No crowds?

[Andy groundhopper]

Had the same argument down south as the National League 'big boys' started crying when they felt they should get more of the money. Basing everything on say average attendances may help, haves and the have nots again. Suppose if every club gets the same amount, then maybe that helps. 

[calmac25]

Did any clubs in the south of Scotland or the borders manage to get crowds back in yesterday?

[Auld Heid]

Could foresee the increments raising eyebrows as it seems Cowdenbeath, Edinburgh City etc. will get £100,000 each... Kelty Hearts, Bo'ness United etc. £33,000 each... Hill of Beath Hawthorn, Linlithgow Rose etc. £13,500 each... which is quite pronounced.

Of course any flat-figure model leaves great disparities within divisions too... compare crowds at Hearts or Alloa... East Stirlingshire or Caledonian Braves... Tranent or Inverkeithing... etc.

Not just crowds. Surely any comparison should take account of the overall business model.

A club hiring a park, limited overheads and not paying wages, aren't in the same predicament as clubs owning their ground and paying wages etc.

[Deanburn Dave]

Dry your eyes Auld Dunderheid . There was never going to be a cash split that would please every level never mind every club.
Let's hope that all the COVID stuff is sorted for next season.

[FairWeatherFan]

With no official record keeping of attendances, I don't think that was ever going to be a factor at non-league level.

[Stag Nation]

1 hour ago, Auld Heid said:

Not just crowds. Surely any comparison should take account of the overall business model.

A club hiring a park, limited overheads and not paying wages, aren't in the same predicament as clubs owning their ground and paying wages etc.
 

If you're paying wages, and your opponents aren't, you have to ask yourselves what you're paying for. Unless you're consistently more successful.

[Auld Heid]

Dry your eyes Auld Dunderheid . There was never going to be a cash split that would please every level never mind every club.
Let's hope that all the COVID stuff is sorted for next season.

Maybe the key can go back in the treasure chest now you have free money to hire the park.

[Auld Heid]

If you're paying wages, and your opponents aren't, you have to ask yourselves what you're paying for. Unless you're consistently more successful.

Professional league, so it was a reasonable assumption that most teams will incur wages.

It's also reasonable to assume some clubs have more overheads than others.

Without reasonable due diligence by the governing body, before handing out blindly.

The danger is that for some it's a helpout and others a leg up.

Just my opinion.

[Casey Jones]

3 hours ago, Auld Heid said:

Not just crowds. Surely any comparison should take account of the overall business model.

A club hiring a park, limited overheads and not paying wages, aren't in the same predicament as clubs owning their ground and paying wages etc.
 

Interesting!

Wonder how many clubs own their on ground and how many either hire a park, as you put it, or rent the ground they play at? 

[Deanburn Dave]

Maybe the key can go back in the treasure chest now you have free money to hire the park.

The old "treasure chest is fixed" nonsense getting an airing. If in doubt make stuff up is typical of Auld Dunderheid.

[HibeeJibee]

1 hour ago, FairWeatherFan said:

With no official record keeping of attendances, I don't think that was ever going to be a factor at non-league level.

Of course. Similarly at SPFL level some clubs publish "people present" and others "ticket sold". You couldn't ever just have taken newspaper attendance figures.

However as I've seen Tynie discussing in SPFL1 subforum: every club was required to submit accounts from recent seasons and a very detailed breakdown of income and expenditure. (Indeed for whatever reason they had to submit it twice). Plus capacities, attendances, employees. SFA also have that info going back years for 100+ licensed clubs.

So earlier in the process there was an effort to gather bespoke information, in considerable detail, on each club's own financial circumstances.
 

1 hour ago, Auld Heid said:

Without reasonable due diligence by the governing body, before handing out blindly. The danger is that for some it's a helpout and others a leg up.

There is an attempt to avoid outright abuse. Clubs must sign a pledge promising not to pay it to directors or use it for transfers (although I'm unsure how you'd prove or disprove latter).

Being based on a flat-rate per tier, and dropping very sharply between tiers, by definition it's going to be "only" a help for some - yet a comparative "boon" for others.

Inevitably there'll be Lowland clubs and EOS Premier clubs for whom £33,000 and £13,850 respectively are relatively big bucks - while for others it'll only help to cover existing shortfalls.