Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Granny Danger]

23 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

 

 

Danger is having a nightmare here - again.

He regularly brings up the fact Dundee have been in administration twice as some sort of point scoring, yet tries to make out it wouldn’t bother him if Dundee faced financial difficulties.

You really can’t make it up with him.

You’re thicker than Weeper.  That’s some achievement.

[Shadow Play]

2 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

You’re thicker than Weeper.  That’s some achievement.

Oh dear.  Reverting to abuse when things go wrong.  How very, very sad.

[SweeperDee]

27 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

You’re thicker than Weeper. 

Brass neck from the failed councillor. 

[Derry Alli]

It's nearly 11am, give him a break. He will be on his second bottle of wine by now. 

[Ludo*1]

4 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

The Dundee insurance argument is puerile.  If they’re covered they’re covered, if they’re not they’re not.  We will find out eventually.

 

 

1 hour ago, Granny Danger said:

You’re thicker than Weeper.  That’s some achievement.

Speaking of puerile.

[Ludo*1]

John Nelms, again, confirming we have insurance:

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/football/dundee-fc/1303627/john-nelms-coronavirus-dundee-survival/

Also admits he had the whole of Scottish football on strings for a laugh: 'We are still trying to entertain in whatever small way we can when people are stuck at home.'

Edited May 2, 2020 by Speroni*1

[jagfox]

A bright start to the day in the Covid-19 Championship.

[DA Baracus]

Think they need to start discussions about the possibility of not playing next season and starting again in 21/22.

[Ludo*1]

Quote

Regrettably, we have to correct Ann Budge’s statement in the article by Tom English on the BBC Scotland website today, where she said: “I’ve sat on the SPFL board and I’ve approved a loan for another club.”
Quite simply, she did not, (and neither did anyone else during Ann’s tenure on the SPFL board).

Her subsequent statement in the same BBC interview is far more accurate: “I genuinely can’t remember the club involved, but a club required an advance. We discussed it, it wasn’t contentious , everybody agreed and we moved on.”

As Ann herself correctly states in the latter comment – it was an advance payment of fees due to clubs – and not a loan, which is a crucial distinction.

The confusion is unfortunate, but the facts are clear:

In 2016, the SPFL agreed to pay invoices from two clubs for fees they were due to receive in the 2016/17 season. This was to help them with cash flow problems caused when Rangers’ promotion into the Premiership meant some clubs would have only two Old Firm home games pre-split rather than three, which they had had prior to 2012.

To overcome this challenge, the Board, of which Ann was a director, approved £150k advance fee payments to two clubs.

•    These advance payments were subject to VAT – Loans are not.
•    These advance payments were invoiced – Loans are not.
•    Loans, by their very definition, have to be repaid – these advance fee payments did not.  

Moving forward, we are still being asked if we could have made loans to clubs of £9m in April, but there is no practical nor realistic way to have done so.

Before directors make loans, they must carry out due diligence into whether clubs have the ability to repay the loans. 

That is a major exercise and to do so 42 times in a short timescale would have been impossible. And, being frank, given the financial crisis that the game is in, it is impossible to see how the Board could have satisfied itself that all 42 clubs would have been a good credit risk. Clubs defaulting on loan repayments would have left every other club liable for the loss - which is exactly what happened when Gretna were given a loan over a decade ago.

As to the question: could we not have made millions of pounds of further advance fee payments in April, to help clubs weather the financial storm caused by Covid-19? The answer is no. By the end of March, the SPFL had already made fee payments up to roughly the entitlement of the bottom club in the Ladbrokes Championship, Ladbrokes League 1 and Ladbrokes League 2.

With fee payments being entirely dependent on final League placings, the Board’s resolution remains the only realistic way to have made substantial and quick payments to lower league clubs, as well as giving them the certainty and clarity they required to make the tough decisions necessary to get them through to the point that matches can be played once again.

SPFL dishing out telts to Ann Budge and Tom English.

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, jagfox99 said:

A bright start to the day in the Covid-19 Championship.

Is it wise for you to get too comfortable in anything Championship related?

[D'Jaffo]

Regrettably, we have to correct Ann Budge’s statement in the article by Tom English on the BBC Scotland website today, where she said: “I’ve sat on the SPFL board and I’ve approved a loan for another club.”
Quite simply, she did not, (and neither did anyone else during Ann’s tenure on the SPFL board).
Her subsequent statement in the same BBC interview is far more accurate: “I genuinely can’t remember the club involved, but a club required an advance. We discussed it, it wasn’t contentious , everybody agreed and we moved on.”
As Ann herself correctly states in the latter comment – it was an advance payment of fees due to clubs – and not a loan, which is a crucial distinction.
The confusion is unfortunate, but the facts are clear:
In 2016, the SPFL agreed to pay invoices from two clubs for fees they were due to receive in the 2016/17 season. This was to help them with cash flow problems caused when Rangers’ promotion into the Premiership meant some clubs would have only two Old Firm home games pre-split rather than three, which they had had prior to 2012.
To overcome this challenge, the Board, of which Ann was a director, approved £150k advance fee payments to two clubs.
•    These advance payments were subject to VAT – Loans are not.
•    These advance payments were invoiced – Loans are not.
•    Loans, by their very definition, have to be repaid – these advance fee payments did not.  
Moving forward, we are still being asked if we could have made loans to clubs of £9m in April, but there is no practical nor realistic way to have done so.
Before directors make loans, they must carry out due diligence into whether clubs have the ability to repay the loans. 
That is a major exercise and to do so 42 times in a short timescale would have been impossible. And, being frank, given the financial crisis that the game is in, it is impossible to see how the Board could have satisfied itself that all 42 clubs would have been a good credit risk. Clubs defaulting on loan repayments would have left every other club liable for the loss - which is exactly what happened when Gretna were given a loan over a decade ago.
As to the question: could we not have made millions of pounds of further advance fee payments in April, to help clubs weather the financial storm caused by Covid-19? The answer is no. By the end of March, the SPFL had already made fee payments up to roughly the entitlement of the bottom club in the Ladbrokes Championship, Ladbrokes League 1 and Ladbrokes League 2.
With fee payments being entirely dependent on final League placings, the Board’s resolution remains the only realistic way to have made substantial and quick payments to lower league clubs, as well as giving them the certainty and clarity they required to make the tough decisions necessary to get them through to the point that matches can be played once again.

SPFL dishing out telts to Ann Budge and Tom English.

Doncaster actually came across very well on Sportsound.

Tom English as per usual did not.

[Shadow Play]

36 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Think they need to start discussions about the possibility of not playing next season and starting again in 21/22.

If we didn’t play any football in the 20/21 season we can’t use average points per game as every club would be equal and it would appear all seasons must come to an end with champions and relegation being decided .  Only fair way would be to use alphabetical order to decide champions and the relegated team for that season.  

Everyone quite likes Alloa, so quite happy to see them champions.  It would also mean Raith Rovers would head straight back down, so quite an accurate way of doing it for relegation.  Arguably more accurate than this season 

[AyrExile]

33 minutes ago, D'Jaffo said:

SPFL dishing out telts to Ann Budge and Tom English.

Doncaster actually came across very well on Sportsound.

Tom English as per usual did not.

It certainly helped having a conversation where Richard Gordon was the only other person allowed to speak. What is he trying to hide that the other panelist’s can’t ask questions? English knows more about this than he’s letting on and isn’t letting it drop 

[Ludo*1]

Just now, AyrExile said:

It certainly helped having a conversation where Richard Gordon was the only other person allowed to speak. What is he trying to hide that the other panelist’s can’t ask questions? English knows more about this than he’s letting on and isn’t letting it drop 

I'm no Neil Doncaster fan, but who would want to go onto that show and have 4 or 5 arguing against you with ridiculous view points? What chance would anyone have in that scenario? Tom English could've taken the reigns on the interview, but didn't.

If he knows more about this than he's letting on then he's not doing his job as a journalist properly and has a vested interest and as such shouldn't even be on the show. As it is though, he's just shown himself up as a blethering arsehole that's suckling the Budge teet for 'exclusives'.

[AyrExile]

8 minutes ago, Speroni*1 said:

I'm no Neil Doncaster fan, but who would want to go onto that show and have 4 or 5 arguing against you with ridiculous view points? What chance would anyone have in that scenario? Tom English could've taken the reigns on the interview, but didn't.

If he knows more about this than he's letting on then he's not doing his job as a journalist properly and has a vested interest and as such shouldn't even be on the show. As it is though, he's just shown himself up as a blethering arsehole that's suckling the Budge teet for 'exclusives'.

Managers and chairmen do it all the time so why not him? Seems an articulate guy so If the arguements are weak then surely he can bat them all away? Considering all the mistakes that are appearing on a weekly basis from the league I can’t believe you’re expecting a journalist to be accountable but Doncaster less so 

[Ludo*1]

6 minutes ago, AyrExile said:

Managers and chairmen do it all the time so why not him? Seems an articulate guy so If the arguements are weak then surely he can bat them all away? Considering all the mistakes that are appearing on a weekly basis from the league I can’t believe you’re expecting a journalist to be accountable but Doncaster less so 

I think he has been accountable by coming on and answering all the questions they wanted asked tbh.

[ScottyG]

Doncaster came across as having made his mind up weeks ago that his was the only way to go and no one should dare stand against him, or else. I personally can't see where allegations of bullying could come from.

[Granny Danger]

Does anyone know when this reconstruction discussion is going to be wrapped up/voted on?

[D'Jaffo]

Does anyone know when this reconstruction discussion is going to be wrapped up/voted on?

Wouldn’t expect anytime soon.

Cameron has said that Les Grey is still collating all the proposals and they’ve yet to have an actual discussion on what ones could work.

[Ludo*1]

Tam McManus dishing out telts now: