Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[johnnydun]

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Issues I see with this are older people having no interest in watching games on a laptop (my dads gone to Saints games with me regularly for about 15 years now, but hates watching games on TV).

Deduct them from your crowd.

You then have family groups (theres families of 4 around me who dont qualify for the free U12 deal). If they all live together then you're only getting the money for one person instead of four.

Deduct them.

A lot of International subscribers might exist, but currently they get charged about double UK customers. I dont know why but if theres a reason for that then you're having to charge them £160 a month to watch 4 games, that's about what Saints currently charge them for 12 months.

I cant see any way clubs make money off that without running amateur squads

You can't deduct all old folk, that's just ageist.

Surely 1 person from 4 is better than none?

Why charge overseas viewers double? That's just stupid for this concept.

[Rob1885]

The more I think about it, the thought of just sacking season 20/21 off completely at this stage makes zero sense.

[Granny Danger]

1 minute ago, johnnydun said:

You can't deduct all old folk, that's just ageist.

Surely 1 person from 4 is better than none?

Why charge overseas viewers double? That's just stupid for this concept.

Beat me to it.

The idea that because his old man doesn’t like/do something then no ‘old people’ do is the most twisted logic I’ve read on this thread.

 

[johnnydun]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

Beat me to it.

The idea that because his old man doesn’t like/do something then no ‘old people’ do is the most twisted logic I’ve read on this thread.

 

Yeah, they go on about the amount of old duffers on P&B who are in the apparent minority of a committed fan base, then in the same breath say they are too old to operate a computer and wouldn't be arsed.

[Granny Danger]

2 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

Yeah, they go on about the amount of old duffers on P&B who are in the apparent minority of a committed fan base, then in the same breath say they are too old to operate a computer and wouldn't be arsed.

In fairness if I were watching the games online I’d probably have to get broadband.

[RandomGuy.]

18 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

You can't deduct all old folk, that's just ageist.

Surely 1 person from 4 is better than none?

Why charge overseas viewers double? That's just stupid for this concept.

I didnt mean all old people, just that my experience is that age group dont hold as much interest in streaming games. The "deduct them" comment was in regards to the ones who wouldnt want to do that.

And 1 in 4 isnt better than nothing if you're paying players their full wage. It increases the amount of extra viewers youd be needing to find to make money. Youd be better not hosting the games and having no outgoings than losing substantial amounts every week.

I dont know, I tried to make that clear. Just now on Saints TV UK subscribers pay half what International ones do. I dont know why that is but if it's something to do with streaming rights then its maybe not something they can get past.

Edited May 15, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[Monkey Tennis]

42 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

Your average gate for the season just past was around 1300, are you saying, globally, you couldn't find about 800 QOTS supporters to each pay £20, if this was the only way they could watch their team after months of no football?

Yes.

Yes I am.

[Monkey Tennis]

43 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I’m not trying to portray it any way.  Fans will either be willing to make the necessary financial sacrifice or not.

Yes.

Not.

[Monkey Tennis]

28 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

I don’t want to give the appearance that I am disagreeing with you for the sake of it, but I think there’s as many committed fans who don’t post on football forums as do.

 

If that's true, it gives us about sixty Queens fans.

[Granny Danger]

2 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes.

Not.

 

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

If that's true, it gives us about sixty Queens fans.

You’re obviously in a dark place.

I’ll include you in my prayers tonight.

[johnnydun]

6 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

I didnt mean all old people, just that my experience is that age group dont hold as much interest in streaming games. The "deduct them" comment was in regards to the ones who wouldnt want to do that.

And 1 in 4 isnt better than nothing if you're paying players their full wage. It increases the amount of extra viewers youd be needing to find to make money.

I dont know, I tried to make that clear. Just now on Saints TV UK subscribers pay half what International ones do. I dont know why that is but if it's something to do with streaming rights then its maybe not something they can get past.

But they won't be paying their full wage, wages will have to drop or they get no wages at all. Along with no match day security and policing to pay for.

If you had the choice of being paid off with no chance of working in your trade for a year or having the possibility of some form of income by trying a new system out, what would you choose?

[Monkey Tennis]

3 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

 

You’re obviously in a dark place.

I’ll include you in my prayers tonight.

No need.  

As you know, nobody will listen anyway.

My place is illuminated by realism.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, johnnydun said:

It leaves hundreds of people out of work.

That's fair comment.

Sadly though, it's inevitable, and certainly can't be averted by some quaint notion of PPV audiences for football of such a standard.

[Monkey Tennis]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

Why? Other than the final assertion that the clubs wouldn't need to sign players for a season (which is nonsensical), the rest isn't a million miles away at all from what the authorities are considering with hub grounds and streaming of matches.

Because it's not appealing and even if it proved so to enough others, it couldn't be replicated sustainably.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, Parttimesupporter said:

I get that a hell of a lot needs to happen before football is in a position to make a decision.  I also take the point that it would be daft for the SPFL Board to try and force teams to play, so maybe my original question is not that relevant.  However, I do wonder what happens when we reach the point that football is permitted behind closed doors.

It is reasonably likely that closed doors games will be allowed by the end of October subject to conditions, but I’m pretty sure we won’t have a date for games with fans by then.  The end of furlough means that clubs have to meet players' wages in full from that point on. 

A lot of clubs may conclude that the limited income from closed doors games isn't worth it and/or that they can't comply with the conditions.  However, they still have players to pay.

It’s reassuring that Queens are in a good position, but there must be a number of clubs outside the Premiership who could run out of cash pretty quickly.  Presumably clubs could make players redundant as a last resort?  I don’t envy directors having to work all this through, and the uncertainty must be pretty grim for players and their families.

I think I could do with a beer………………

 

Saying that closed door matches might be allowed by October, is as relevant to clubs like ours as saying matches will be permitted on the moon at the same stage.

Neither can be afforded, so forget it.

[Derry Alli]

24 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

And 1 in 4 isnt better than nothing if you're paying players their full wage. It increases the amount of extra viewers youd be needing to find to make money. Youd be better not hosting the games and having no outgoings than losing substantial amounts every week.

You also have the likes of 3/4 guys that would go together to games would probably just 'subscribe' once and mirror it onto a TV that they could all sit and watch whilst having a beer together. 

I don't for a second believe anyone can genuinely think this is a feasible business model. 

[vikingTON]

1 minute ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Because it's not appealing and even if it proved so to enough others, it couldn't be replicated sustainably.

The first part is simply your own value judgment rather than an explanation of why it is a terrible idea at all. Be more specific about why it couldn't be replicated sustainably.

[Monkey Tennis]

6 minutes ago, virginton said:

The first part is simply your own value judgment rather than an explanation of why it is a terrible idea at all. Be more specific about why it couldn't be replicated sustainably.

What?

You need me to explain why shoddily covered jamborees of local derby friendlies in empty grounds, couldn't be constantly staged without losing appeal to the viewer expected to pay to watch?

 

[MuckleMoo]

The championship, without supporters, is just not viable financially in its current state. If there is any possibility of games being played behind closed doors teams are going to need to go part time/amateur and the standard will most likely plummet as a result.

Are supporters going to pay to watch games online on a regular basis for a standard that is significantly lower than the shitshow that it is now? That's before you take into account the unreliability of the streaming services and the economic impact of the virus

When are unrestricted crowds likely going to be allowed back? Proably when we've reached herd immunity, we have a reliable treatment for the virus, or when we have a vaccine. I have no idea when these scenarios are likely to be achieved. I've read predictions ranging from months to never!

I honestly can't see football in the lower leagues starting this year, financially it's just not possible unless we're prepared for a massive drop in quality. If we do go down that road supporters will turn away in there droves plunging teams into even more financial difficulties.

[craigkillie]

4 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

I think we might need a one off competition with teams that can muster a squad.

I think this is going to have to be considered if we genuinely can't get playing in front of fans by September/October sort of time. The key will be making the format interesting enough that fans watching at home will care about it, even if it's not a "proper" league.

The big issue here is the new TV deal with Sky. It's allegedly worth something like £160m over the next 5 years, so the SPFL will understandably be hoping not to jeopardise that. This might push them towards the idea of running at a loss playing behind closed doors in the Premiership for a few months in order to meet their contractual obligations, rather than scrapping next season entirely and then having to scramble around for a new deal (no doubt for much less money) for the 2021/22 campaign onwards