably Hearts will have to test for a few weeks at least).

Edited September 16, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[craigkillie]

Alloa played a friendly against a second string Killie team last night, does that mean they must be testing at the moment?