COVID-19 In Scottish Football

[vikingTON]

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

The Festive Edinburgh vs Glasgow Fixture would have got about 30,000 on Sunday under normal circumstances

That's one game in their equivalent of a Super League.

What is the average crowd in their shan domestic Premiership? 

[Dons_1988]

31 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Of course you can complain. But at the same time, it's a bit much to then demand a slice of the £5m earmarked for all sports when you decide to spend large sums (relatively) of money on players. 

I don’t see why it’s relevant. 

Government restrictions have curtailed their revenue, why would it be a prerequisite for government support to not continue player trading during the short window of the year when they can? 

[G51]

31 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

It's not really though is it? It's not as if any clubs are saying we need to spend a fee as without doing so, we cannot operate. If you have a business where you think there is a risk to your cash coming in, you do not go and spend loads on new stuff and then turn round asking the bank for an emergency loan or complain that you are now short of cash. Alien concept to Rangers fans I know...

Taking your analogy, hibs asked staff to take payouts previously and took the government loan too. You reckon the staff in the coffee shop would happily take a payout while the owner decided to spend on more expensive beans than normal? 

It absolutely is. If clubs cannot trade players then they’ll fold. This kind of argument that player trading is a luxury rather than a necessity is just the liberal equivalent of “Pay soldiers footballers wages” peddled by economic illiterates.

Hibs by the way have now gone and spent money on three players with that Government debt still outstanding. Using your argument, this is somehow immoral and Hibs should be compelled to pay the money back first, despite the fact that buying good players and developing them is how Hibs grow the business.

 

[TheScarf]

3 hours ago, HeWhoWalksBehindTheRows said:

Surly the **** would get a massive attendance down there? Have they not got something like 5million fans worldwide?

50 million is it not?

[coprolite]

2 hours ago, LiviLion said:

The only reason it's being mentioned as a possibility is that they 2 would probably still sell out their tickets. Every other fixture not involving them would stay in Scotland, I suspect. If it was a thing, Hearts/Hibs would probably push for it as well as Aberdeen for the sake of moaning, but the thought process has only gone as far as the ugly sisters.

Just imagine trying to get the local police to agree to that. Then imagine the trains. And the motorway services. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

46 minutes ago, AJF said:

I'm not sure about the example above of 6 months ago, but I do feel Rugby was treated a little favourably when they were given permission to hold "test events" back in 2020 and football clubs were refused.

True but the phrase "a little" is carrying a lot of weight

The first "Test Event"  was just 700 people at Murrayfield on the 29th or August for Edinburgh vs Glasgow. So the ground was still 99% empty. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/53957681
 

 

[G51]

Rugby absolutely gets preferential treatment over football.

Let me know when they pass an “Offensivs Behaviour (Rugby) Act” to combat the disgusting scenes we see in rugby (drinking bottles of piss, respecting opposition anthems) and I’ll withdraw this statement. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

8 minutes ago, G51 said:

It absolutely is. If clubs cannot trade players then they’ll fold. This kind of argument that player trading is a luxury rather than a necessity is just the liberal equivalent of “Pay soldiers footballers wages” peddled by economic illiterates.

I've always been confused by that one. It would mean paying the Field Marshalls and Generals at the top of the game millions of pounds a year while the lower ranks would be practically amateur

[topcat(The most tip top)]

4 minutes ago, G51 said:

Rugby absolutely gets preferential treatment over football.

Let me know when they pass an “Offensivs Behaviour (Rugby) Act” to combat the disgusting scenes we see in rugby (drinking bottles of piss, respecting opposition anthems) and I’ll withdraw this statement. 

As a follower of a club that were sponsored by McEwans lager and Carling for years you're on shaky ground criticising anybody else's drinking choices

[G51]

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

As a follower of a club that were sponsored by McEwans lager and Carling for years you're on shaky ground criticising anybody else's drinking choices

True, McEwans and Carling are pretty awful lagers. You certainly wouldn’t catch the Gordonstoun alumni drinking it.

[GAD]

28 minutes ago, G51 said:

Rugby absolutely gets preferential treatment over football.

Let me know when they pass an “Offensivs Behaviour (Rugby) Act” to combat the disgusting scenes we see in rugby (drinking bottles of piss, respecting opposition anthems) and I’ll withdraw this statement. 

So every sport gets preferential treatment over football then really.

[54_and_counting]

2 hours ago, AJF said:

I'm not sure about the example above of 6 months ago, but I do feel Rugby was treated a little favourably when they were given permission to hold "test events" back in 2020 and football clubs were refused.

 

1 hour ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Limited crowds were allowed for The lions vs Japan at murrayfield andScotland’s two group stage games at Hampden but not for regular club football

Some people at the time thought that wasn’t fair. Some people thought it was

 

1 hour ago, GAD said:

Yeah, but club rugby wasn't allowed crowds either. That's pretty much an example of football and rugby being treated the same is it not?

 

Were there no football test events? I thought there were.

Murrayfield shut its bars cause they had run out of booze, with pictures circulating of absolutely no social distancing or crowd control whatsoever within murrayfield and the bar area

At the euros at hampden, fans were told to arrive hours early to gain staggered access, bringing sandwiches into the ground in a ziplock bag and were offered a bottle of unchilled water while it was summer 

[DukDukGoose]

You're allowed to drink alcohol at the Rugby because Ranger and Celtic don't have rugby clubs.

[Theyellowbox]

57 minutes ago, G51 said:

It absolutely is. If clubs cannot trade players then they’ll fold. This kind of argument that player trading is a luxury rather than a necessity is just the liberal equivalent of “Pay soldiers footballers wages” peddled by economic illiterates.

Hibs by the way have now gone and spent money on three players with that Government debt still outstanding. Using your argument, this is somehow immoral and Hibs should be compelled to pay the money back first, despite the fact that buying good players and developing them is how Hibs grow the business.

 

I'm not saying clubs shouldn't trade players (although disagree that without they'd close), but more that in a month where clubs are on one hand spending money on players while complaining about lack of cash feels wrong.

As for Hibs, there is terms in when the loan should be paid back, so as long as they stick to those, then fine. I would imagine they will be right down the priority list for repayment given it is highly unlikely the govt will call in the loan and it is such a low rate. But there is a bit of an argument there that the purposes of the loans were to keep clubs going in an emergency, so morally they should be either paid back sooner or ensure that staff are covered should the same happen again. Maybe there should have been some incentives for domestic transfers so that the money stayed in Scotland and filtered down. I.E x% of the loan amount is written off to the initial borrower when a transfer fee is paid to a lower league club. Say St Johnsone buy a player from Partick for 100k, then Partick get 100k and St Jonhstone only have to pay 70k of the 100k borrowed. 

Anyway, assuming we go back to normal after the break, the clubs will have list out on higher crowds for one game with a 500 fan restriction which already pocketing the majority of the difference vs the normal crowd through ST sales.

[54_and_counting]

6 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

You're allowed to drink alcohol at the Rugby because Ranger and Celtic don't have rugby clubs.

During a pandemic when apparently opening the food kiosks at hampden was seemingly too much of a risk? 

[mizfit]

Murrayfield shut its bars cause they had run out of booze, with pictures circulating of absolutely no social distancing or crowd control whatsoever within murrayfield and the bar area
At the euros at hampden, fans were told to arrive hours early to gain staggered access, bringing sandwiches into the ground in a ziplock bag and were offered a bottle of unchilled water while it was summer 

I’m pretty sure there was crowd trouble when the bars were shut also.

[Dons_1988]

53 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

I'm not saying clubs shouldn't trade players (although disagree that without they'd close), but more that in a month where clubs are on one hand spending money on players while complaining about lack of cash feels wrong.

As for Hibs, there is terms in when the loan should be paid back, so as long as they stick to those, then fine. I would imagine they will be right down the priority list for repayment given it is highly unlikely the govt will call in the loan and it is such a low rate. But there is a bit of an argument there that the purposes of the loans were to keep clubs going in an emergency, so morally they should be either paid back sooner or ensure that staff are covered should the same happen again. Maybe there should have been some incentives for domestic transfers so that the money stayed in Scotland and filtered down. I.E x% of the loan amount is written off to the initial borrower when a transfer fee is paid to a lower league club. Say St Johnsone buy a player from Partick for 100k, then Partick get 100k and St Jonhstone only have to pay 70k of the 100k borrowed. 

Anyway, assuming we go back to normal after the break, the clubs will have list out on higher crowds for one game with a 500 fan restriction which already pocketing the majority of the difference vs the normal crowd through ST sales.

It’s not about pleading poverty, it’s about saying a government precautionary public health policy has denied every club crucial revenue, and they should be compensated. 

[invergowrie arab]

The bars at Murrayfield are outside. I don't agree with the nonsense restrictions at Hampden but it's not like v like.

They are more akin to that weird fan park that some folk went to instead of a normal pub.

There are definitely apples v apples examples where rugby fans behave as well/badly as football fans but are treated better eg dry trains to big football matches but folk doing what the f**k they like on 6N match days on the train. 

[resk]

Didn't the government dish out 20 million to the two pro rugby clubs in Scotland and 30 million to the 42+ fitba clubs at one point?  

Actually I might have hallucinated that.

[Clown Job]

1 hour ago, resk said:

Didn't the government dish out 20 million to the two pro rugby clubs in Scotland and 30 million to the 42+ fitba clubs at one point?  

Actually I might have hallucinated that.

It was given to the SRU

Click

“Scottish Rugby has welcomed news from the Scottish Government today that it is to receive a £20m funding package to support the sport in light of the impact of Covid-19 and restrictions on hosting spectators at professional and international matches.”

“The funding is split into a £15m grant to the sport and £5m of low interest loans.”

Edit: Quick look at the SG website

Clicky

 

Edited January 6, 2022 by Clown Job