Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Jamie_M]

On 26/09/2020 at 11:40, Skyline Drifter said:

Footballers are not going to do one third of hours. They either play or they dont.

You sure no club will use the new scheme? Doesn't have to be a third, just a minimum of a third of normal hours and the government will pay some of the wages.

Morton are back from furlough, but on a part time basis so still using furlough. Not sure why that won't continue once the season resumes?

[itzdrk]

26 minutes ago, stu2910 said:

All seems a bit illogical that football isn’t allowed in small numbers.

I am allowed to go to Greggs in the Overgate shopping centre, queue at the till, buy a pie and a drink, go sit on a public bench and watch a potentially infinite number of people walk past within a few metres of me.

I am not allowed to go to Dens, a building only accessible to a designated number of people, probably not queue at the till, but a pie and a drink, go sit in my designated seat, watch a few hundred people do the same thing nearby, all of whom have names and addresses known to the club, while 23 people run around with a ball about 50 metres away.

"Can take me Nan to pub but not go round her ows"

[Skyline Drifter]

11 minutes ago, Jamie_M said:

You sure no club will use the new scheme? Doesn't have to be a third, just a minimum of a third of normal hours and the government will pay some of the wages.

Morton are back from furlough, but on a part time basis so still using furlough. Not sure why that won't continue once the season resumes?

Your players are back part time? I get that staff might be but would be surprised if players genuinely are only training a couple of times a week. And new players cant be.

I havent examined the detail of the new scheme but I presume it will be aimed at those still furloughed either part time or entirely. It surely doesnt apply to new starts since lockdown? Even if it does, what you suggest would only be relevant to a full time club moving to part time. Thats niche and probably only applies to Morton if indeed they seriously have.

[The Master]

49 minutes ago, stu2910 said:

All seems a bit illogical that football isn’t allowed in small numbers.

I am allowed to go to Greggs in the Overgate shopping centre, queue at the till, buy a pie and a drink, go sit on a public bench and watch a potentially infinite number of people walk past within a few metres of me.

I am not allowed to go to Dens, a building only accessible to a designated number of people, probably not queue at the till, but a pie and a drink, go sit in my designated seat, watch a few hundred people do the same thing nearby, all of whom have names and addresses known to the club, while 23 people run around with a ball about 50 metres away.

While I see your point, it’s worth remembering that all the noises from the Scottish Government are that they would rather hospitality and non-essential retail was shut down again, but it would be impossible to do without causing mass unemployment. If Holyrood had the fiscal powers to introduce a Scotland-only furlough then I’m pretty sure pubs would either be closed, or on their way there. 

If it’s only season ticket holders allowed in then the only revenue for clubs is from food and half-time draw sales. Revenue that could easily be eaten up by increased costs of staging games with fans present.

In other words, the (likely) reason for keeping pubs and shops open doesn’t apply to football because fans in grounds won’t provide the revenue needed to sustain the business. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by The Master

[The Master]

15 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Your players are back part time? I get that staff might be but would be surprised if players genuinely are only training a couple of times a week. And new players cant be.

I havent examined the detail of the new scheme but I presume it will be aimed at those still furloughed either part time or entirely. It surely doesnt apply to new starts since lockdown? Even if it does, what you suggest would only be relevant to a full time club moving to part time. Thats niche and probably only applies to Morton if indeed they seriously have.

To what extent do footballers have contracted hours anyway? Presumably the wording is along the lines of attending training when instructed and being available for match day squads, rather than a set number of hours per week. 

Which is also another sign that it’s a scheme aimed primarily at blue-collar and hospitality workers, where set shifts and/or set hours are the norm and as such it’s easy to determine a %age of the hours worked.

Edit: although I suppose in reality the scheme will work based on how much pay someone gets  rather than determining hours. 

Edited September 27, 2020 by The Master

[D.A.F.C]

I don’t think Lennon’s comments were irresponsible to be fair. Completely different if there had been 200 deaths and it wasn’t a prediction. Football fans in an open air stadium isn’t increasing any death toll. 

Yes but they're not just teleporting in and out. They'll be going on transport, in pubs, bookies and people's houses.
Its a massive risk.

[No_Problemo]

3 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

Yes but they're not just teleporting in and out. They'll be going on transport, in pubs, bookies and people's houses.
Its a massive risk.

It’s not remotely a massive risk - each of those things will be happening regardless. 
 

It increases the risk slightly but this can be managed. As cases increase it is fair enough to stop fans attending but as things begin to ease there isn’t any reason not to. 

[Jamie_M]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Your players are back part time? I get that staff might be but would be surprised if players genuinely are only training a couple of times a week. And new players cant be.

I havent examined the detail of the new scheme but I presume it will be aimed at those still furloughed either part time or entirely. It surely doesnt apply to new starts since lockdown? Even if it does, what you suggest would only be relevant to a full time club moving to part time. Thats niche and probably only applies to Morton if indeed they seriously have.

Conversation here from 3.30 onwards. Still utilising furlough, part time until end of October.

The new scheme includes those that were not previously furloughed, the just have to have been on the payroll before 23rd September, so Morton's signings on Friday would be ineligible but the rest of the squad would be.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Jamie_M

[Guest Flash]

Presumably you could also use the scheme if you were paying a player on loan and they were training with their parent club? They are only working part-time for the club they are on loan to.

[Skyline Drifter]

3 hours ago, The Master said:

To what extent do footballers have contracted hours anyway? Presumably the wording is along the lines of attending training when instructed and being available for match day squads, rather than a set number of hours per week. 

Which is also another sign that it’s a scheme aimed primarily at blue-collar and hospitality workers, where set shifts and/or set hours are the norm and as such it’s easy to determine a %age of the hours worked.

Edit: although I suppose in reality the scheme will work based on how much pay someone gets  rather than determining hours. 

A reasonable point but I'm sure it isn't difficult to establish what players regular hours were before all this. Most full time clubs will be training circa 10 - 15 hours a week and then matchdays so probably 20 hours a week or so is roughly where they are at. I'm not convinced football clubs could legally use the scheme without actually reducing training from say 4 days a week to 2 days a week.

2 hours ago, Jamie_M said:

Conversation here from 3.30 onwards. Still utilising furlough, part time until end of October.

The new scheme includes those that were not previously furloughed, the just have to have been on the payroll before 23rd September, so Morton's signings on Friday would be ineligible but the rest of the squad would be.

Not quite, they have to have been on the HMRC RTI returns before 23 September having read the rules now. If you pay weekly that means they have to have been employed at least a week before that. If you pay monthly chances are it's only applying to people employed at the end of August.

Hopkin's comments are odd. The suggestion the players are "down to 17 or 18 hours a week" is surprising. I doubt full time players were training an awful lot more than that before. At least not formally. He also suggests the players are "having to follow a gym programme on their own time". If that's mandatory in practice it's still work. I'm not sure that's anywhere near a "part time" definition. Of course you can claim this new grant if they work 80% of their hours too but it's going to be pretty trivial in support levels unless you are swingeingly cutting the amount of training they actually did before.

Football is an odd industry in which players are ostensibly "full time" but actually only require to attend work about 20 hours. I suspect if football clubs think they can claim that makes the players part time employed when in reality they aren't doing much if any less than they did before then HMRC will take a dim view. Of course how they actually prove that is another question. Players don't typically fill in timesheets. Hopkin actually strongly implies that Morton's players are still part time furloughed which would be very surprising and open to HMRC enquiry I think. It's also highly likely that if clubs start trying to claim the players were employed 40 hours a week before then lots of the younger ones will be in breach of minimum wage legislation.

1 hour ago, Flash said:

Presumably you could also use the scheme if you were paying a player on loan and they were training with their parent club? They are only working part-time for the club they are on loan to.

No you couldn't. A player on loan is not at any point an employee on the borrowing club's payroll. And even if they were (which they never are) then the scheme would only apply if they were doing less hours than they were employed to do. If the agreement when you sign a loan player is he trains twice a week with his own club and twice with the new one then those two days are his "usual hours" surely? His usual hours are therefore not reduced.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[Guest Flash]

10 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

 

No you couldn't. A player on loan is not at any point an employee on the borrowing club's payroll. And even if they were (which they never are) then the scheme would only apply if they were doing less hours than they were employed to do. If the agreement when you sign a loan player is he trains twice a week with his own club and twice with the new one then those two days are his "usual hours" surely? His usual hours are therefore not reduced.

I meant if the borrowing club reduced their hours and they went back to the parent club to train. Point is irrelevant though if they aren’t employees of the borrowing club, which I didn’t know.

[Skyline Drifter]

2 minutes ago, Flash said:

I meant if the borrowing club reduced their hours and they went back to the parent club to train. Point is irrelevant though if they aren’t employees of the borrowing club, which I didn’t know.

They are never employed by the borrowing club. The lending club invoice for their services. It's effectively a secondment.

[Guest Flash]

9 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

They are never employed by the borrowing club. The lending club invoice for their services. It's effectively a secondment.

Could the lending club claim under the scheme if the player still trained with them some of the time?

[Skyline Drifter]

1 minute ago, Flash said:

Could the lending club claim under the scheme if the player still trained with them some of the time?

I don't know. I doubt it. The player is still working (training) at the borrowing club. He's not sitting at home without hours to work. And they are probably being paid for him to be there. I guess there might be an argument if you sent a player out on loan for little or no charge because he was surplus to requirements at the parent club? That's a pretty grey area. I still can't see HMRC being consciously happy with it. It's not really saving a job as such is it?

[D.A.F.C]

It’s not remotely a massive risk - each of those things will be happening regardless. 
 
It increases the risk slightly but this can be managed. As cases increase it is fair enough to stop fans attending but as things begin to ease there isn’t any reason not to. 

Its not easing at all though tbh.

[No_Problemo]

20 minutes ago, D.A.F.C said:

4 hours ago, No_Problemo said:

It’s not remotely a massive risk - each of those things will be happening regardless. 
 
It increases the risk slightly but this can be managed. As cases increase it is fair enough to stop fans attending but as things begin to ease there isn’t any reason not to. 

Its not easing at all though tbh.

Yeah, imagine into next year tbh - didn’t mean anytime soon!

[RiG]

The SPFL have just announced that teams can make five substitutions in games this season except for matches in the Championship because only 3 teams responded in favour to the proposal put forward.

https://spfl.co.uk/news/press-release-use-of-five-subs

Edited September 30, 2020 by RiG

[renton]

27 minutes ago, RiG said:

The SPFL have just announced that teams can make five substitutions in games this season except for matches in the Championship because only 3 teams responded in favour to the proposal put forward.

https://spfl.co.uk/news/press-release-use-of-five-subs

That's fairly bizarre.

[RandomGuy.]

13 minutes ago, renton said:

That's fairly bizarre.

Its not. 5 subs is a massive advantage for larger clubs, as clubs in the top flight are discovering.

[renton]

21 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Its not. 5 subs is a massive advantage for larger clubs, as clubs in the top flight are discovering.

No, the fact that the championship decided against it is what I find bizarre.