Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Granny Danger]

If fans were asked to spend the same as they normally would in any season even if a ball isn’t kicked in order to save their club would that be so unreasonable?

 

[Skyline Drifter]

20 minutes ago, Parttimesupporter said:

There's a fair chance that you are right.  However, Dundee are one of the clubs selling season tickets for 2020/21.

Earlier in the thread I asked if anyone knows who makes the call on whether or not to start the season in the Championship.  Is it the SPFL Board or the Championship clubs?

Well its not quite that simple and they arent entirely different things.

First of all the Govt would have to either allow contact sport generally, or make a specific exemption for SPFL professional sport which would no doubt come with conditions such as testing, limited or no crowds, sanitised surroundings, perhaps certain neutral locations, etc

Then the SFA would have to lift the existing suspension of organised football in this country, thereby presumably also removing the ability of clubs to cancel existing contracts under the clause 12 you keep mentioning.

Then the SPFL would no doubt ask approval from their members, perhaps by division, to go back. I suspect the SPFL Board would make a proposal and ask members to vote on it. Pretty sure they cant unilaterally tell members they have to play. At the end of the day the Board is elected by and answerable to its members. If they act contrary to the wishes of most they would be replaced. 

In practice of course all of these things would happen pretty concurrently. The JAG is talking to the Govt daily already, the SFA and SPFL would work together on this and clubs would be kept in the loop. The league isnt likely to push for a formal restart without detail of what conditions would be and having already confirmed a majority of members are happy they can comply. Its inevitably likely to start at the top so Premiership clubs would have to go back first.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Skyline Drifter

[DA Baracus]

8 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

If fans were asked to spend the same as they normally would in any season even if a ball isn’t kicked in order to save their club would that be so unreasonable?

 

To some folk it would be.

Even so, it won't make up for other lost revenue streams.

[Skyline Drifter]

7 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

If fans were asked to spend the same as they normally would in any season even if a ball isn’t kicked in order to save their club would that be so unreasonable?

Its not just fans though, even allowing for the fact many will have lost jobs or suffered income reduction. And the idea that multiple fans in the same household will pay multiple online subs when it adds nothing to their ability to watch is fanciful.

Its also corporate income from sponsorship, advertising, hospitality etc. Thats far less partisan in source and far more difficult to make a loyalty case for. A lot of those companies will no longer be trading either. 

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

To some folk it would be.

Even so, it won't make up for other lost revenue streams.

I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask people to spend more than they would normally spend for less; that “less” might actually be nothing.  However asking them to spend the same is not unreasonable imo.  If folks economic circumstances have changed due to the virus then yes, of course, that would need to be factored in.

But if clubs fold because fans refused to support them then they will need to accept that consequence.

[DA Baracus]

I think Granny was meaning that if folk spent say, £30, for a home game on top of their season ticket (so things like some pints before the game and a pie and tea/coffee/juice etc the game) would be they be willing to chuck in that £30 to their team every home game, whilst still paying for their season ticket.

[Granny Danger]

3 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

Its not just fans though, even allowing for the fact many will have lost jobs or suffered income reduction. And the idea that multiple fans in the same household will pay multiple online subs when it adds nothing to their ability to watch is fanciful.

Its also corporate income from sponsorship, advertising, hospitality etc. Thats far less partisan in source and far more difficult to make a loyalty case for. A lot of those companies will no longer be trading either. 

See my answer below your post.  Maybe all the fans will achieve is the ability to financially mothball their club for a period; if they manage that then it’s an achievement.

[DA Baracus]

Just now, Granny Danger said:

I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask people to spend more than they would normally spend for less; that “less” might actually be nothing.  However asking them to spend the same is not unreasonable imo.  If folks economic circumstances have changed due to the virus then yes, of course, that would need to be factored in.

But if clubs fold because fans refused to support them then they will need to accept that consequence.

But even if folk did that, revenue from other sources (especially hospitality and away fans) would be well down. I imagine many sponsors would be looking to pay far less too for empty stadium games, if it all.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, DA Baracus said:

I think Granny was meaning that if folk spent say, £30, for a home game on top of their season ticket (so things like some pints before the game and a pie and tea/coffee/juice etc the game) would be they be willing to chuck in that £30 to their team every home game, whilst still paying for their season ticket.

That might be the level of financial sacrifice fans will need to make.

Unless a club has a dedicated rich owner then it might be the only alternative to clubs disappearing.

[Sergeant Wilson]

The trackside advertising might hold up not bad, as it's usually no more than a donation from supporters. I doubt it makes economic sense to take a board at most grounds. It's a drop in the ocean anyway.

Let's say Queens (as they are in the discussion) get 500 subscriptions, what kind of team would that pay for and would subscriptions hold up if the team and the transmission quality is a bit iffy? What if Hearts can play behind closed doors and Alloa can't, do Alloa get bumped and Falkirk promoted, Arbroath make way for Airdrie etc?

Could their be a temporary Covid League for viable clubs...like the war?

The only answer I think is clear is the present set up below the Premiership is a non-standard without crowds.

[johnnydun]

2 hours ago, Flash said:

I think some might be overestimating the numbers of away (and maybe some home fans who don’t live in their team’s town) who wouldn’t travel to a game but who would pay to watch it online. So, although only 600 (say) of the folk who attended our game against Dundee would pay, there would be more who didn’t attend (maybe all over the UK) who would add to the numbers. I think the assumption is that a lot of the folk who go to Dundee’s home games would pay to watch online even though most of them wouldn’t travel to the actual game. Then you’d add exiles, like our fans in the Central Belt who don’t make it down for all the games. And others who live too far away to go to more than one or two games a season, if any.

The overall numbers would then be a lot higher than the 600 used in the example for us. I don’t think there would be enough of these types to make up the shortfall, leaving clubs only being able to afford to play youth teams. But I think that is the logic.

This is my thoughts on it, maybe I am overestimating, but I think it would be enough to keep clubs afloat.

Say for instance Dunfermline sell 1200 season books for the upcoming season, (based on half the amount they sold last season and some fans are generous to their clubs) plus say 800 Dunfermline fans round the world paying for the Pay per view and say 1200 Dees round the world paying for the pay per view, you could have an online attendance of around 3,200. That is only 500 less than last season's attendance.

Take away stewarding and policing costs.

Lower player contracts, as every team will have to do.

There might be the possibility at the time of small groups of hospitality?

Advertising could not only still be done around the ground but also during the online game along a banner at the bottom as well as adverts at half time.

Like I said, I maybe am being optimistic, but I am just trying to look at it from a different light.

 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by johnnydun

[SpoonTon]

Why would it be preferable to not play any football at all to playing largely youth teams behind closed doors? That's what I'm struggling to get my head around here.

Between prize money, live streaming games, hospitality packages (even being pessimistic, there would be opportunities for some fans to attend while adhering to social distancing rules), and other means of bringing in money (MCT at Morton, for example), you could keep can keep a small amount of footballers employed while adding supplementary incoming to others and giving young local players a chance to develop while also keeping fans engaged and looking to cover the type of costs that would need to be paid out in any case. 

I don't think people are thinking through the considerable damage trying to hibernate for a year would do to football at our level. 

[Derry Alli]

6 minutes ago, SpoonTon said:

Why would it be preferable to not play any football at all to playing largely youth teams behind closed doors? That's what I'm struggling to get my head around here.

What's happening to the proven, seasoned pros? 

[johnnydun]

1 minute ago, Dele said:

What's happening to the proven, seasoned pros? 

They will probably have to have some caveat in their contracts to have a reduced wage until fans can return. The other option is no football and no wage at all.

[Guest Flash]

28 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

The trackside advertising might hold up not bad, as it's usually no more than a donation from supporters. I doubt it makes economic sense to take a board at most grounds. It's a drop in the ocean anyway.

Let's say Queens (as they are in the discussion) get 500 subscriptions, what kind of team would that pay for and would subscriptions hold up if the team and the transmission quality is a bit iffy? What if Hearts can play behind closed doors and Alloa can't, do Alloa get bumped and Falkirk promoted, Arbroath make way for Airdrie etc?

Could their be a temporary Covid League for viable clubs...like the war?

The only answer I think is clear is the present set up below the Premiership is a non-standard without crowds.

Probably not much worse than the shower we had from January. 3 points from 10 games (with 2 of those points coming as a result of a missed penalty and a ref changing his mind after awarding a stonewaller) isn’t much to beat.

[Derry Alli]

20 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

They will probably have to have some caveat in their contracts to have a reduced wage until fans can return. The other option is no football and no wage at all.

That seems a fair enough alternative. I never read back on the thread and was just wondering whether folk were just wanting older pros thrown on the scrap heap and thought that was a tad harsh!

[SpoonTon]

13 minutes ago, Dele said:

That seems a fair enough alternative. I never read back on the thread and was just wondering whether folk were just wanting older pros thrown on the scrap heap and thought that was a tad harsh!

It's incredibly harsh, and why shutting down for a year would be the worst scenario for them. 

[johnnydun]

56 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Let's say Queens (as they are in the discussion) get 500 subscriptions

They would need about 900 away fans to buy the pay per view to match their average attendance.

[rb123!]

Why don't Doncaster and Co just go and rob a bank to get us some more money, simples.

[TheGoon]

This isn’t based on anything other than gut feeling, I can’t see clubs at our level and below being able to shift enough PPV subs to make this in any way viable. Morton have certainly been guilty of underestimating how much of the fanbase is in the older generations, and it’ll be much the same for similar sized clubs. Some will be able to use the technology no bother, others won’t have a clue. I’m sure clubs will offer a bit of tech support to get things up and running for folk - but I could see many people just not wanting to bother with it. 
 

Personally, I don’t have any desire to watch us play glorified training games every week on a laptop - especially with a squad even weaker than the current one. The actual football is some way down the list on why I follow Morton (and why most follow any Scottish team) - the novelty would go very, very quickly imo.