Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[vikingTON]

The elephant in the room here is the Ladbrokes' sponsorship deal running out in the summer. The TV deal (if it holds) may well go up but you can whistle for finding an equally credible replacement sponsor for the leagues right in the middle of an unprecedented economic slump and a likely depression setting in after the initial post-lockdown bounce wears off. Even if football returns to something even approaching 'normal' in August/September 2020 I think we're still looking at a financial mess that will make the collapse of Setanta look like a picnic by comparison.

Edited April 21, 2020 by vikingTON

[Skyline Drifter]

4 minutes ago, virginton said:

The elephant in the room here is the Ladbrokes' sponsorship deal running out in the summer. The TV deal (if it holds) may well go up but you can whistle for finding an equally credible replacement sponsor for the leagues right in the middle of an unprecedented economic slump and a likely depression setting in after the initial post-lockdown bounce wears off. Even if football returns to something even approaching 'normal' in August/September 2019 I think we're still looking at a financial mess that will make the collapse of Setanta look like a picnic by comparison.

Yeah this. That too is likely to lead to reduced income for clubs.

[Shadow Play]

From what I’m reading it seems that most people still think seem to think SKY are happy with the deal they struck.  A lot has changed in terms of companies finances since the deal was struck.   It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if SKY take any opportunity presented to them to get out of or renegotiate the current deal.  

If I was on the board of the SPFL or a chairman of a club I’d be very worried.
 

 

[itzdrk]

6 hours ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

 

 

I can’t believe what I’m reading here. You can’t seriously believe what you’re writing?

If the club's can't play games in front of supporters do you suggest they just don't show anyone the game? 

[Skyline Drifter]

12 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

If the club's can't play games in front of supporters do you suggest they just don't show anyone the game? 

I think what most people are saying is that you just don't play the game until you can. If you can't get people into cinemas to watch movies do you think they'll still make them?

Closed door games would perhaps have been a short term solution to finish last season if it had been allowed (and probably if we'd only had 2 or 3 games to go and not 8 or 9). Last season is now finished. Deliberately opening the next one to play in loss making games would be lunacy. I seriously doubt even most Premiership sides could make enough from online subscriptions to pay their players.

I do accept that those who have most of their squad already contracted for next year are potentially in the position that they may as well play games behind closed doors and get something. That won't apply to many lower division sides though.

Edited April 21, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier]

10 hours ago, johnnydun said:

Going by our track record mate, we know how to save our club.

But if they were to fold and have to start again, I would still go and watch them each week once the football returned.

Unless you have some different idea if Partick Thistle folded you would have to watch another Glasgow team? Who would that be?

Yoker Athletic. 

[Monkey Tennis]

10 hours ago, itzdrk said:

If the club's can't play games in front of supporters do you suggest they just don't show anyone the game? 

Christ Almighty.

What are you not getting about this?

The argument isn't that the games should be played but not screened.  It's that playing the games while unable to admit the public, would be prohibitively costly.

[Skyline Drifter]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Christ Almighty.

What are you not getting about this?

The argument isn't that the games should be played but not screened.  It's that playing the games while unable to admit the public, would be prohibitively costly.

To be fair, they are prohibitively costly because you would need to pay a squad of players. For us for instance with 4 players and the management team contracted for next season we would lose less paying them with no income than hiring another dozen or so and then charging online subs to watch us. 

Thats is probably the case with most lower league clubs. I have no idea where Ayr sit but clubs who already have more than 11 players contracted would be better playing and getting some income than getting none, but only if the furlough scheme ceases. As long as furlough is available, closed doors is madness for pretty much everyone.

Outside of payroll there are no significant costs in playing closed door really. You presumably still need First Aiders, a skeleton non-playing staff, in our case mostly voluntary, some electric costs no doubt. 

Of course you cant have part of a division return to closed door football and part not. Its everyone or no-one.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[weetoonlad]

There are a few working groups within the SPFL who are working hard  for all clubs not just a few

My contacts are telling me regarding reconstruction the talks are going well and after the UEFA meeting this week hope to put two proposals to the clubs next week. 

Watch my posts  carefully guys 

Stay safe Stay home and save life's 

Edited April 22, 2020 by weetoonlad

[Zoomer Brown]

1 minute ago, weetoonlad said:

There are a few working groups within the SPFL who are working hard  for all clubs not just a few

My contacts are telling me regarding reconstruction the talks are going well and after the UEFA meeting this week hope to put two proposals to the clubs next week. 

Watch my posts  carefully guys 

Stay safe Stay home and save life's 

In The Know w****r Alert!

[weetoonlad]

5 minutes ago, Zoomer Brown said:

In The Know w****r Alert!

Don't be nasty move on 

[Guest Flash]

1 hour ago, Skyline Drifter said:

To be fair, they are prohibitively costly because you would need to pay a squad of players. For us for instance with 4 players and the management team contracted for next season we would lose less paying them with no income than hiring another dozen or so and then charging online subs to watch us. 

Thats is probably the case with most lower league clubs. I have no idea where Ayr sit but clubs who already have more than 11 players contracted would be better playing and getting some income than getting none, but only if the furlough scheme ceases. As long as furlough is available, closed doors is madness for pretty much everyone.

Outside of payroll there are no significant costs in playing closed door really. You presumably still need First Aiders, a skeleton non-playing staff, in our case mostly voluntary, some electric costs no doubt. 

Of course you cant have part of a division return to closed door football and part not. Its everyone or no-one.

If games were played behind closed doors, clubs would just have to sign the players they could afford. That could mean going with mostly your current reserve and/or youth players. For clubs with a lot of players already signed for next season, they might have to make some redundant and go with a smaller squad of the lower paid ones.

I’m not suggesting this as a solution, but if games do take place without fans, it might be the players who suffer most financially.

[Rudolph Hucker]

19 minutes ago, Flash said:

I'm not suggesting this as a solution, but if games do take place without fans, it might be the players who suffer most financially.

....... and health wise, while the rest of us aren't allowed to watch because of social distancing.

Wonder what the Players' Union has to say about all this? 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Rudolph Hucker

[Sergeant Wilson]

26 minutes ago, weetoonlad said:

There are a few working groups within the SPFL who are working hard  for all clubs not just a few

My contacts are telling me regarding reconstruction the talks are going well and after the UEFA meeting this week hope to put two proposals to the clubs next week. 

Watch my posts  carefully guys 

Stay safe Stay home and save life's 

 

24 minutes ago, Zoomer Brown said:

In The Know w****r Alert!

His level of  insider knowledge is considerably lower in credibility than his ability to fly.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson

[Sergeant Wilson]

17 minutes ago, Flash said:

If games were played behind closed doors, clubs would just have to sign the players they could afford. That could mean going with mostly your current reserve and/or youth players. For clubs with a lot of players already signed for next season, they might have to make some redundant and go with a smaller squad of the lower paid ones.

I’m not suggesting this as a solution, but if games do take place without fans, it might be the players who suffer most financially.

Then why say it?

[craigkillie]

15 hours ago, virginton said:

The elephant in the room here is the Ladbrokes' sponsorship deal running out in the summer. The TV deal (if it holds) may well go up but you can whistle for finding an equally credible replacement sponsor for the leagues right in the middle of an unprecedented economic slump and a likely depression setting in after the initial post-lockdown bounce wears off. Even if football returns to something even approaching 'normal' in August/September 2020 I think we're still looking at a financial mess that will make the collapse of Setanta look like a picnic by comparison.

It seems like the current Ladbrokes deal is worth something like £2.5m per year, compared to the £25-33m per year figures being touted for the Sky deal, so although reduced income from the main league sponsorship deal is obviously a blow, it's unlikely to be make or break. Even without any headline sponsor, if the season starts as normal with the new Sky deal then the total prize pot would probably be increased compared to what they get now from the old Sky deal + Ladbrokes + whatever else.

[Guest Flash]

14 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Then why say it?

Because some were saying that clubs would suffer if games were played behind closed doors. I don't think they would. I think it would be the players. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 minute ago, Flash said:

Because some were saying that clubs would suffer if games were played behind closed doors. I don't think they would. I think it would be the players. 

Unless they play amateurs and incur no incidental costs both sides involved will suffer.

[Thereisalight..]

It’s pathetic there’s all this “social distancing”, yet flights are still allowed into the UK without passengers being checked or isolated. I read an article that said flights were still coming in from New York ffs. 

[Skyline Drifter]

2 hours ago, Flash said:

If games were played behind closed doors, clubs would just have to sign the players they could afford. That could mean going with mostly your current reserve and/or youth players. For clubs with a lot of players already signed for next season, they might have to make some redundant and go with a smaller squad of the lower paid ones.

I’m not suggesting this as a solution, but if games do take place without fans, it might be the players who suffer most financially.

I think in contract players made redundant when the club isnt going into admin would need paid in full for the contractual liability. Its not really redundancy if you replace them with cheaper labour either. I'm not sure it therefore works as a solution. But yes, for those who dont have large signed squad then signing effective amateurs would do it. That changes the entire face of lower division football though, at least for a while.

2 hours ago, Rudolph Hucker said:

....... and health wise, while the rest of us aren't allowed to watch because of social distancing.

Wonder what the Players' Union has to say about all this? 

As already said, I think if you are looking at playing closed door wgen social distancing is still in place it probably only happens if players are tested negative before they play. 

Edited April 22, 2020 by Skyline Drifter