stuartcraig

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.

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.

I remain skeptical.

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

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

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.

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.

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).

The clubs in the lower leagues will still have running costs and wages to pay until January. Will the SPFL redistribute the SPL and Championship share of the TV money to League One and Two clubs to make up for the absence of any other cashflow for the remainder of the year?

Still waiting to hear what the trickle down to the lower leagues is. You'll have to forgive me if I don't expect the teams in the Premiership or Championship to demonstrate any more of a "sense of unity" than they have in previous seasons.

I'm alright jack.

Do clubs with artificial pitches use electric sheep, the kind that androids dream of.

Celtic aren’t to blame but it doesn’t make the premiere league championship any less pointless when the same one (or one of two) club wins it every year. Then again, I couldnt care less about the SPL. I’m only interested in the league my team is in.

We can’t win a playoff for toffee so probably didn’t see the value of expending the energy worrying about it.

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Ah, so we're now saying that you have to be informed before you contribute on here and that there isn't a plethora of uninformed and poorly thought-out opinions attracting likes from other hard-of-thinking posters. I must have stumbled onto an alternate universe P&B from the one I've spent the past 17 years on.

Feel free to follow the same advice I offered the previous poster. Given that this thread is (so far) 180 pages of supporters airing age-old grievances about the state of Scottish Football, it seems a bit late to, all of a sudden, complain about a "repeated blame game". I'm also a loss to figure out how you keep politics out of a discussion on the role of the state in supporting private businesses.

Fine. Then don't. Try not policing other folk though.

Been thinking that political journalists are more and more like football journalists in recent years. Heavily dependent on privileged access and willing to present the views of their political patron as fact.

Yeah, a bit PFoJ / JPF. I was going to ask whether the club-controlled one was open to all supporters or just those the club decided to invite but, tbh, there's no real point in re-opening the whole club vs trust discussion.

Which one is the supporters-led one and which the one the club runs?

Apologies for, no doubt, re-opening a can of worms but what is the story with Kelty?

If you say so.

It’s why I said similar rather than identical. The similarity is both you and Smith believe the deadwood in Scottish football needs to be discarded and you’ve a pretty clear view who that means. The difference is that, in Smith’s worldview, that includes Clyde. Personally, I don’t think any of us are are in a position to make that judgement and that there is a severe lack of humility here.

If I have to spell it out for you, then ok. It’s pretty easy to be dismissive of the impact of supporting the aspirations of ambitious clubs if your club isn’t one of the ones affected. Similarly, Smith is cool with the idea of sacrificing the independence of provincial teams such as Clyde and Airdrie to enable teams with grander ambitions a chance to fulfill theirs. I’ll leave it to Brechin and Albion Rovers fans to compare recent records with Clyde’s and assess whether there is any irony in a Clyde fan asserting that they are “perma-shite”.