Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

[Monkey Tennis]

8 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

Well that's not true is it.

What was the prize money for finishing bottom of the Championship last season? £175k? 

 

Virtually nothing in terms of running a professional football club.

[Sergeant Wilson]

45 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Virtually nothing in terms of running a professional football club.

Even with a bit of insight I wouldn't like to quote a potential figure for even just L1&2 teams to put teams out for BCD games. I doubt JA will know either He could mean well but still get a shock when he heard what's needed.

Or he might sub some teams to make up a Championship and bugger the rest.

Edited June 2, 2020 by Sergeant Wilson

[johnnydun]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Virtually nothing in terms of running a professional football club.

So you don't think a club like Annan or Albion Rovers could operate on a guaranteed £175k a year?

[Monkey Tennis]

2 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

So you don't think a club like Annan or Albion Rovers could operate on a guaranteed £175k a year?

I don't really know to be honest, but I do know that all Scottish clubs, increasingly so as we descend the divisions, are reliant on paying customers.  They pay admission, and support the advertising, the draws and the catering that finances the clubs.  

I think I know where you're heading here.  If you're advocating that all the clubs cut their cloths to suit such freakish circumstances however, then your view of what makes for worthwhile competition, would shame an OF fan.

[johnnydun]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I don't really know to be honest, but I do know that all Scottish clubs, increasingly so as we descend the divisions, are reliant on paying customers.  They pay admission, and support the advertising, the draws and the catering that finances the clubs.  

I think I know where you're heading here.  If you're advocating that all the clubs cut their cloths to suit such freakish circumstances however, then your view of what makes for worthwhile competition, would shame an OF fan.

That's a bit harsh.

All I am saying is, the SPFL could argue that if they cover the safety side of things by paying for testing, clubs do not have any excuse not to field a team, be it with amateurs, juniors, youths or part timers. I know it might be shite watch (not like anyone will see it) but about 6 or 7 Championship clubs would all have to do the same, until fans come back and they can buy again in the window. 

Another reason why streaming might be able to help clubs in a big way.

[RandomGuy.]

13 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

That's a bit harsh.

All I am saying is, the SPFL could argue that if they cover the safety side of things by paying for testing, clubs do not have any excuse not to field a team, be it with amateurs, juniors, youths or part timers. I know it might be shite watch (not like anyone will see it) but about 6 or 7 Championship clubs would all have to do the same, until fans come back and they can buy again in the window. 

Another reason why streaming might be able to help clubs in a big way.

How much do you think it would cost Annan to start up a live streaming service of sufficient quality that people would pay matchday prices for?

Even if you're saying you get 75% of the gate through streaming, that's still a massive drop off over 18/20 games.

Edited June 2, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[DA Baracus]

Not sure how folk aren't getting the finances here, and why some people seem to believe that someone else paying for testing has somehow solved the financial issues. 

Also, are we going to go over the whole streaming debate again? It isn't close to being feasible.

[johnnydun]

8 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

How much do you think it would cost Annan to start up a live streaming service of sufficient quality that people would pay matchday prices for?

Even if you're saying you get 75% of the gate through streaming, that's still a massive drop off over 18/20 games.

 

6 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

Not sure how folk aren't getting the finances here, and why some people seem to believe that someone else paying for testing has somehow solved the financial issues. 

Also, are we going to go over the whole streaming debate again? It isn't close to being feasible.

You have both misinterpreted my point here...

@RandomGuy. I was more saying if a lower league team would be able to field a team on that budget, what's to stop a championship club? Nothing to do with Annan streaming games.

@DA Baracus I am not saying it solves financial issues, I am just saying how the SPFL could argue that they can't have a season out because the safe guards would be put in place and paid for.

The streaming debate is not going to go away until the crowds come back I'm afraid.

[Monkey Tennis]

33 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

That's a bit harsh.

All I am saying is, the SPFL could argue that if they cover the safety side of things by paying for testing, clubs do not have any excuse not to field a team, be it with amateurs, juniors, youths or part timers. I know it might be shite watch (not like anyone will see it) but about 6 or 7 Championship clubs would all have to do the same, until fans come back and they can buy again in the window. 

Another reason why streaming might be able to help clubs in a big way.

Yes, by your terms they probably could argue that.

It would be nuts though.  It would lead to no sort of spectacle and would involve the running of unnecessary risks.  

And please let the streaming lark go.  It weakens your argument further.

[johnnydun]

13 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, by your terms they probably could argue that.

It would be nuts though.  It would lead to no sort of spectacle and would involve the running of unnecessary risks.  

And please let the streaming lark go.  It weakens your argument further.

Well if I let the streaming lark go, does it matter if it's a spectacle or not? Nobody would be seeing it. You might even get out of contract players on the cheap to put themselves in the shop window for when open doors resumes.

Let's face it I'm not going to change my mind on streaming until I hear some other way of bringing money into clubs.

Some on here say there's loads of ways clubs can make money away from streaming, although I am yet to hear one.

Edit; you are right, I don't want another streaming debate, we all know where we stand on that.

Edited June 2, 2020 by johnnydun

[Monkey Tennis]

1 minute ago, johnnydun said:

Well if I let the streaming lark go, does it matter if it's a spectacle or not? Nobody would be seeing it. You might even get out of contract players on the cheap to put themselves in the shop window for when open doors resumes.

Let's face it I'm not going to change my mind on streaming until I hear some other way of bringing money into clubs.

Some on here say there's loads of ways clubs can make money away from streaming, although I am yet to hear one.

I don't agree with them either.

I think we need to hunker down until we can charge people to come through the gates. 

If you accept that the only way it could be done would be by fielding amateurs, why are you keen for that to happen?  If nobody can watch and the teams will bear no real relation to what's normal, then it begs the question:  What's the point?

[johnnydun]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I don't agree with them either.

I think we need to hunker down until we can charge people to come through the gates. 

If you accept that the only way it could be done would be by fielding amateurs, why are you keen for that to happen?  If nobody can watch and the teams will bear no real relation to what's normal, then it begs the question:  What's the point?

A lot of clubs still have a lot of players on contracts that need paid, playing or not.

I think we are at both ends of the spectrum here. Dundee still have a full squad of players on contracts, Queens don't. I completely see your argument to hunker down. Although I am putting my own club at the front of my thoughts, as you are, if you hunker down you also run the risk of having to reapply to the league and starting at league 2 the following season, for the sake of playing 'X' amount of months with a lower calibre squad.

[RossBFaeDundee]

Quite frankly I feel like there has to be a league made up of lower league sides who are ready and willing to play, whether they be in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th tier. Some teams can't possibly play a full season, while others want or even need to play. Obviously a lot would have to be worked out regarding how this league would handle issues such as relegation (though promotion should be pretty straightforward) that I'm not qualified to figure out, but it's the only way to find some sort of middle ground between clubs in both situations.

Trust me, I don't want this, I want things to go down as they normally would, but that seems increasingly impossible, regardless of how much cash is pumped in by generous benefactors. Reconstruction will solve nothing right now. Maybe it will be needed if a thrown together lower league is in fact made, but it needs to be quashed for now.

Edited June 2, 2020 by RossBFaeDundee

[Monkey Tennis]

14 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

I think we are at both ends of the spectrum here. Dundee still have a full squad of players on contracts, Queens don't. 

That's probably fair.

I'd suggest though that our position is more typical of the division.

[Skyline Drifter]

45 minutes ago, johnnydun said:

 

You have both misinterpreted my point here...

@RandomGuy. I was more saying if a lower league team would be able to field a team on that budget, what's to stop a championship club? Nothing to do with Annan streaming games.

@DA Baracus I am not saying it solves financial issues, I am just saying how the SPFL could argue that they can't have a season out because the safe guards would be put in place and paid for.

The streaming debate is not going to go away until the crowds come back I'm afraid.

Well the first thing to stop a Championship club doing so is the fact they are already committed to significantly bigger overheads than Annan, to take your example. They tend to have far bigger facilities, with far more staff, bigger playing pools, and most importantly, a pile of players on significant wages already. If they all had zero contracts in place right now you'd have a point.

I'm unclear why you keep referring the SPFL arguing anything? The SPFL is a member's organisation. It's not independent of it's member clubs and it doesn't take decisions. The Executive may make recommendations but ultimately the member clubs will decide. There may well be a majority in favour of playing behind closed doors in the Championship, I genuinely don't know. I've already outlined the main reason why that will be (because some of the bigger clubs already have so many players contracted that they may as well play). For the sake of argument though, if 9 or 10 members don't want to play because they don't believe they can do so economically closed doors regardless of testing being free then the SPFL is not going to MAKE them do so.

And I know we've been over the streaming debate too often already but the fact remains, streaming is a means of potentially reducing losses if we are required to play. It is not and never will be a way of making a profit or replacing anything close to existing gate receipts

 

[HoBNob]

17 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

Quite frankly I feel like there has to be a league made up of lower league sides who are ready and willing to play, whether they be in the 2nd, 3rd or 4th tier. Some teams can't possibly play a full season, while others want or even need to play. Obviously a lot would have to be worked out regarding how this league would handle issues such as relegation (though promotion should be pretty straightforward) 

How would promotion be straightforward? 

[Skyline Drifter]

3 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That's probably fair.

I'd suggest though that our position is more typical of the division.

In terms of players? To be honest I don't think it is.

Dundee had three players out of contract. Hearts let a few go this week but have clearly got more than enough players to field a team. Ayr have got at least 11 at the moment though the fact they've extended furlough means it's not entirely clear how many will stay and how many will eventually go. They've deferred a decision effectively. Inverness have announced today they've extended a handful of contracts and that six first team players have left, although three of those were known a while ago. Arbroath extended a pile of contracts last week. Dunfermline still have more than 11 players despite letting half the squad leave last week. Raith have given 6 month extensions to their entire squad I think I read yesterday.

I'm unsure about Morton and Alloa but it does look like most of the division could at least field a team of some standard right now and it's probably why there appears to be a general preference to play than not.

[johnnydun]

12 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

That's probably fair.

I'd suggest though that our position is more typical of the division.

I know Dundee, Hearts, Arbroath and to an extent Dunfermline all have enough players on contracts to field a squad.

I know for sure Queens don't.

The rest I am unsure about.

Edit; Thank you @Skyline Drifter.

Edited June 2, 2020 by johnnydun

[D'Jaffo]

We’ve got like 4 players contracted for next season although I’m not sure what the status is with the other reserve players.

[johnnydun]

27 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

bigger overheads than Annan, to take your example. They tend to have far bigger facilities, with far more staff, bigger playing pools, and most importantly, a pile of players on significant wages already.

However they can operate with the staffing levels and budget they have.

28 minutes ago, Skyline Drifter said:

I'm unclear why you keep referring the SPFL arguing anything? The SPFL is a member's organisation. It's not independent of it's member clubs and it doesn't take decisions. The Executive may make recommendations but ultimately the member clubs will decide. There may well be a majority in favour of playing behind closed doors in the Championship, I genuinely don't know. I've already outlined the main reason why that will be (because some of the bigger clubs already have so many players contracted that they may as well play). For the sake of argument though, if 9 or 10 members don't want to play because they don't believe they can do so economically closed doors regardless of testing being free then the SPFL is not going to MAKE them do so.

The paying for testing might be used as an argument to get the Championship up and running by introducing lower tier clubs to replace current Championship clubs who refuse to play. It can't make them play of course, however the SPFL could take away their membership.