The SPFL vote vote

[Dons_1988]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

Bollocks yet again

Given you named Aberdeen specifically, you know yourself that my statement of 'not every club' is absolutely true, so another one wrong for you.

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

Well yes it has: any well managed business has a combination of i) cash reserves ii) little outstanding debt (hence good credit) and iii) a resilient and varied business model to deal with the challenges of a short term shock. Saint Johnstone, for example, are highly unlikely to be tipped into administration for these exact reasons: indeed, their McDairmid Park crematorium service might end up doing a roaring trade though 2021.

Given the extensive government support already set out, the only clubs who are likely to go into administration - 'dip' being an utterly ridiculous description for cheating your creditors - will be those who were already sailing far too close to the wind before the storm struck. That description also applies to my own club, although it's probably only in the second tier of potential casualties.

 

i) It doesn't make you a poorly run business if cash reserves are not enough to last you an extended period of no trade. 

ii) low outstanding debt is a simplistic measure of good credit to say the least. A well run business has manageable debt that they are able to service comfortably in times of normal trade, and can withstand the peaks and troughs that come through the trading process. I'm not sure it's that relevant anyway given the payment holidays that many banks are offering. 

iii) Do the vast majority of SPFL clubs have a diversified portfolio of revenue streams to keep themselves going through a global pandemic and a suspension of their primary trading activity? I'm not sure they do. Every club is squeezing as much out of their minor revenue streams (merchandise, club media outlets etc) as they can but I'd be very surprised if they can live off that for any length of time.

If we're talking about clubs going out of business in the next month or so then I'd agree with you but we're talking about potentially not being in stadiums for the rest of the year with no decision on games behind closed doors, no model on how streaming that will work, pricing etc. It's a very real prospect that well run clubs will run out of money before any sort of normality resumes. Yes, the most prudent clubs will last longer and well done them.

You've picked on my use of the term 'dip' - pedantic but fair enough, I don't mean to trivialise the issue of administration. I realise the damage it does, and the creditors often get forgotten in discussions such as this in football. But that doesn't change the fact that clubs may be left with no option.

[GordonD]

1 hour ago, Bohemian said:

Just to be clear I didnt say that..

Yes, sorry, I know you were quoting Murdoch MacLennan. Should have made that clearer.

[Bohemian]

2 minutes ago, GordonD said:

Yes, sorry, I know you were quoting Murdoch MacLennan. Should have made that clearer.

Ha.  It's alright mate

[Ric]

After reading MacLennan's comments I think we can see where the "battle lines"  will be drawn. Rangers' claim of bullying, while MacLennan saying they lobbied. For me, the use of the word lobby is concerning. They should be allowed to give advise, but that is a different matter. Whether that constitutes as bullying I have my doubts, but I feel (and we'll need to wait and see) that any amount of lobbying will be considered so by the Ibrox outfit.

[vikingTON]

25 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Given you named Aberdeen specifically, you know yourself that my statement of 'not every club' is absolutely true, so another one wrong for you.

Most clubs are not burdened with a significant number of outstanding contracts beyond June 30 though, which makes your claim that this problem affects all of Scottish football right now inaccurate. It only affects a minority of clubs, who just so happen to be the ones that had the largest revenue in the country before the crisis hit.

The vast majority of SPFL clubs are well catered for by furloughing staff through June 30 and only offering new deals when there is greater certainty in place.

Quote

i) It doesn't make you a poorly run business if cash reserves are not enough to last you an extended period of no trade. 

Yes it does: that is the point of having such a reserve in the first place. That most Scottish football clubs failed to reflect on the vulnerability of their business model to an external shock and decided that they could do without creating one while the sun was shining is no excuse, not least given that the best run clubs in the country took a different approach and have one available to them.

Quote

ii) low outstanding debt is a simplistic measure of good credit to say the least. A well run business has manageable debt that they are able to service comfortably in times of normal trade, and can withstand the peaks and troughs that come through the trading process. I'm not sure it's that relevant anyway given the payment holidays that many banks are offering. 

Bank debt is not the only form of debt and a well-run business does not leave itself open to the demands of a raft of creditors. No excessive creditor demands that you can't pay right now = no administration.

Quote

iii) Do the vast majority of SPFL clubs have a diversified portfolio of revenue streams to keep themselves going through a global pandemic and a suspension of their primary trading activity? I'm not sure they do. Every club is squeezing as much out of their minor revenue streams (merchandise, club media outlets etc) as they can but I'd be very surprised if they can live off that for any length of time.

If we're talking about clubs going out of business in the next month or so then I'd agree with you but we're talking about potentially not being in stadiums for the rest of the year with no decision on games behind closed doors, no model on how streaming that will work, pricing etc. It's a very real prospect that well run clubs will run out of money before any sort of normality resumes. Yes, the most prudent clubs will last longer and well done them.

Many SPFL clubs do have different revenue streams that are not wholly dependent on a holding a professional football match, be that stadium and office hire to social clubs, lotteries and direct fan investment schemes. No club is going to come out of this situation better off than it was before but the existing support schemes - as well as the final payments that most clubs have received - means that they are at least able to survive. Any administration event will, as usual, be the outcome of sustained financial mismanagement rather than a short term shock and so should be punished in sporting terms with at least the existing measures on the books.

 

Edited April 29, 2020 by vikingTON

[bennett]

28 minutes ago, Ric said:

After reading MacLennan's comments I think we can see where the "battle lines"  will be drawn. Rangers' claim of bullying, while MacLennan saying they lobbied. For me, the use of the word lobby is concerning. They should be allowed to give advise, but that is a different matter. Whether that constitutes as bullying I have my doubts, but I feel (and we'll need to wait and see) that any amount of lobbying will be considered so by the Ibrox outfit.

That seems about right. Going by what I've read, pressurising clubs would be about right and that could be classed as lobbying or bullying, depending on your viewpoint.

 

[Romeo]

That seems about right. Going by what I've read, pressurising clubs would be about right and that could be classed as lobbying or bullying, depending on your viewpoint.
 

I'm sure the long waited for "evidence" will clear all this up.

[Dons_1988]

5 minutes ago, virginton said:

Most clubs are not burdened with a significant number of outstanding contracts beyond June 30 though, which makes your claim that this problem affects all of Scottish football right now inaccurate. It only affects a minority of clubs, who just so happen to be the ones that had the largest revenue in the country before the crisis hit.

The vast majority of SPFL clubs are well catered for by furloughing staff through June 30 and only offering new deals when there is greater certainty in place.

Yes it does: that is the point of having such a reserve in the first place. That most Scottish football clubs failed to reflect on the vulnerability of their business model to an external shock and decided that they could do without creating one while the sun was shining is no excuse, not least given that the best run clubs in the country took a different approach and have one available to them.

Bank debt is not the only form of debt and a well-run business does not leave itself open to the demands of a raft of creditors. No excessive creditor demands that you can't pay right now = no administration.

Many SPFL clubs do have different revenue streams that are not wholly dependent on a holding a professional football match, be that stadium and office hire to social clubs, lotteries and direct fan investment schemes. No club is going to come out of this situation better off than it was before but the existing support schemes - as well as the final payments that most clubs have received - means that they are at least able to survive. Any administration event will, as usual, be the outcome of sustained financial mismanagement rather than a short term shock and so should be punished in sporting terms with at least the existing measures on the books.

- I'll take your word for it on contracts. Although I don't remember claiming that every club will be affected in the same way. Every clubs has a different risk profile here, my point on contracts is that it doesn't make you a poorly run club to have a side under contract for next season, and that the furlough scheme currently doesn't extend beyond June.

- A prudent business has large sums of cash reserves able to survive something like this but it doesn't make you poorly run not to be sitting on a big pile of cash. Again, you are looking at a period of a couple of months, I'm talking about a period of little to no revenue potentially going into next year.

- Fair enough on debt, I misunderstood your point. Agreed that all clubs should be able to pay creditors such as their short term supply chain. The problem is longer term commitments over a period of time that you can't get out of that does rely on sustained income. Player contracts we've touched on.

We're derailing the thread here and we've begun to split hairs over business fundamentals. You don't believe clubs going into admin should be shown any sympathy over this, I believe they should to the extent they can prove a sustained period of little to no income due to current circumstances caused it. I don't think we'll ever agree.

[Ric]

1 minute ago, Romeo said:

I'm sure the long waited for "evidence" will clear all this up.

I think that's where the bullying claim will lie. For me? I'm not sure if it will show actual bullying, but even then the idea that the SPFL were not only conducting the vote but also "lobbying" is problematic. Advice? Sure.

[Frank Grimes]

Past caring about this 

I am enjoying Ewan Murray’s hourly meltdowns though

Boy needs his hole 

[capt_oats]

5 minutes ago, Frank Grimes said:

Past caring about this 

I am enjoying Ewan Murray’s hourly meltdowns though

Boy needs his hole 

^^^^ Absolutely this. Tbh, I'm all for Hearts getting relegated purely on account of him.

Was there not some story about him and the ICT forum that outed him as a massive no righter?

[Savage Henry]

^^^^ Absolutely this. Tbh, I'm all for Hearts getting relegated purely on account of him.
Was there not some story about him and the ICT forum that outed him as a massive no righter?

Oh boy. Absolute weirdo behaviour, which would go down well with some of the less hinged posters in the GN and Political forums here. Absolutely oddball. But the ICT guys will tell you all about it. There were some pretty mental scenes on their website, back in the day, not just limited to him.

[Green Day]

7 minutes ago, capt_oats said:

^^^^ Absolutely this. Tbh, I'm all for Hearts getting relegated purely on account of him.

Was there not some story about him and the ICT forum that outed him as a massive no righter?

Even if there wisnae, I am fully prepared to believe it.

[Cowden Cowboy]

1 hour ago, Ric said:

After reading MacLennan's comments I think we can see where the "battle lines"  will be drawn. Rangers' claim of bullying, while MacLennan saying they lobbied. For me, the use of the word lobby is concerning. They should be allowed to give advise, but that is a different matter. Whether that constitutes as bullying I have my doubts, but I feel (and we'll need to wait and see) that any amount of lobbying will be considered so by the Ibrox outfit.

They are allowed to lobby and try and persuade members to back their motion.  They aren’t meant to be neutral on it - it is what they are recommending to members 

[Ric]

7 minutes ago, Cowden Cowboy said:

They are allowed to lobby and try and persuade members to back their motion.  They aren’t meant to be neutral on it - it is what they are recommending to members 

Where are the rules set out? For me a body that is undertaking the vote should not be influencing it.

[Frank Grimes]

33 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

 

Oh boy. Absolute weirdo behaviour, which would go down well with some of the less hinged posters in the GN and Political forums here. Absolutely oddball. But the ICT guys will tell you all about it. There were some pretty mental scenes on their website, back in the day, not just limited to him.

 

Do tell 

[Romeo]

[Spring Onion]

1 hour ago, Ric said:

Where are the rules set out? For me a body that is undertaking the vote should not be influencing it.

My union will canvass, lobby and suggest what way to vote when they have been negotiating on its members behalf. It's the union that hold the vote.

[Ric]

10 minutes ago, Spring Onion said:

My union will canvass, lobby and suggest what way to vote when they have been negotiating on its members behalf. It's the union that hold the vote.

That's slightly different. You are not obliged to be part of the student union in order to be a student.

[Spring Onion]

1 minute ago, Ric said:

That's slightly different. You are not obliged to be part of the student union in order to be a student.

It's my work place union, they always give a detailed explanation for why they strongly advise that we should accept the wage proposal, that they have negotiated on our behalf. I see a lot of similarities.