Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, Spikethedee said:

The Leagues/individual clubs should at least be looking in to the feasibility of small, pay-per-view or free-to-air contracts with TV channels for individual matches/packages of matches as a fallback option. You may not be able to look at top flight games due to the SKY contract, but having say, Dundee v ICT, or Dunfermline v Raith on BBC Alba, STV, Premier Sports or whatever might be a big enough draw for TV companies, as I'm pretty sure everyone would be happy to see some kind of live football, even if it's behind closed doors.

 

This is only a stopgap option, to at least provide some kind of extra income if we can't have crowds back to start with - 65% to home team, 25% to away team and the rest into a shared pot for all clubs perhaps???

It's not "extra" income. It would be a means to stem losses and it wouldn't stem much.

I'm  sure there are rules about broadcast deals that prevent what you suggest.

[Spikethedee]

3 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

It's not "extra" income. It would be a means to stem losses and it wouldn't stem much.

I'm  sure there are rules about broadcast deals that prevent what you suggest.

Apparently, these are "exceptional, unprecedented times", so it wouldn't hurt too much to look at some kind of leeway/dispensation for short-term deals to deal with this???

[Sergeant Wilson]

2 minutes ago, Spikethedee said:

Apparently, these are "exceptional, unprecedented times", so it wouldn't hurt too much to look at some kind of leeway/dispensation for short-term deals to deal with this???

SKY have signed a deal for broadcast with all of the SPFL clubs. If games are played and broadcast are you suggesting they should allow dispensation for other games to be broadcast on club's own PPV platform and the clubs take the revenue from it?

[Granny Danger]

35 minutes ago, Dele said:

Pie in the sky nonsense. 

What’s you’re alternative, moan and bitch about it?

If ‘fans’ want their clubs to survive they need to be willing to put as much money in as they would do when there are games on.  OK it’s not ‘value for money’ but it’s a way of ensuring our clubs’ survival.

I’m not suggesting people putting any more in than they can afford, but if a normal day out at the football costs £20+++ then the least we can do is put in the equivalent to make sure there is a team to support when this is over.

 

[RandomGuy.]

1 hour ago, realmadrid said:

Even with our system at Saints which comes with staff from the provider we have had 2 games this season where for various reasons the staff have spent an hour before the game trying to get the stream up only to fail. They do they online TV for 7 of the Premiership clubs so its certainly not fool proof. 

I wonder how theyd deal with broadcasting closed door games for those already subscribed to Saints TV?

I pay £60 a year for it, and that gains me access to watch matches, think it's about double that for International viewers to watch it live? Will that be bumped up to £80 a month to watch four games live? Will they refund your subscription and then you pay for access every game day?

I know for a fact my dad would be one person who wouldnt be able to swap him £23 entrance fee onto an online format, he already resists online ticket buying as it's too complicated.

Edited April 21, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, itzdrk said:

Why? There is no reason they would decrease their income from a normal matchday (with the exception of catering and hospitality).  

What?

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, btb said:

Yeah but the bottom three tiers all play the same number of games, so your analogy fails.

What analogy?  What are you on about?

I know how many games are played in each of the divisions thanks.

 

It doesn't alter the fact that the top flight side that drops into the play-off is already in the final, whereas that's not true of the sides in the Championship or League 1.

No analogies involved. Anywhere.

[Rudolph Hucker]

If no crowds are allowed to gather it's because social distancing will still be in force, in order to avoid people getting too close at turnstiles, toilets, food outlets and in the stands or on the terracing. 

Yet here we are, seeing some folk expecting players, subs, match officials, physios, kit men etc all to put that aside to get together in cramped dressing rooms then get into close physical contact with each other for 90-odd minutes, plus go through full training during the week in the case of the players. 

During a match played at full tilt they'd have more physical contact with other people than NHS ward staff do with patients - but instead of ppe kit covering most of their bodies the players are in fitba' strips. 

If I was a player with a young family I wouldn't want to risk infecting them. Who would?? 

[rb123!]

57 minutes ago, Dele said:

Pie in the sky nonsense. 

I suppose for Dundee it wouldn't cover the astronomical prices you and your neighbours across the road charged everyone this season for 2nd tier football.

[The Master]

1 hour ago, DA Baracus said:

The issue with clubs broadcasting games is that the demand will be higher than anything they've seen before and they might not be able to deal with it in terms of bandwidth and the broadband connection.

Some folk will not be too keen to pay for a product that is run by volunteers making the best of the equipment they have, almost always from a single fixed camera. No way will the uptake be enough to make up for the lost ticket revenue.

Plus if there are technical issues for a game then you could see loads of folk demanding refunds, so there goes that income for a match.

When streaming via a platform like YouTube you only need bandwidth for a single stream.  The heavy lifting is then down by the platform itself.

Obviously YouTube doesn’t lend itself well to a pay model without them managing subscribers and taking a cut, but it illustrates the point.

[Spikethedee]

32 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

SKY have signed a deal for broadcast with all of the SPFL clubs. If games are played and broadcast are you suggesting they should allow dispensation for other games to be broadcast on club's own PPV platform and the clubs take the revenue from it?

No, I'm suggesting that lower league clubs could look at selling individual games or packages of games to BBC Alba, STV, Premier Sports or whoever (maybe even SKY as an extra to their existing deal) on a pay-per-view or free-to-air basis, depending on who is interested, in addition to the current deal. Monies to be split primarily between the participating clubs, but with a pot of general money for all clubs to share. It may be better to have packages, so you can get Dundee v ICT, but also have to show Montrose v Annan or whatever as well. I'm sure a case can be made for a bit of leeway with the current circumstances, and showing those games is hardly going to intrude on SKY showing the Bigot Brothers v Hibs or Aberdeen... I'm not saying it's a definite answer or even particularly feasible, but it should be looked at as a possibility.

[Rudolph Hucker]

2 hours ago, itzdrk said:

Why? There is no reason they would decrease their income from a normal matchday (with the exception of catering and hospitality).  

Now, that's just utter nonsense 

19 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

I wonder how theyd deal with broadcasting closed door games for those already subscribed to Saints TV?

I pay £60 a year for it, and that gains me access to watch matches, think it's about double that for International viewers to watch it live? Will that be bumped up to £80 a month to watch four games live? Will they refund your subscription and then you pay for access every game day?

I know for a fact my dad would be one person who wouldnt be able to swap him £23 entrance fee onto an online format, he already resists online ticket buying as it's too complicated.

....... and the bit in bold tells you why. Even at £60 a season (which wouldn't be remotely financially viable as a replacement for match day income) there would be countless smartarse types who would pay for one subscription and get together 5 or 6 at a time to watch the game - so social distancing goes right out the window. And the higher you price the subscription the more that would happen. 

It wouldn't work, either financially or as a social isolator. 

[locheedee]

28 minutes ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

Instead of ppe kit covering most of their bodies the players are in fitba' strips.

Could lead to some interesting kit designs for next year with people playing in facemasks, ppe gowns and visors...

[Skyline Drifter]

31 minutes ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

If no crowds are allowed to gather it's because social distancing will still be in force, in order to avoid people getting too close at turnstiles, toilets, food outlets and in the stands or on the terracing. 

Yet here we are, seeing some folk expecting players, subs, match officials, physios, kit men etc all to put that aside to get together in cramped dressing rooms then get into close physical contact with each other for 90-odd minutes, plus go through full training during the week in the case of the players. 

During a match played at full tilt they'd have more physical contact with other people than NHS ward staff do with patients - but instead of ppe kit covering most of their bodies the players are in fitba' strips. 

If I was a player with a young family I wouldn't want to risk infecting them. Who would?? 

I think the only way playing closed door is possible (ignoring the finances) is if every player and match official is tested before every game.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[RandomGuy.]

4 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I think the only way playing closed door is possible (ignoring the finances) is if every player and match official is tested before every game.

Which would be a monumental waste of test kits (assuming they're one use).

[Skyline Drifter]

6 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Which would be a monumental waste of test kits (assuming they're one use).

Probably. Depends how easy and cheap they are to produce by then. Remember we are still talking about 3 or 4 months away. It would need to be pretty much instant results too. No point testing a few days earlier. It would need effective matchday testing. 

Certainly in present circumstances wasting several hundred tests a week on footballers would be ridiculous. It is however what Italy is talking about doing isnt it?

Edited April 21, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[Rudolph Hucker]

4 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I think the only way playing closed doir is possible (ignoring the finances) is if every player and march official is tested before every game.

Thing is, which part of Lawrence Shankland's cranial cliff would you trust for an accurate temperature reading? 

[itzdrk]

2 hours ago, The DA said:

And the small matter of tickets not being sold.

Aye your right, there is no way clubs can sell any form of ticket to watch these matches.  It's not like the majority are set up already to broadcast matches.  

No, they will be played out behind closed doors and nobody would ever see anything of them. 

[DA Baracus]

33 minutes ago, Spikethedee said:

No, I'm suggesting that lower league clubs could look at selling individual games or packages of games to BBC Alba, STV, Premier Sports or whoever (maybe even SKY as an extra to their existing deal) on a pay-per-view or free-to-air basis, depending on who is interested, in addition to the current deal. Monies to be split primarily between the participating clubs, but with a pot of general money for all clubs to share. It may be better to have packages, so you can get Dundee v ICT, but also have to show Montrose v Annan or whatever as well. I'm sure a case can be made for a bit of leeway with the current circumstances, and showing those games is hardly going to intrude on SKY showing the Bigot Brothers v Hibs or Aberdeen... I'm not saying it's a definite answer or even particularly feasible, but it should be looked at as a possibility.

I think it's total fantasy stuff. There's zero appeal for companies to pay money for that.

[Spikethedee]

3 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

I think it's total fantasy stuff. There's zero appeal for companies to pay money for that.

All I'm asking is that clubs look at every possible avenue before making a final decision and, potentially, not having any football at all until 2021. If it's a non starter or not financially viable, then fair enough, but I would at least like the question to be asked...