Morton Supporter

Specific point to be made in addition to Morton but which I’m sure will apply to other clubs: We’re being asked not to pursue a refund on the four games we never got last year (which we never got so that the club could understandably bank its prize money); Despite being unclear on both the number of home games and the number of those games that we’ll be able to attend in person, we’re also being asked to support the club through this uncertain time by paying £220 for a season ticket; and Were being told that the purchase of a season ticket will give us “free” access to streaming home games we can’t make in person. They aren’t in any way free as the fixtures they apply to form part of the season ticket. So beyond blind loyalty, guilt or stupidity, can anyone tell me why shouldn’t I pursue the refund (£65 or so) that would pay around 30% of my season ticket price? If I did, the games I do have to stream would then effectively be “free”, or at least at the sort of price I think is reasonable. I hasten to add I’m not trying to beat up Morton in particular about this - but through the ludicrousness of my example which I think applies to most other clubs, I just want to try and illustrate how insultingly we’re being treated here.

If you’re not a supporter of one of the small number of clubs that have been clear that you’re getting X games at £Y + an unknown number of streams, then I can see absolutely no incentive or selling point that would make you buy a season ticket at this time. Beyond the blind loyalty or guilt that Viking Ton has mentioned. I would’ve bought my season ticket on launch day today as usual, but I won’t be paying (at least) £15 to sit in my hoose watching Morton v. Alloa, Arbroath or QotS, while weans run around and now that there’s numerous other activities I can do outside. Of course it’s not the fault of football clubs that there’s a pandemic and that there are constraints resulting that they need to take account of. But this whole episode has served to show what appalling value for money we get and that what the clubs are ‘selling’ through their season tickets is less the fixtures, but other things we value - which will differ for each of us. Frankly, it would be nice to see some recognition of that and some commitment to reviewing what clubs will be offering as part of their admission prices in future. Not to mention some collective investment by the clubs in the sort of digital infrastructure that will enable remote viewing to be offered at the sort of price - and with the variety of matches that’s desired - so that it is attractive.

Hopefully the Scottish Government’s good handling of the epidemic will have spared us from it, but any virologist will tell you that that is a very real possibility. Particularly if people choose not to follow the clear advice that’s been given to them. Anyway, if you want to drop the attitude, there’s some thoughts in my original post that you’re welcome to comment on.

So, by my calculations, that would mean: - 2nd - 4th in the conferences would make the 21/22 First Division - 5th - 10th (or thereabouts) would make up the Second Division - and the remainder would make up the Third Division. Does that sound about right? With the issues of getting games completed, a second spike, and Lowland League promotion/relegation notwithstanding.

That would be the sensible option I didn’t mention!

May yet see Imola appear, but I doubt we’ll see three Italian circuits in a year. The BBC is reporting that a circuit at Portimao in the Algarve will be added in the next wee while but also that Canada is now looking unlikely. If that’s the case, and if you assume that Abu Dhabi will proceed as planned, that’s only two continents certain to be raced on; one short of the three needed to crown ‘World’ Champions. I wonder how they’ll resolve that.

I can squint and see that logic, and I’ve got no reason to doubt the individuals leading MCT, but I would want to know a lot more about the detail of that lease than we got on last night’s call before I adopt an opinion that “ach it’ll be alright”. I’ll say again that, if it were possible, this agreement should have gone to a vote of the MCT membership. The pros and cons - particularly around stadium ownership and the presence of “patrons” and what they’ll be expecting for their large donations - could then have been discussed more factually rather than with the degree of spin we got last night because the decision had already been taken unilaterally.

I’m not bowled over at this news, but on balance, I’d be in favour. Not because I philosophically believe that fans should own their clubs, or that this ownership structure is some sort of rocket fuel ready to propel the club to unprecedented success. But because with this we look set to avoid falling into the hands of some of the sharks that have been circling the club. That, and the prospect that fan ownership might result in a more enjoyable day out - which is about as much as you should hope for at this level - gets my support. Saying that, I think that MCT members should have had the chance to have voted on this agreement.

Increase or more fairly distribute. Morton got just over £200k for finishing seventh in the Championship this year. What kind of standard of squad are we expecting our full time clubs to put together with that figure as one of their main sources of income? I really hope I’m not coming across as a sore loser here, all our clubs have suffered this in the past and Cadden is certainly within his rights to take the move. But I think it’s very illustrative of what we should be trying harder to prevent from happening.

Nicky Cadden leaves to join something called Forest Green Rovers. Very disappointing but perhaps we should’ve been bolder on initially signing him by offering him a longer deal. While clearly not the same talent or type of player, I was pleased when McGuffie was signed so here’s a chance for him to show if he can contribute. This transfer will go largely unnoticed in Scotland but there’s a point to be made here: after months of discussing league reconstruction for all the wrong reasons, this move is exactly the sort of catalyst that should be prompting thought between clubs about how we better preserve - and pay for - the talent we do have in Scotland, rather than losing them to anonymous English clubs. And I’d suggest as a minimum that that begins with a fairer distribution of prize money, if not ticket sales.

I thought about that out before I posted, as I suspected the same thing. Looking at the current distribution list, if the sliding scale of prize money was to continue for two additional clubs, they’d be looking at 0.17% and 0.16% which combines to make a total £82,500 p.a. that the new clubs would be due. The uplift from the new TV deal maybe brings that up to the high 80s. So on the face of it, the existing clubs would be losing an average of £2-3k per year but it’ll all depend on how the distribution model is rejigged. As while clubs 43 + 44 seem to have a marginal effect, any increases to the prize money for clubs 13 + 14 - and whether that’s recovered from clubs 1-12 or 15-42 (or 44), or a mixture of both - will have a much bigger effect. Thats without considering the gate receipts that League 1 clubs could lose out on from e.g. Falkirk and Partick Thistle, and Championship clubs from e.g. Hearts (assuming we have some fans in seats this year, or that these clubs are at that level in years to come).

Yes, as far as I understand it, because the distribution model would (necessarily) change with the admission of an extra two clubs. So this proposal, which I’ve seen called “harmless” is anything but - clubs are being asked to sacrifice income to allow Hearts a reprieve and to subsidise Brora and Kelty coming into the league when neither was guaranteed anything. While the vacancies in the Premiership, Championship and League 1 would go to clubs who’ve earned even less, at the expense of others who’d otherwise be entitled to compete with them for promotion. This is a nonsense, as are all of these pre-season rejig proposals. Changes just shouldn’t be happening without at least a years notice, and arguably not next year either given the uncertainty over the format of next season and the constraints that clubs will be working under.

Maybe it’s because we’ve been starved for news over the past few months, but I feel obliged to comment on McHugh leaving. While there was always the lingering feeling that his starting meant you had a ceiling of mid-table, he had a great attitude and seemed to have a good scoring record as an undersized lone striker in a team that faded under Duffy, was ultra-negative under Johansson and only latterly clicked under Hopkin. Certainly there’s been room for improvement upfront, but it’s by no means a sure thing that we’ll find a better player than Bob.

Right, I’ve got it: 4-10-10-10-10 Premiership: Celtic, Rangers, Celtic B, Rangers B. Teams play each other twenty times; no relegation; £100m a season TV deal; bonanza for pubs and polis overtime. Diddy leagues: the rest of the forty of us can get on wading blissfully and competitively in our shite. Everyone gets what they want.

Not only is the paper a load of drivel - clubs can not possibly vote for her proposal as she gives no shred of analysis on the estimated impacts of her proposal. Nothing about what it would cost notional clubs finishing in X position; nothing about % chance of relegation; nothing about the estimated revenue of the league below the Premiership into which teams would be relegated; nothing about what would happen after the temporary, two-year period. And none of that is particularly hard to provide, especially with the amount of time she’s had to work on this. Without it, clubs can’t evaluate the proposal - even if they were to set their principles aside and entertain such a blatantly self-serving and anti-sporting suggestion. What’s worrying to me is that she seems to be one of the most prominent leaders in Scottish football, and this is the level of thought, effort, analysis we’re seeing.

Among all that drivel, there is one point I would accept - that if it can be done safely and the clubs think it can be done viably, then there’s probably no harm in a Premiership season going ahead, given it will safeguard the broadcasting deal which all SPFL clubs see income from (albeit not as much as they should). But what this paper spectacularly fails to do is give any credible reason why such a Premiership season needs reconstruction, or the inclusion of Hearts. The repeated line of “not at this time” in relation to the relegation of Hearts and Partick Thistle is astonishing - if not when these clubs are bottom, then when? If we’re looking for a semblance of sport, then that kind of rubbish - and the nonsense Strachan was spouting - is very dangerous and we should be rooting it out. And on the specifics of this proposal, that gerrymandered Premiership playoff format should be launched into space never to return, but I suspect she hasn’t given it a single thought.

And I still maintain you’ll have roughly the same number of folk willing to donate money to their club ‘for nothing’ as you will the stream subscribers. If Morton asked me tomorrow to consider either giving them £20/month ‘for nothing’, or to renew my season ticket for £250, including a steaming token for each game I couldn’t make, I’d go with the former every time. I know where I stand with the “donation” and I can always cancel that standing order if I feel I need or want to. But I have no interest in speculating money when I don’t know when, if at all, I’ll get into Cappielow next season; what sort of format the league will take; whether the clubs have the capacity to stream the games I can’t attend at a couple of months’ notice; and severely doubting that current circumstances are going to bring about a competitive league - two established Championship teams have just released dozens of players ffs! And I suspect I’m not alone in that.

The point being you’ll get very little uptake in either scenario, certainly not the kind of revenue that should give clubs comfort. I’m by no means the smartest person around, but I’m astonished that could possibly think this streaming idea is viable. Year on year Scottish clubs have been cutting their budgets - and that was in times of BAU, and with crowds broadly on the uptick. Think about what will happen if clubs start a season without crowds and their income falls off a cliff edge. Clubs will have to decide whether to risk sinking what little budget they have on contracts for established players in the hope of being competitive or field a side of ringers/boys to minimise their costs. The result would be a farce of a league, played in front of plastic seats. Think finishing the current season was a minefield - try promoting or relegating clubs in those circumstances. It’s far far better just to wait this out, no matter how much some of us might miss seeing games or how much sympathy we might have for the players who will lose their jobs.

Yes, and that’s not to mention the fact that, even if you’re a good side, many of your fans will happily pass on paying to see you drub one of the sides which is full of ringers and boys as those some clubs will decide not to take the risk in putting together a semi-competitive team.

I genuinely think if clubs simply said to supporters, “we have no right to ask, but please could consider donating to us to help us through the current circumstances” it would raise roughly the same revenue as this hair-brained idea of streaming matches. And that’s without mentioning the avoided costs of player contracts, virus testing, and the whole host of other commitments that clubs would avoid.

I’m not misunderstanding that last point. What you’re doing is treating football and other leisure or recreation sectors as a homogenous block; I’m saying that’s not right, and as the SG will have a finite support to offer, that’ll be proven when restaurants and other, more important sectors are prioritised. But I’ve said about as much as I can be bothered to on this. I would return to my original question - in the face of a pandemic, our understanding of which is only developing, with our clubs’ largest source of revenue lost, with the majority of players out of contract, when the league format is still under question, and when we can’t afford, or justify, the testing and healthcare resources needed - what is to be gained by trying to play football?

Firstly, you could have at least googled JF. He's Scotland's Sports Minister and is quite a bit closer to all of this than you. Secondly, without fiscal powers - beyond limited powers around setting some tax rates - there's little difference between our devolved government and a household, other than scale. So we're stuck with budgeting and prioritising our spending within what we have. Yes, it would be great if all sectors could be supported for as long as needed, but that's not within the SGs gift, we'll be reliant on the UKG which is already signalling that it will be phasing out the support it has put in place. And of course, those same Tories will be coming to the public to ask us to pay up when we're out the other side - that's going to include a huge squeeze on public sector workers and a reduction in employee rights and benefits. Thirdly, the SG will in no way be obliged to subsidise football and I hope that there is no CEO within Scottish football who is remotely banking on this. You're right to say those same CEOs should be looking at all options. The fact though, that it seems that many in the game are only turning their attention to this, the fundamental issue, in the past week or so having spent been side-tracked into the big Hearts reconstruction benefit and getting embroiled in the latest pissing match between Rangers and Celtic, doesn't fill me with any confidence that they'll find a solution. These people include the likes of Gerry Britton ffs! That there is not an obvious solution means that there probably isn't one.

Yes but the margin would be so reduced that clubs couldn’t put together any sort of decent squad. Unless, of course, the SPFL as a whole was to pull streaming taking amongst its clubs. But we know Celtic, Rangers and frankly most others in the top two leagues wouldn’t entertain that. I could see a scenario where those who feel they can and want to play under a closed door, streamed setup being free to do so in some bespoke, temporary competition, but clubs shouldn’t be forced to compete next season until it’s clear how the land lies. Which is some way away yet.

On point 1 - go and read the comments of Joe FitzPatrick; the SG are, rightly, not going to be subsidising Scottish football clubs to play if physical distancing doesn’t allow crowds. Sadly, as a yet to be independent country, we don’t have the fiscal powers to take on the liabilities of every part of the economy and we’ll have to prioritise our spending - like a household, and like many households will do if faced with the question of, do I want to pay £15 to watch Morton - Raith Rovers on a poor quality production with no atmosphere, with no company, maybe with weans running about bored, and with half the league running shadow squads because they’re skint, and the competition being a bit of a mockery. I do, though, agree with you that it is the job of club CEOs to consider all options.

Absolutely. And in a mothballed scenario, with smaller clubs typically having fewer liabilities, you might come out the other end with a football league in Scotland that has a more level playing field.