Scotland's League One and Two could be off until JANUARY

[stuartcraig]

23 minutes ago, Dunning1874 said:

For the record I entirely agree that if we had the situation where the top two divisions were playing while L1 & L2 weren't there would need to be some form of additional support given to the clubs who have no means of income while they aren't allowed to play, but there's no logic in saying that the Premiership carrying on while other leagues don't amounts to Premiership clubs somehow throwing smaller clubs under the bus.

If the Premiership clubs carry on without agreeing to redistribution of the TV money to help lower league clubs, does that meet your criteria for under-bus-throwing.

[O'Kelly Isley III]

Didn't click on the link after seeing it was the Mail. Assuming it's immigrants to blame for our football woes is the gist?

Likewise, and everyone should be aware that if it's in The Mail then it will affect only the right wing of your team.

[TxRover]

5 hours ago, Samsonite said:

The only option to re-start earlier is if clubs are allowed to let fans into the grounds while complying with social distancing regulations which I believe can be done but if they will be allowed to do that or not is a different matter.

This kind of suggestion was mentioned on the East Fife thread, and got me doing a little math. I can’t see a single stand getting over 18-20% capacity using any kind of 6 foot/2 metre Rules. At EFFC, that worked out to nearly 360 in a stand with a 1998 capacity. That’s simply not viable as it probably wouldn’t pay the basic costs of even cleaning the stand before and after, marshaling the “crowd”, etc.

 

4 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

I'm not sure they could afford to meet the likely cost of imposing crowd restriction, staff and player testing even with gate money. If grounds are partially open, the streaming service would be limited to those not able to get in to a ground, how many would that be.

It's a bit like summer football, it's a nice idea until you get in to the logistics and cost.

The only upside I see to a January start would be IF the crowd restrictions were significantly mitigated or removed.

It would be possible to run a simple home/away season at all levels, and likely draw bumper crowds, if allowable. While income wouldn’t reach 100%, with only one home or away game versus each team, I could see 120-150% crowds over the normal, if allowable. With the knock on of reduced staffing costs for half the games, but increased need for staff at each game, it would probably serve to keep teams afloat, but the ability to pack a stand, in a medical sense, is in doubt.

P.S. Used metre instead of meter, just for you, Sarge!

[Newbornbairn]

I presume women's football can carry on as normal?

[DA Baracus]

54 minutes ago, stuartcraig said:

I got the name wrong but I assume that you understand who I meant.

As for your other question, I thought that was the rumoured proposition but happy to be corrected.  It doesn't change the basis for my question on whether there will be a more generous distribution of TV money to lower league clubs (whether the bottom 2 or 3).

Yeah, I knew what you meant. I was being a pedantic arse.

The Premiership isn't know for its generosity.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, stuartcraig said:

If the Premiership clubs carry on without agreeing to redistribution of the TV money to help lower league clubs, does that meet your criteria for under-bus-throwing.

Your solution appears to be the part-time clubs throwing the full-time ones under the bus by saying "We're not able to start now, so neither can you". In reality, there has to be a different solution for each level of football depending on what is feasible.

[DA Baracus]

39 minutes ago, TxRover said:

This kind of suggestion was mentioned on the East Fife thread, and got me doing a little math. I can’t see a single stand getting over 18-20% capacity using any kind of 6 foot/2 metre Rules. At EFFC, that worked out to nearly 360 in a stand with a 1998 capacity. That’s simply not viable as it probably wouldn’t pay the basic costs of even cleaning the stand before and after, marshaling the “crowd”, etc.

 

The only upside I see to a January start would be IF the crowd restrictions were significantly mitigated or removed.

It would be possible to run a simple home/away season at all levels, and likely draw bumper crowds, if allowable. While income wouldn’t reach 100%, with only one home or away game versus each team, I could see 120-150% crowds over the normal, if allowable. With the knock on of reduced staffing costs for half the games, but increased need for staff at each game, it would probably serve to keep teams afloat, but the ability to pack a stand, in a medical sense, is in doubt.

P.S. Used metre instead of meter, just for you, Sarge!

How did you calculate this without knowing the dimensions of the seated areas?

[TxRover]

18 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

How did you calculate this without knowing the dimensions of the seated areas?

Well, if you look online you can find pictures that allow you to count seats in a section. Allowing for people seated in pairs, with two seats between pairs, you get about 15-20% capacity, depending on how the maths work out. For example:

New Bayview’s stand appears to have several section of 17 rows of 20 seats. The quick and dirty way is assign seats 2-3, 6-7, 10-11, 14-15, 18-19 to pairs of fans. That leaves an open seat by the stairs, and beats other options. Assigning every third row means Rows 1, 4, 7, 10, 13 and 16 are occupied. 10 per row, 6 rows, 60 people in a section that can hold 340, thus 17.65%.

The unfortunate reality is most stadiums will not have an efficient solution, so 15% is probably maximum capacity with distancing. Stark’s has a theoretical 8,867  capacity, and might hold 1,330...which would work for a few League One games, and no Championship games. TFS has a capacity of 7,937, thus 1,191...which would never work for even home support...Balmoor is 3,150, or 473...

[stuartcraig]

22 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Your solution appears to be the part-time clubs throwing the full-time ones under the bus by saying "We're not able to start now, so neither can you". In reality, there has to be a different solution for each level of football depending on what is feasible.

Where have I said that's my solution?  I'm saying I don't buy the let's kick off the Premiership in August so that the whole Scottish football benefits from the TV money position argument, especially if we continue with the League One / Two chicken feed distribution that is currently in place.  If there is no change to that then we'll know that the decision is being taken with the wellbeing of the Premiership clubs as the primary driver, and everyone else is an afterthought.
 

[TxRover]

47 minutes ago, stuartcraig said:

Where have I said that's my solution?  I'm saying I don't buy the let's kick off the Premiership in August so that the whole Scottish football benefits from the TV money position argument, especially if we continue with the League One / Two chicken feed distribution that is currently in place.  If there is no change to that then we'll know that the decision is being taken with the wellbeing of the Premiership clubs as the primary driver, and everyone else is an afterthought.
 

Certainly true, unless more money is being funneled down. As it stands, the payments to the League One and Two teams would be unlikely to even support a hibernating club, although Council participation in grounds costs might tip that scale.

[Sergeant Wilson]

28 minutes ago, TxRover said:

Certainly true, unless more money is being funneled down. As it stands, the payments to the League One and Two teams would be unlikely to even support a hibernating club, although Council participation in grounds costs might tip that scale.

Which way?

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, stuartcraig said:

Where have I said that's my solution?  I'm saying I don't buy the let's kick off the Premiership in August so that the whole Scottish football benefits from the TV money position argument, especially if we continue with the League One / Two chicken feed distribution that is currently in place.  If there is no change to that then we'll know that the decision is being taken with the wellbeing of the Premiership clubs as the primary driver, and everyone else is an afterthought.
 

What is your solution? You seem to be taking issue with the idea that different leagues might behave differently based on the specific needs of the clubs in those divisions.

[stuartcraig]

41 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

What is your solution?

Hopefully "redistribution of the TV money to help lower league clubs" gives you a clue?

41 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

You seem to be taking issue with the idea that different leagues might behave differently based on the specific needs of the clubs in those divisions

If you'd finished that sentence off with "without making concessions which consider the wellbeing of clubs in other leagues" you'd have been right on the money.

Maybe I'm being unfair to the Premiership clubs.  Maybe they're already thinking of ways in which they can share more of the pain by spreading the TV money more equitably.

Or maybe they aren't.

[craigkillie]

The concession they're making is that they're playing at a loss to keep alive a TV deal which benefits those other clubs who aren't able to play and can therefore furlough players and almost hibernate as a business.

If there's a decision to delay the start of League 1 and League 2, it will come because the clubs in those leagues want it, not something dictated down to them from above. Asking for additional compensation from other clubs to sit around and do nothing while the other clubs take on the risk seems a bit counterintuitive.

[Sergeant Wilson]

8 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The concession they're making is that they're playing at a loss to keep alive a TV deal which benefits those other clubs who aren't able to play and can therefore furlough players and almost hibernate as a business.

If there's a decision to delay the start of League 1 and League 2, it will come because the clubs in those leagues want it, not something dictated down to them from above. Asking for additional compensation from other clubs to sit around and do nothing while the other clubs take on the risk seems a bit counterintuitive.

It's beginning to sound like the football equivalent of sitting outside Central Station with a cardboard sign and a dug. I'm not sure where the impression comes from that top tier clubs will be making a profit that can be redistributed comes from.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson

[stuartcraig]

7 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

It's beginning to sound like the football equivalent of sitting outside Central Station with a cardboard sign and a dug. I'm not sure where the impression comes from that top tier clubs will be making a profit that can be redistributed comes from.

Pretty sure that I said "TV money" rather than "profit" but feel free to introduce that "worthless sponger" trope into the discussion.

[Sergeant Wilson]

5 minutes ago, stuartcraig said:

Pretty sure that I said "TV money" rather than "profit" but feel free to introduce that "worthless sponger" trope into the discussion.

There will be no profit, that's the point. The TV money will only stem losses. Are do you suggest clubs should make a bigger loss to subsidise those lower down, not playing at all, but still  maintaining the basic league dividends?

I think you'll do well to maintain any dividend, more like they'll look to claw money back.

[stuartcraig]

27 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The concession they're making is that they're playing at a loss to keep alive a TV deal which benefits those other clubs who aren't able to play and can therefore furlough players and almost hibernate as a business.

I remain skeptical.

[Newbornbairn]

The top league will do what's best for them. Anything any other league gets will be incidental and minimalised as much as possible.

 

Can really see them saying Premier Division only for 20/21 - running at a loss and "making the sacrifice for the greater good of Scottish football" to meet the terms of the TV deal,  but 100% of the TV money has to go to them for that season. TV doesn't give a f**k about the Championship and below anyway. 

[Guest Ecosse83]

1 minute ago, NewBornBairn said:

The top league will do what's best for them. Anything any other league gets will be incidental and minimalised as much as possible.

 

Can really see them saying Premier Division only for 20/21 - running at a loss and "making the sacrifice for the greater good of Scottish football" to meet the terms of the TV deal,  but 100% of the TV money has to go to them for that season. TV doesn't give a f**k about the Championship and below anyway. 

Keep Hearts in the division and I can definitely see that happening!