League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[ahemps]

9 hours ago, ftk said:

Some interesting ideas on the future of Scottish Football on the 'are you not entertained?' podcast.

Of course none of it will ever happen.......

Where is this podcast? I searched for 'are you not entertained' and found several podcasts but none for Scottish football.

[DA Baracus]

7 minutes ago, ahemps said:

I have no issue with these teams in the lower leagues and having followed a junior team when I was younger I agree these clubs do good things for their local communities, they provide great away days and they are part of a healthy football system.

It is simply my opinion we have too many teams in our professional league system. I would like to see a more elite top level league system with a smaller amount of professional clubs.

I also don't believe it should be a closed shop and I believe there should be a pathway for ambitious clubs to be promoted into this system.

What do you mean by 'elite' top level league? All of Scotland's top, and therefore 'elite', teams play there already. How will punting clubs like Albion Rovers or Stirling Albion from the league system help? What will it actually accomplish, and what will he different?

Also what do you mean by 'ambitious'? Are you one of those folk who equate ambition with money? I think all our clubs are ambitious, but most are sensible enough to know that doesn't mean chucking huge sums of cash they can't afford at it to try and climb the leagues.

Arbroath could have ended up in the playoffs this year. They're very ambitious but it's taken them a while to reach that level. They've done so sustainably and patiently, often spending long stretches in the lower leagues. Kelty Hearts are being touted by the usual idiots as an ambitious club, but they're another Gretna waiting to happen. Chucking loads of cash at something and using a model dependent on a benefactor to fund it all is not ambition, unless that ambition is to reach new heights of stupidity. 

[Pet Jeden]

8 hours ago, craigkillie said:

The season which has just finished is covered by a completely separate deal and will therefore have no impact on the new one. It's obvious that Sky and BT will be entitled to pay less than they normally would for an incomplete season - if they've already paid the full amount out they'll be entitled to a refund, and if they haven't paid it all yet then they'll reduce what they will pay. This will no doubt be covered within that contract. It has been suggested that Sky will sponsor the SPFL for the coming season(s) in lieu of this payment.

As has been covered several times in a number of posts from a variety of different posters which you seem determined to ignore, it is unlikely that the deal has any particular assurances about the number of fans at the games, because the league can't ever guarantee attendance at any game. They are paying to show 48 Scottish Premiership games per season, and that is what they are getting.

Okay.

1. So accept that  SPFL are already probably due a pro-rata refund of £5m+ for this season (from monies already dished out to the clubs)?

2. Of course the new contract won't say there must be X fans. But there will certainly be a definition of what and when constitutes a qualifying match and it could well state that it can not be a behind closed doors game. But more importantly, it is the fact that BCD is fundamentally not what the parties envisaged. One party will feel aggrieved and will look to identify loopholes in the contract and I think it's odds-on they'll find a few.

I know Chapsticks and Random don't understand that. But you do.

 

[Dons_1988]

4 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

2. Of course the new contract won't say there must be X fans. But there will certainly be a definition of what and when constitutes a qualifying match and it could well state that it can not be a behind closed doors game. But more importantly, it is the fact that BCD is fundamentally not what the parties envisaged. One party will feel aggrieved and will look to identify loopholes in the contract and I think it's odds-on they'll find a few.

 

 

You might have a point if the SPFL played games behind closed doors out of choice. For example, if strict liability was introduced and an OF game ended up being BCD as a result of fan behaviour. Sky may well have something in the contract to dispute it.

But whilst government advice dictates what is happening here, I'm not sure what leverage they could possibly get?

[BFTD]

39 minutes ago, ahemps said:

It is simply my opinion we have too many teams in our professional league system. I would like to see a more elite top level league system with a smaller amount of professional clubs.

No justification or explanation of how you came to that conclusion? Is that because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

42 minutes ago, ahemps said:

I also don't believe it should be a closed shop and I believe there should be a pathway for ambitious clubs to be promoted into this system.

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing with that. Well, except Gordon Strachan and a few club chairmen who are completely absorbed by self-interest.

[Pet Jeden]

24 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

You might have a point if the SPFL played games behind closed doors out of choice. For example, if strict liability was introduced and an OF game ended up being BCD as a result of fan behaviour. Sky may well have something in the contract to dispute it.

But whilst government advice dictates what is happening here, I'm not sure what leverage they could possibly get?

Their leverage will be that they simply won't hand over the money - they'll say, "we believe clauses X,Y and Z have not been met". Then they will either offer a lesser amount (because they'll still want to keep Scottish football on the hook and out of BT's hands). Or they'll ask for something else - SPFL have already thrown sponsorship at them free gratis. Maybe they will demand a a clawback of £400,000 per BCD match, spread over years 1 and 2? Maybe they will ask for an option to extend for a further 3 or 4 years at the same price?

Edited May 26, 2020 by Pet Jeden

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, Pet Jeden said:

Their leverage will be that they simply won't hand over the money - they'll say, we believe clauses X,Y and Z have not been met. Then they will either offer a lesser amount (because they'll still want to keep Scottish football on the hook and out of BT's hands). Or they'll ask ask for something else - SPFL have already  throw sponsorship at them free gratis. Maybe they will demand a a clawback of £400,000 per BCD match, spread over years 1 and 2? Maybe they will ask for an option to extend for a further 3 or 4 years at the same price?

You need to be more specific here, what is clause X, Y and Z that are being breached? 

And don't just say they might have something in place about fans being in attendance. I'm failing to see a specific clause here that would be breached by playing games BCD that was an enforced measure. Give us something tangible or measurable.

[Pet Jeden]

1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:

You need to be more specific here, what is clause X, Y and Z that are being breached? 

And don't just say they might have something in place about fans being in attendance. I'm failing to see a specific clause here that would be breached by playing games BCD that was an enforced measure. Give us something tangible or measurable.

I don't have a copy of the contract. But it will be huge. Clients don't cough up hundreds of thousands in legal fees for  to their lawyers to produce a one-page document saying 48 matches =£30m!  There will be loopholes that either side could dig up if aggrieved. Fear of renegotiation by SKY if the season start's even 10 minutes late is what has been driving Doncaster, in my opinion. We'll see soon enough.

[ftk]

Where is this podcast? I searched for 'are you not entertained' and found several podcasts but none for Scottish football.

Search for it on google and it comes up. Roger Mitchell helps present it but it's quite good other wise.

[Dons_1988]

12 minutes ago, Pet Jeden said:

I don't have a copy of the contract. But it will be huge. Clients don't cough up hundreds of thousands in legal fees for  to their lawyers to produce a one-page document saying 48 matches =£30m!  There will be loopholes that either side could dig up if aggrieved. Fear of renegotiation by SKY if the season start's even 10 minutes late is what has been driving Doncaster, in my opinion. We'll see soon enough.

That's not an answer. But thanks for explaining to a simpleton like myself that the contract won't be one page long.

If Sky are hellbent on starting the season in August, and it's not possible to do it other than BCD, what recourse do they have to claim the contract hasn't been fulfilled? If the season starts in August, it's BCD, end of story.

I mean, if Sky have managed to negotiate a contract that implies they can insist on the season starting in August, whilst the stadiums have to be full, and regardless of government regulations they are entitled to some form of compensation if that doesn't happen, then kudos to their lawyers/negotiating team.

[Ric]

So where is successful businesswoman Ann Budge's successful business proposal for a successful league reconstruction?

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by Ric

[djchapsticks]

1 hour ago, Pet Jeden said:

Okay.

1. So accept that  SPFL are already probably due a pro-rata refund of £5m+ for this season (from monies already dished out to the clubs)?

2. Of course the new contract won't say there must be X fans. But there will certainly be a definition of what and when constitutes a qualifying match and it could well state that it can not be a behind closed doors game. But more importantly, it is the fact that BCD is fundamentally not what the parties envisaged. One party will feel aggrieved and will look to identify loopholes in the contract and I think it's odds-on they'll find a few.

I know Chapsticks and Random don't understand that. But you do.

 

Oh, I absolutely understand it. You're being facetious to think I don't given I answered you in full previously with a work around any such imaginary clause and you didn't offer up your own reply to it.

So with an equally fanciful scenario to the one you created, clubs could safely and effectively let only a couple of hundred supporters into each stand to constitute a 'crowd' and 'atmosphere'. This would comprehensively bypass any 'needs to be a crowd' clause in the contract that you'd dreamt up. Funnily enough, you chose not to respond to this solution first time round as it doesn't fit the agenda you are pushing.

[Sparticus]

37 minutes ago, Ric said:

So where is successful businesswoman Ann Budge's successful business proposal for a successful league reconstruction?

 

She'll be flapping about with a couple of proposals both of which clubs wont vote for.She's probably been told there's no point.

Perhaps if she put forward a 12-12-10-10 and do something for the other clubs she might get a bit respect back.

Still not convinced clubs would vote for 12-12-10-10 either.Nows just not the time to re con struct.

Hearts are no special case though some people in the media seem to think they are.

[ahemps]

1 hour ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

No justification or explanation of how you came to that conclusion? Is that because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

From afar I see it as such a contrast in levels and resources. Teams with part time players with small crowds having influence on a structure that includes teams competing in European competitions with internationals and multi million pound players.

I have said I don't want a closed shop top league and I believe there should be a pathway for clubs to get in to the professional league system. 

I accept my view may be wrong and I may be in the minority with this opinion.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

53 minutes ago, ahemps said:

From afar I see it as such a contrast in levels and resources. Teams with part time players with small crowds having influence on a structure that includes teams competing in European competitions with internationals and multi million pound players.

I have said I don't want a closed shop top league and I believe there should be a pathway for clubs to get in to the professional league system. 

I accept my view may be wrong and I may be in the minority with this opinion.

We gave up having a top league of about 40 teams at the end of the '90s  when the SPL was set up and then switched back a decade and a half later when it was dissolved.

One could coherently argue that the correct number is more than 12 but less than 42 which is basically what the old "SPL2" proposal was about (and what successful business woman Ann Budge was saying in her infamous "too many clubs" soundbite).

But given that neither switching to 12 or 42 seems to have delivered massive change either for better or for worse it seems unlikely that a future 20 or 24 would suddenly be a panacea or a poison and is probably not worth the kerfuffle

The underlying strengths and weaknesses of the Scottish game would remain largely undiminished

 

 

 

Edited May 26, 2020 by topcat(The most tip top)

[ahemps]

16 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

We gave up having a top league of about 40 teams at the end of the '90s  when the SPL was set up and then switched back a decade and a half later when it was dissolved.

One could coherently argue that the correct number is more than 12 but less than 42 which is basically what the old "SPL2" proposal was about (and what successful business woman Ann Budge was saying in her infamous "too many clubs" soundbite).

But given that neither switching to 12 or 42 seems to have delivered massive change either for better or for worse it seems unlikely that a future 20 or 24 would suddenly be a panacea or a poison and is probably not worth the kerfuffle

The underlying strengths and weaknesses of the Scottish game would remain undiminished

Yes I think you are probably right. I doubt it would solve any of the major issues in Scottish football.

[Pet Jeden]

1 hour ago, djchapsticks said:

Oh, I absolutely understand it. You're being facetious to think I don't given I answered you in full previously with a work around any such imaginary clause and you didn't offer up your own reply to it.

So with an equally fanciful scenario to the one you created, clubs could safely and effectively let only a couple of hundred supporters into each stand to constitute a 'crowd' and 'atmosphere'. This would comprehensively bypass any 'needs to be a crowd' clause in the contract that you'd dreamt up. Funnily enough, you chose not to respond to this solution first time round as it doesn't fit the agenda you are pushing.

I’ll type this slowly for you because I know you can’t read very fast.

The lack of a crowd is what changes the nature of the product. The loophole that SKY use as a get-out could be any technicality. Like the start dates, which Doncaster will be shitting himself about

[djchapsticks]

1 minute ago, Pet Jeden said:

I’ll type this slowly for you because I know you can’t read very fast.

The lack of a crowd is what changes the nature of the product. The loophole that SKY use as a get-out could be any technicality. Like the start dates, which Doncaster will be shitting himself about

Yeah, there's literally no point in trying to prove anything to you then as you're completely blinkered and still clutching at straws. Nice touch with the condescending tone as well, as if it's me and not you who is currently showing themselves up to be a bit dim. 

If a lack of crowd changes the nature of the product, I've given a scenario where a crowd is provided. You cannot provide a counter to that despite 2 attempts by myself to get one from you.

We are also currently 11-12 weeks out from the start date. The entire lockdown at point of writing has not even lasted that length of time. Given all that has gone on and how much has changed in the 10 weeks preceding, you are, to put it kindly, stretching if you believe that nothing will change in the next 11-12 weeks that will allow the league to get up and running by the agreed upon start date.

[wastecoatwilly]

I think we can all agree that this is a bit of a shit storm for Scottish football.
The clubs are going to lose dinero all over the place and will need to cut the costs 
If the game starts on time next season the pain will still be there especially if it starts BCD's.
By the date clubs get fans back through the gates it mite be to late for some clubs.
One thing is for sure the produce we have now is the best we're going to see for years.  

[djchapsticks]

1 minute ago, wastecoatwilly said:

One thing is for sure the produce we have now is the best we're going to see for years.  

Debatable depending on what you are looking for.

In purely technical terms, I agree but then quality of football on display always plays second fiddle to the excitement of games. None of us are exactly massive players when you look at the big picture so I'm not exactly shitting bricks at the prospect of watching slightly less technically gifted footballers.

Substitute quality for excitement every day for me. If all clubs have a severely truncated budget and need to go with a mix of experience and youths and we're all in the same boat, it'll make for a relatively exciting product.