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

[stuartcraig]

1 minute ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

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.

Which is why I've never mentioned profit.

I am suggesting that except I wouldn't use the word "subsidise" to describe a more equitable distribution of the TV money coming into the SPFL.

Premiership clubs have more income from TV and other prize revenue (e.g. additional prize money from UEFA placings which are only distributed around the top league) and have a higher cashflow to cover their essential costs.

They also have still have the option of operating on a lower cost base by continuing to furlough non-essential staff (e.g. youth teams and coaches, backroom and hospitality staff).

If, as the craigkillie fella asserts, their actions put them at greater risk than just sitting it out then fair does but it would be the first time football teams in Scotland have acted in anything other than their own narrow self interest.

[Sergeant Wilson]

3 minutes ago, stuartcraig said:

Which is why I've never mentioned profit.

I am suggesting that except I wouldn't use the word "subsidise" to describe a more equitable distribution of the TV money coming into the SPFL.

Premiership clubs have more income from TV and other prize revenue (e.g. additional prize money from UEFA placings which are only distributed around the top league) and have a higher cashflow to cover their essential costs.

They also have still have the option of operating on a lower cost base by continuing to furlough non-essential staff (e.g. youth teams and coaches, backroom and hospitality staff).

If, as the craigkillie fella asserts, their actions put them at greater risk than just sitting it out then fair does but it would be the first time football teams in Scotland have acted in anything other than their own narrow self interest.

But where is the redistributed money coming from if bigger clubs are losing money? Total income from any source is unlikely to cover costs.

[ShaggerG]

4 hours ago, TxRover said:

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...

I would suggest that most people attend matches with friends, so outwith their own households. On that basis the majority of folk wouldn't be able to sit in pairs. Also, two seats between folk is way less than 6ft, so that would be a non-starter as well.

[stuartcraig]

But where is the redistributed money coming from if bigger clubs are losing money? Total income from any source is unlikely to cover costs.

From the existing pot of money which is currently distributed to the favour of the top league (80% I think).

Why would it be so much harder for each of those clubs to subsist on a fraction less than 6.66% of TV revenue than the clubs in the bottom 2 leagues who will each have to keep going on their current 0.5% share.

[EdinburghBlue]

Universities have done estimates for lecture theatres suggesting ~15% occupancy at 2m social distancing, so TxRover's figure looks about right. If the distance is reduced to 1.5m the capacity will double.

[Sergeant Wilson]

Just now, stuartcraig said:

 

From the existing pot of money which is currently distributed to the favour of the top league (80% I think).

Why would it be so much harder for each of those clubs to subsist on a fraction less than 6.66% of TV revenue than the clubs in the bottom 2 leagues who will each have to keep going on their current 0.5% share.
 

 

Because they'd be losing more money than they necessarily need to. It's not like Germany where they can afford it. Rangers will need every last penny to delay the administrator by a week or two.

[TxRover]

3 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Which way?

Exactly.

If a club was to hibernate, what costs would it have? Debt service, a few employees, grounds maintenance and perhaps a couple of others. A team that doesn’t own their grounds (Stranraer, for example) has the advantage here, however, the owner(s) could sell the ground, leaving them to find a new home or negotiate a deal without new owner.

Another question would be how many players would be lost to the game if there was a year’s shutdown? It certainly wouldn’t improve the quality of the game. So, would a half length season for 20-21 work? If players weren’t signed until January, that’s a significant portion of the costs for half the season recouped...then, if the attendance is good, it might fly. But, if the virus comes roaring back this autumn, as many predict, the 20-21 season is toast anyway.

[stuartcraig]

Because they'd be losing more money than they necessarily need to. It's not like Germany where they can afford it. Rangers will need every last penny to delay the administrator by a week or two.

Replace “necessarily need” with “want” and you’re probably there.

Taking the Rangers basket case out of the equation....

... is there any evidence that the Premiership clubs “need” the revenue they’d hypothetically cede than the lower league clubs who would benefit.

Is a Forfar or East Fife more or less likely to go bust under the current arrangement than Hamilton or Livi under a revised arrangement.

I don’t know the answer to that but I’d at least like the question to be asked before we decide that restarting the Premiership while leaving the rest of Scottish football to weather the lockdown until January with only the current share on the TV revenue for cash flow is “problem solved”.

[Sergeant Wilson]

4 minutes ago, stuartcraig said:

 

Replace “necessarily need” with “want” and you’re probably there.

Taking the Rangers basket case out of the equation....

... is there any evidence that the Premiership clubs “need” the revenue they’d hypothetically cede than the lower league clubs who would benefit.

Is a Forfar or East Fife more or less likely to go bust under the current arrangement than Hamilton or Livi under a revised arrangement.

I don’t know the answer to that but I’d at least like the question to be asked before we decide that restarting the Premiership while leaving the rest of Scottish football to weather the lockdown until January with only the current share on the TV revenue for cash flow is “problem solved”.

 

I'm sure it'll be asked, I'm equally sure of the answer.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson

[stuartcraig]

I'm sure it'll be asked, I'm equally sure of the answer.

Somewhere between “My need is greater than yours” and “Tough Titty”.

[Newbornbairn]

I'm sure Livi have, ahem, "alternative" cash flows in place. 

[TxRover]

2 hours ago, ShaggerG said:

I would suggest that most people attend matches with friends, so outwith their own households. On that basis the majority of folk wouldn't be able to sit in pairs. Also, two seats between folk is way less than 6ft, so that would be a non-starter as well.

100% agree, but to model, you need assumptions. The good news is open air seating mitigates much of the contagion risk, while the bad is yelling like a nut significantly increases it. I suspect one seat buffer with everyone wearing masks would test out as pretty safe, IF yelling if prohibited...but then what’s the f’n point! The point is that even with single seat buffers, capacity would still be less than 50%, and for a team like Falkirk, that’s lost money on every home game. With other loses, how much can the budget stand is the universal question...and for lower league fitba, I suspect the answer is nil.

[Life on Marrs?]

8 hours 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!

Would cleaning the stand be an issue? nobody will have been in it since March. After a game it would be at least a week, usually 2 before anyone else would be using it, a virus cannot live that long without a host. If it was all ticket, it would help with controlling distance. The turnstyles may be the biggest risk.

I was mearly showing that with a bit of ingenuity there may be a way to have football with some paying customers. Today our Government paved the way for football to continue after June the 18th, and schools here will return on August the 11th. A lot can change over the next month or 2. I doubt any of those in charge make policy on my recomendations, or even read Pie & Bovril's league 1 forum though!

[TxRover]

5 hours ago, Life on Marrs? said:

Would cleaning the stand be an issue? nobody will have been in it since March. After a game it would be at least a week, usually 2 before anyone else would be using it, a virus cannot live that long without a host. If it was all ticket, it would help with controlling distance. The turnstyles may be the biggest risk.

Cleaning the stand, who knows? The bidding say that surface transmission is rare, BUT sitting there for two hours plus and touching your face, shrug.

Cheering on the team will be the huge sticking point, as that projects huge volumes of aerosols.

Note that the current estimated lifespan of the virus on a metal or glass surface is 5 days, 2 to 3 days on plastic. Fine, you say, we have the games 7 days apart...but the stadium isn’t isolated during that time. Maintenance workers, cleaners after the game, practicing players and spectators...yes, we can work to limit it, but reality is there is no perfect solution. And, as I noted, New Bayview could hold an estimated 300-380 people with some isolation, and likely closer to 200-250 with 1 metre between non-household groups. With average crowds at 20-25% of normal, likely no concession sales and a probable enforced silence, it just isn’t fitba. The cost of sanitizer stations, cleaning, stewarding and such at each stadium would probably come close to bankrupting the teams alone.

[Shadwell Dog]

Surely the only clubs that really rely on any tv deal are those in the top flight? Others would be able to cope without it as long as they were given time to budget accordingly.  Perhaps we should start  having a tuesday night clap for the top flight clubs running at a loss to keep  the tv deal alive next season?

[craigkillie]

Everyone could cope if they were given time to budget accordingly, but nobody has because this appeared out of nowhere.

The big difference is that the bigger clubs tend to have players on longer contracts because their business model is based on selling them on, while the lower league clubs tend to go from year to year and are therefore more agile.

[stuartcraig]

1 minute ago, Shadwell Dog said:

Surely the only clubs that really rely on any tv deal are those in the top flight? Others would be able to cope without it as long as they were given time to budget accordingly.

That's an assumption.  Even if the government is paying the wages of every single person on the payroll (which won't last indefinitely) clubs will still have costs they can't avoid and next to no source of income other than what the SPFL provides.  If the former amount exceeds the latter and they don't have access to credit then they're in trouble.

[stuartcraig]

Just now, craigkillie said:

The big difference is that the bigger clubs tend to have players on longer contracts because their business model is based on selling them on, while the lower league clubs tend to go from year to year and are therefore more agile.

I don't buy the "selling them on" bit.  I thought that stopped being a thing in Scottish football in the 90s.

What prevents the bigger clubs from furloughing their players?

[Shadwell Dog]

4 minutes ago, stuartcraig said:

That's an assumption.  Even if the government is paying the wages of every single person on the payroll (which won't last indefinitely) clubs will still have costs they can't avoid and next to no source of income other than what the SPFL provides.  If the former amount exceeds the latter and they don't have access to credit then they're in trouble.

I'm sure in the likes of league one and two the fans could raise the majority of the money lost to the tv deal if push comes to shove. We've already seen a number of clubs raise 10s of thousands and that's without clubs themselves pushing it. If you knew that it was future of the club at stake then those numbers would rise. Try raising million pound plus though. It's not quite as easy.

[CALDERON]

Is it not impossible to budget accordingly when you have no idea when football is going to start again?

Also, does the TV deal not amount to a decent chunk if not all of the prize money dished out?  If so, big ask for the likes of Stranraer to try and raise £70k themselves.

Edited May 22, 2020 by CALDERON