Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Don't be daft, they're using that cash to get Tommy Wright in.

They've got plenty though, their well run.

[Ro Sham Bo]

49 minutes ago, GiGi said:

It's worth sticking with it to read in full. There's a lot of misplaced entitlement and sense of injustice to unpack.

It's also worth remembering while reading it that this "ambitious full time club" is currently 5th in the league 1 table and therefore outside even the play off places. 

[Wildrover]

11 hours ago, Mr X said:

I know 

I think theres a clear distinction between the two though. Its Falkirk fans whos heads have well and truly gone whereas the club has kept relatively quiet. Its the other way round at Partick, which makes it all the more hilarious! Fair play to the majority of Thistle fans who seem to be as baffled by their clubs mewling's as the rest of us.

Just had a look, bloody hell those Falkirk fans totally deluded, vaccinate players before everyone else!!, Partick fans saying there statement is a minter and Falkirk fans saying it's spot on, I wonder if they called the lower leagues would they take promotion or stick to there principles of last season of no promotion or relegation!!??    

[Skyline Drifter]

1 minute ago, Wildrover said:

Just had a look, bloody hell those Falkirk fans totally deluded, vaccinate players before everyone else!!, Partick fans saying there statement is a minter and Falkirk fans saying it's spot on, I wonder if they called the lower leagues would they take promotion or stick to there principles of last season of no promotion or relegation!!??    

To be fair it's largely just two fans making a lot of noise.

And almost all of the Thistle fans have said their statement is embarrassing.

[Parttimesupporter]

14 hours ago, LeodhasXD said:

I remember a comment from their directors when we were bottom of the league and playing them "If we can't beat you (Alloa) we deserve to get relegated."

I think @Gaz summed it up well:

"Honestly, you know what's fucked me off over the past year as much as anything is that there's some big, bad narrative to punish us and that's why we're in this league. Folk greeting about us getting £150k and Championship clubs getting £500k. It's our own fault for continuing to incur running costs of a Championship club. If Rangers were still in League 1 and demanding millions would folk be saying that's only fair due to their running costs?

The sooner large swathes of our idiot fans realise we are where we are because we've been shite for a decade the better."

The post you've quoted is reasonable bar the reference to 'shite for a decade'.  They reached one Scottish Cup Final, the semi of the Scottish Cup and the League Cup and several play offs in the last decade.  Presumably 'shite' = not in the top 12.  In my  near 50 years of watching Scottish football they will have been outside the top 12 more often than not.

[Ranaldo Bairn]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

To be fair it's largely just two fans making a lot of noise.

And almost all of the Thistle fans have said their statement is embarrassing.

Thank you. A couple of posters getting roundly telt by the rest of us.

Doesn't fit the predictable pile-on though.

[RiG]

ICT had previously raised concerns about the costs of testing. Can anyone remember if their side had made similar noises or were they content to pay for the testing if that's what it took to get games on?

[Gorgie greatness]

The problem with L1 & L2 they are largely teams minus a decent amount of fans. This is likely the reason when the SPFL do as they please they go along with it. 
 

*do as they please = being served up as a bargaining chip with the SG to take the heat off vhictim fc

Edited January 12, 2021 by Gorgie greatness

[Brother Grimm]

To be fair it's largely just two fans making a lot of noise.
And almost all of the Thistle fans have said their statement is embarrassing.

Similar levels of embarrassment as the two Queen's put out about George Galloway.

[foreverarover]

ICT had previously raised concerns about the costs of testing. Can anyone remember if their side had made similar noises or were they content to pay for the testing if that's what it took to get games on?

They have just been give £500k from the government. Without being cynical this payment would have been with this in mind. If they can't pay for testing with that kind of money there must be seriously more issues at the club than the cost of tests.

[RiG]

6 minutes ago, foreverarover said:

1 hour ago, RiG said:

ICT had previously raised concerns about the costs of testing. Can anyone remember if their side had made similar noises or were they content to pay for the testing if that's what it took to get games on?

They have just been give £500k from the government. Without being cynical this payment would have been with this in mind. If they can't pay for testing with that kind of money there must be seriously more issues at the club than the cost of tests.

I agree and there was earlier grant money as well. Just curious if the costs of testing had previously been raised by any other club.

Edited January 12, 2021 by RiG

[craigkillie]

They have just been give £500k from the government. Without being cynical this payment would have been with this in mind. If they can't pay for testing with that kind of money there must be seriously more issues at the club than the cost of tests.

The £500k from the government was to compensate clubs for the loss of income, not to pay for testing. Yes, they can and should use it for that, but the payment wasn't made with that in mind.

If you were starting at a £500k shortfall before testing at this grant was just covering that, then they're going to still be looking at a shortfall due to the unexpected testing costs.

That's not a comment on the rights or wrongs of the government giving money in the first place.

[vikingTON]

37 minutes ago, Snafu said:

Nah! we're just tight/ living within our means.

Not sure if serious.

McKinnon was similarly complaining about the potential cost of testing at Morton at the start of the season. I wouldn't read it as 'we're considering the wisdom of our choice' but rather 'poor us, hand over £14 for our stream service' panhandling.

[Parttimesupporter]

4 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The £500k from the government was to compensate clubs for the loss of income, not to pay for testing. Yes, they can and should use it for that, but the payment wasn't made with that in mind.

If you were starting at a £500k shortfall before testing at this grant was just covering that, then they're going to still be looking at a shortfall due to the unexpected testing costs.

That's not a comment on the rights or wrongs of the government giving money in the first place.

However, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of the way the cash was divvied up, and the apparent lack of a clear rationale for this.  It would be odd if the SG dictated how the funds were allocated between the different divisions (other than saying that clubs in the top league can only receive loans).  Presumably the SFA decided how much of the £10m total grant would go to the SPFL and how much to football outside the SPFL, but you would think they would then let the SPFL decide how the £8m was to be distributed.

The SPFL keep telling us that they are merely the servants of the clubs.  However, it doesn't appear that they consulted them before deciding on a distribution model. Admittedly that would no doubt have led to more squabbling, and god knows how the voting system would have worked.  All a bit academic now admittedly, but again the lack of transparency is notable.

Out of interest has anyone seen anything confirming how the model was decided and what the rationale was?  A brief search left me none the wiser.

 

[diegomarahenry]

The 500k should have been means tested, meaning clubs could claim "up to" 500k in the championship so that clubs were compensated for business losses due to fans not being allowed in. rather than having clubs registering a profit for this year after an unexpected 500k windfall or going out and signing a jobber for £250k and paying him 5k a week. 

Ultimately,  no club should be in a situation where they have lost a penny due to Covid, But they can't excuse financial mismanagement by taking public money. 

[Homer Thompson]

51 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said:

However, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more discussion of the way the cash was divvied up, and the apparent lack of a clear rationale for this.  It would be odd if the SG dictated how the funds were allocated between the different divisions (other than saying that clubs in the top league can only receive loans).  Presumably the SFA decided how much of the £10m total grant would go to the SPFL and how much to football outside the SPFL, but you would think they would then let the SPFL decide how the £8m was to be distributed.

The SPFL keep telling us that they are merely the servants of the clubs.  However, it doesn't appear that they consulted them before deciding on a distribution model. Admittedly that would no doubt have led to more squabbling, and god knows how the voting system would have worked.  All a bit academic now admittedly, but again the lack of transparency is notable.

Out of interest has anyone seen anything confirming how the model was decided and what the rationale was?  A brief search left me none the wiser.

 

You havent read the Falkirk thread then? Or any of Particks press releases?

[Parttimesupporter]

41 minutes ago, Mr X said:

You havent read the Falkirk thread then? Or any of Particks press releases?

Believe it or not I haven't.

I would expect both to contain a lot of grumbling (which to an extent could be justified).  I wouldn't expect to find an explanation of who decided on the distribution model and why, which is what I am curious about.

[Guest Flash]

2 hours ago, diegomarahenry said:

The 500k should have been means tested, meaning clubs could claim "up to" 500k in the championship so that clubs were compensated for business losses due to fans not being allowed in. rather than having clubs registering a profit for this year after an unexpected 500k windfall or going out and signing a jobber for £250k and paying him 5k a week. 

Ultimately,  no club should be in a situation where they have lost a penny due to Covid, But they can't excuse financial mismanagement by taking public money. 

Was this not covered earlier in the thread?

On 18/12/2020 at 19:37, Tynierose said:

The caveat is that the money cannot be used for transfer fees and also the monies cannot be withdrawn by directors or owners.  The grant is purely for operational football costs.  Any misuse will see the grant money having to be repaid in its entirity.  Each club has to sign an agreement regarding this.

 

On 18/12/2020 at 19:44, Tynierose said:

Thats the interesting one however each cub had to provide detailed accounts of their expensiture and income over the past couple of seasons to show the volume of monies they were losing due to no crowds.  As part of that process they also had to provide the SFA with their current cash situation in writing so they have a knowledge of each clubs financial situatiuon.  If for example Alloa start spunkng 100k in transfer fees then eyebrows would be raised.

 

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, Parttimesupporter said:

Believe it or not I haven't.

I would expect both to contain a lot of grumbling (which to an extent could be justified).  I wouldn't expect to find an explanation of who decided on the distribution model and why, which is what I am curious about.

There's a lot of informed discussion and a healthy respect for alternative views.

[diegomarahenry]

11 minutes ago, Flash said:

Was this not covered earlier in the thread?

 

 

Sorry, I should have read through all 503 pages to make sure I didn't repeat something someone else said.  Thanks for keeping me right and pointing it out, hope I didn't ruin your evening with that atrocity.