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

[Nowhereman]

Its what will happen if you want to start, yet another, petty squabble vote over a redistribution of prize money. The current reconstruction vote is still ongoing, so if you're expecting a prize money vote to be cleared up within 2 months then you're deluded.
Still no idea why Premiership clubs, who will have full outgoings, and major losses, have to suffer all that to protect a TV deal, while also cutting their own prize money, simply to hand over more money to clubs who presumably will have almost no outgoings. Its fairly obvious the biggest financial losers if the top flight is forced to play on behind closed doors is the top flight sides, why is it suddenly a fair compromise to punish their players by forcing pay cuts/releases so top flight clubs dont go to the wall to help smaller clubs with no outgoings and wages paid by the government increase their income?

Who is going to ‘force’ the top flight to play behind closed doors? They will only do so if they think it’s in their best interests

[RandomGuy.]

7 minutes ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

Stevie May has as many caps as Findlay and Brophy ??

Not when he left.

6 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Who is going to ‘force’ the top flight to play behind closed doors? They will only do so if they think it’s in their best interests

The TV deal seems to, currently, require the league season to start by a certain date.

[AGPar]

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

The TV deal seems to, currently, require the league season to start by a certain date.

You got there in the end. "Forcing" Premier League clubs to play behind closed doors and to hell with the financial consequences has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with clubs at this level and absolutely everything to do with Sky Sports demanding 4 bigotfests to televise next season. As everyone already knew.

[RandomGuy.]

11 minutes ago, AGPar said:

You got there in the end. "Forcing" Premier League clubs to play behind closed doors and to hell with the financial consequences has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with clubs at this level and absolutely everything to do with Sky Sports demanding 4 bigotfests to televise next season. As everyone already knew.

I've never said it would be getting done for the benefit of lower league clubs.

I'm just saying that it will benefit lower league clubs, especially if they do end up not playing at all.

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

Its what will happen if you want to start, yet another, petty squabble vote over a redistribution of prize money. The current reconstruction vote is still ongoing, so if you're expecting a prize money vote to be cleared up within 2 months then you're deluded.

Still no idea why Premiership clubs, who will have full outgoings, and major losses, have to suffer all that to protect a TV deal, while also cutting their own prize money, simply to hand over more money to clubs who presumably will have almost no outgoings. Its fairly obvious the biggest financial losers if the top flight is forced to play on behind closed doors is the top flight sides, why is it suddenly a fair compromise to punish their players by forcing pay cuts/releases so top flight clubs dont go to the wall to help smaller clubs with no outgoings and wages paid by the government increase their income?

You do make it sound like martyrdom though.

For the diddies:

Top tier teams are playing closed door to get their share. A side benefit is you should get yours if the tv deal is maintained. I say should because I expect there will be discussions about distribution.

[craigkillie]

2 hours ago, AGPar said:

And yet, this nonsensical theory of Premier League clubs, in a collective attack of never-before-seen altruism, heroically battling on, playing behind closed doors and taking the financial hit for the greater good of preserving the precious Sky deal and the pittance that finds its way to League 1 and 2 clubs, has been expounded by precisely one poster. A Kilmarnock fan. Entertaining, if hopelessly misplaced wee rant nevertheless.

It's not my fault that you can't comprehend the actual conversation that has happened on this thread.

You were outraged at the thought that the lower leagues might be scrapped until January, and suggested that it was evidence that Scottish football should only start when it was feasible for all leagues to do so. My argument was that this was a terrible idea, since the circumstances for each league are completely different (part time v full time, short contracts v long contracts) and, most importantly, the new, more valuable TV deal, which is a big source of income for all clubs in the SPFL, is based on the Premiership starting in August.

Another person suggested that this was an "I'm alright Jack" attitude, as though the Premiership clubs would really want to kick off with no fans in August in a perfect world. I then noted that the clubs would be running at a loss behind closed doors, but that this would be a price worth paying to protect a long-term 5 year deal which is worth a great deal to the SPFL. At no point did I suggest that it was purely altruistic - it benefits the Premiership clubs themselves just as it does the other 30, but I pointed out that the Premiership clubs would also be the ones taking a risk in the short-term.

There appears to be absolutely no prospect of any league playing in front of fans for several months, therefore the options are either to delay the start of the season until we can, or play games behind closed doors. Lower league clubs have made it very clear that they don't think they can afford to play behind closed doors, and would prefer to furlough their staff for as long as possible (apart from your own club who have chucked them under the bus a month early for no real reason) and wait until fans can attend. Many Premiership clubs (my own included) would probably be fairly happy to do the same, but unlike the lower league clubs they have the TV deal to think about.

Therefore, if you want all of the leagues to act in the same way, there are two possible options; a) we start all four leagues in August as usual behind closed doors, which would be against the wishes of the lower league clubs and would probably see them struggling financially; or b) all four leagues wait until November/December/January/whenever, by which point the £150m Sky deal is down the drain which probably sees clubs in all four divisions struggling financially. Neither of these are remotely appearling, so forcing everyone to start together is a completely illogical position to hold.

Instead, it makes perfect sense to make a decision on a division by division basis. The Premiership starts in August, initially behind closed doors, to ensure contractual obligations are met, and while the clubs will likely lose some money from this there is probably at least some audience for streaming, club TV and other sources of income (maybe even virtual hospitality) which may make it at least somewhat viable. The situation for the Championship isn't entirely clear, but they likely start a bit later with reduced crowds. Meanwhile, Leagues 1 and 2 are able to essentially hibernate (using the furlough scheme and other sources of income) until we can get fans back in the ground, but still benefit from the prize money from the TV deal come the end of the season.

 

Edited May 23, 2020 by craigkillie

[Shadwell Dog]

Has anyone actually spoken to sky to find out what their take is on the whole thing. As usual we seem to get sky could, sky might sorts of rumours floating about without anyone actually confirming what sky would do.

[RandomGuy.]

53 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

You do make it sound like martyrdom though.

For the diddies:

Top tier teams are playing closed door to get their share. A side benefit is you should get yours if the tv deal is maintained. I say should because I expect there will be discussions about distribution.

I've only said it makes no sense to up the contribution to lower league sides, and therefore cut the top tier money, when the lower league sides will have the benefit of not making losses by hosting closed door games or paying full wages.

[Thom & Gerry]

39 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

It's not my fault that you can't comprehend the actual conversation that has happened on this thread.

You were outraged at the thought that the lower leagues might be scrapped until January, and suggested that it was evidence that Scottish football should only start when it was feasible for all leagues to do so. My argument was that this was a terrible idea, since the circumstances for each league are completely different (part time v full time, short contracts v long contracts) and, most importantly, the new, more valuable TV deal, which is a big source of income for all clubs in the SPFL, is based on the Premiership starting in August.

Another person suggested that this was an "I'm alright Jack" attitude, as though the Premiership clubs would really want to kick off with no fans in August in a perfect world. I then noted that the clubs would be running at a loss behind closed doors, but that this would be a price worth paying to protect a long-term 5 year deal which is worth a great deal to the SPFL. At no point did I suggest that it was purely altruistic - it benefits the Premiership clubs themselves just as it does the other 30, but I pointed out that the Premiership clubs would also be the ones taking a risk in the short-term.

There appears to be absolutely no prospect of any league playing in front of fans for several months, therefore the options are either to delay the start of the season until we can, or play games behind closed doors. Lower league clubs have made it very clear that they don't think they can afford to play behind closed doors, and would prefer to furlough their staff for as long as possible (apart from your own club who have chucked them under the bus a month early for no real reason) and wait until fans can attend. Many Premiership clubs (my own included) would probably be fairly happy to do the same, but unlike the lower league clubs they have the TV deal to think about.

Therefore, if you want all of the leagues to act in the same way, there are two possible options; a) we start all four leagues in August as usual behind closed doors, which would be against the wishes of the lower league clubs and would probably see them struggling financially; or b) all four leagues wait until November/December/January/whenever, by which point the £150m Sky deal is down the drain which probably sees clubs in all four divisions struggling financially. Neither of these are remotely appearling, so forcing everyone to start together is a completely illogical position to hold.

Instead, it makes perfect sense to make a decision on a division by division basis. The Premiership starts in August, initially behind closed doors, to ensure contractual obligations are met, and while the clubs will likely lose some money from this there is probably at least some audience for streaming, club TV and other sources of income (maybe even virtual hospitality) which may make it at least somewhat viable. The situation for the Championship isn't entirely clear, but they likely start a bit later with reduced crowds. Meanwhile, Leagues 1 and 2 are able to essentially hibernate (using the furlough scheme and other sources of income) until we can get fans back in the ground, but still benefit from the prize money from the TV deal come the end of the season.

 

Can’t argue with most of that and feel you are correct that the Divisions may have to start at different times and maybe with different formats ie less games played in each division.
As I have stated many times before that I can’t see reconstruction that means extra teams in the league ie Brora, Kelty without compensation to the lower league teams. They will just not vote for it.

As for furlough payments what happens when they stop?

 I see that Ross County are not going to furlough any players who they are not retaining believing it to be immoral and potentially illegal.

[Shadwell Dog]

16 minutes ago, Thom & Gerry said:

Can’t argue with most of that and feel you are correct that the Divisions may have to start at different times and maybe with different formats ie less games played in each division.
As I have stated many times before that I can’t see reconstruction that means extra teams in the league ie Brora, Kelty without compensation to the lower league teams. They will just not vote for it.

As for furlough payments what happens when they stop?

 I see that Ross County are not going to furlough any players who they are not retaining believing it to be immoral and potentially illegal.

Wheres Roy's Christian beliefs gone? Seems happy to fling his players on the old scrap heap with no money and no prospect of a job any time soon. 

[AGPar]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

It's not my fault that you can't comprehend the actual conversation that has happened on this thread.

No I understood the conversation perfectly thanks. And I wasn't aware my club had  chucked any staff under a bus, you're obviously privy to information that no other supporter has, nothing even reported on the club website, strange. Your argument about the "circumstances of each league being different" is far, far too sweeping and generalistic. It takes no account whatsoever of the financial position and stewardship of the individual clubs within them. Essentially, Leagues 1 and 2 = part-time, short term contracts, no ability to generate any commercial revenue outwith a match-day, no prospect whatsoever of them being able to kick a ball for a considerable amount of time therefore go off and hibernate for a while and we'll wake you up if and when it's safe to play football in front of spectators again. And presumably that is them also out of the Scottish Cup as well. The "Lump All the Diddies Together" approach so beloved of Doncaster and his ilk for far too long. Except there are full-time clubs in these divisions, some clubs with players on longer contracts, some clubs with reasonable financial backing, some who, god forbid, may wish to play next season. But they are to be denied that opportunity by virtue of nothing more than the league they currently find themselves in. Whilst the Premier League has clubs leaking £1m per month, clubs living for nothing more than the next opportunity to hand over 3/4 of their stadium to the bigot brothers, a club who have just spent inordinate amounts of money to get there. Clubs who, in any objective assessment, are poorly run and probably in no position whatsoever to undertake their business without their major source of income. But they play on. At a time like this, Scottish football needs far more flexible and innovative thinking than that, not that they will get it. They should be liaising with every single club to discuss and assess their ability to participate IN next season, the requirements, potential costs of testing, everything and those deemed capable of , and wishing to do so sure as hell should not be restrained from playing. And if they did that, there'd quite possibly be a few Premier League clubs sitting on the sidelines and a few of the lower league diddies playing. 

[craigkillie]

Your club just released 17 players yesterday, unless the "Par" in your username relates to something else. They are liaising with all the clubs - there are clubs from every level on their restarting football committee, and indeed the calls to just hibernate the lower league clubs have come from, well, the lower league clubs themselves.

I still haven't seen you propose a single solution here, just a bunch of thrashing about because the SPFL have listened to the lower league clubs who don't want to play behind closed doors.

[Shadwell Dog]

8 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Your club just released 17 players yesterday, unless the "Par" in your username relates to something else. They are liaising with all the clubs - there are clubs from every level on their restarting football committee, and indeed the calls to just hibernate the lower league clubs have come from, well, the lower league clubs themselves.

I still haven't seen you propose a single solution here, just a bunch of thrashing about because the SPFL have listened to the lower league clubs who don't want to play behind closed doors.

He's not a dunfermline fan I can tell you that.

[AGPar]

45 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Your club just released 17 players yesterday, unless the "Par" in your username relates to something else. They are liaising with all the clubs - there are clubs from every level on their restarting football committee, and indeed the calls to just hibernate the lower league clubs have come from, well, the lower league clubs themselves.

I still haven't seen you propose a single solution here, just a bunch of thrashing about because the SPFL have listened to the lower league clubs who don't want to play behind closed doors.

Name these 17 players my club released yesterday please. Strange move, considering they have just extended, on a short-term basis, the deals of those players going out-of-contract. This is a League One forum. Your solution - for League 1- is for all clubs to be mothballed for an indeterminate period of time. An inflexible, one-size fits all solution that takes no account of the ability or desire of any club or clubs within the league to participate next season. Restraining trade in effect. So the correct course of action - again, for League 1- which really should not be beyond the scope or capability of an administrator earning a reported combined salary and bonus of not far short of £400k, will be to assess the ability of any club who do wish to play next season and them allocate them a division in which to play. And, as has been widely reported, the calls to hibernate the lower leagues has come from some clubs. Most certainly not all. League 1 is a million miles away from the homogenous entity you portray it as.

[craigkillie]

Right, you're just being wide at this point. You have "Par" in your name so I assumed you were a Dunfermline fan. If you're not, why not just say who you do support?

It's not my solution, it's the solution being proposed by the clubs in the league. If a club is desperate to play in August then they should definitely be coming up with a counter-proposal.

[AGPar]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

Right, you're just being wide at this point. You have "Par" in your name so I assumed you were a Dunfermline fan. If you're not, why not just say who you do support?

It's not my solution, it's the solution being proposed by the clubs in the league. If a club is desperate to play in August then they should definitely be coming up with a counter-proposal.

Some clubs. Possibly even a majority. Certainly not all. And the counter-proposal is straightforward enough. The club or clubs approach the SPFL, advise them that they plan to participate next season, prove that they have the financial wherewithal to do so, state they do not wish to be consigned to the sidelines for a potentially considerable period of time due to the inability of the other clubs in their current league to do the same, and reiterate that they will not be looking favourably upon any restraint of trade. It is then incumbent upon the SPFL, in looking after the best interests of all their member clubs, to do everything the can to accommodate this request by allocating them a set of fixtures and opponents to play against. Given the announcements from a couple of Championship clubs over the past 24 hours, it should not be an insurmountable obstacle.

[craigkillie]

And what makes you think this won't happen?

[Fawkirk Wull]

1 hour ago, AGPar said:

Some clubs. Possibly even a majority. Certainly not all. And the counter-proposal is straightforward enough. The club or clubs approach the SPFL, advise them that they plan to participate next season, prove that they have the financial wherewithal to do so, state they do not wish to be consigned to the sidelines for a potentially considerable period of time due to the inability of the other clubs in their current league to do the same, and reiterate that they will not be looking favourably upon any restraint of trade. It is then incumbent upon the SPFL, in looking after the best interests of all their member clubs, to do everything the can to accommodate this request by allocating them a set of fixtures and opponents to play against. Given the announcements from a couple of Championship clubs over the past 24 hours, it should not be an insurmountable obstacle.

Spfl looking after the best interest of all member clubs, your having a laugh surely

[AGPar]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

And what makes you think this won't happen?

The fact that all current talk appears to centre around progressing, or at least trying to, on a league-by-league basis which I think will prove almost impossible to do, as shown by the movement at East End Park and Palmerston in the past 24 hours and the comments of the Ayr United owner. A more nuanced approach, considering the circumstances of each club on a standalone basis, is needed. May well happen, but I would not bet on it.

[Shadwell Dog]

Has Doncaster been in contact with sky yet to reorganise the tv deal for this season?Surely the simple thing to do to bring in more cash is allow them to show every premier league game live especially as they'll be behind closed doors anyway.  At the moment they show what 40 odd so every game should commend a decent fee and of course you would discount it a bit for the games missed at the end of last season. Means everyone gets more cash and would reduce the losses the top flight clubs would face playing in front of empty stadiums.  Seems a no brainer to me.