COVID-19 In Scottish Football

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Where as Premiership clubs have only been given loans.

And as Nicola said, it isn't really extra money if you have to pay it back later.

[Leith Green]

17 hours ago, G51 said:

It absolutely is. If clubs cannot trade players then they’ll fold. This kind of argument that player trading is a luxury rather than a necessity is just the liberal equivalent of “Pay soldiers footballers wages” peddled by economic illiterates.

Hibs by the way have now gone and spent money on three players with that Government debt still outstanding. Using your argument, this is somehow immoral and Hibs should be compelled to pay the money back first, despite the fact that buying good players and developing them is how Hibs grow the business.

Correct.

As far as I am aware, taking on the government loan was a bit of a no brainer - cheap cash, and a long term (10 years?) to repay it.

Clubs accepted it as it was a great way to get some cheap money after the lockdown and I dont think there were many (if any) strings attached.

Any suggestion that clubs shouldnt buy and sell players as a result is - being kind - economically illiterate.

[ahemps]

15 hours ago, invergowrie arab said:

The bars at Murrayfield are outside. I don't agree with the nonsense restrictions at Hampden but it's not like v like.

They are more akin to that weird fan park that some folk went to instead of a normal pub.

There are definitely apples v apples examples where rugby fans behave as well/badly as football fans but are treated better eg dry trains to big football matches but folk doing what the f**k they like on 6N match days on the train. 

I remember the scenes from the Scotland fans travelling to Wembley in the summer sitting with cans of Irn Bru for 5hrs. 

 

[G51]

2 hours ago, Leith Green said:

Correct.

As far as I am aware, taking on the government loan was a bit of a no brainer - cheap cash, and a long term (10 years?) to repay it.

Clubs accepted it as it was a great way to get some cheap money after the lockdown and I dont think there were many (if any) strings attached.

Any suggestion that clubs shouldnt buy and sell players as a result is - being kind - economically illiterate.

This whole philosophy is rooted in the poisonous mindset that having debt and not repaying it is immoral - the essence of neoliberalism. It seems to have really taken hold since the 08 recession, when people thought the moral (or “right”) course of action was to cut funds to healthcare, education and public services rather than take on more immoral debt, because the concept of debt forgiveness has been conveniently forgotten from the public consciousness despite existing for pretty much all of human history (yes I recently re-read David Graeber).

But that’s for a different thread. I’ll get us back on track by calling Neil Doncaster a b*****d.

[Theyellowbox]

2 hours ago, Leith Green said:

Correct.

As far as I am aware, taking on the government loan was a bit of a no brainer - cheap cash, and a long term (10 years?) to repay it.

Clubs accepted it as it was a great way to get some cheap money after the lockdown and I dont think there were many (if any) strings attached.

Any suggestion that clubs shouldnt buy and sell players as a result is - being kind - economically illiterate.

Of course it was a no brainer and I'm not saying clubs wouldn't be sensible I taking it, but it IS a bit of a cheek to keep looking for money each time there is some restrictions while at the same time spending cash on signing players. 

It's nothing to do with being economic illiterate, its about recognising that Scottish football keeps looking for special treatment and government support and when they get it, they decide to then act in a selfish way. We maybe see individual clubs, but government see a single industry. But some clubs taking loans and then spending that or part of it on fees for overseas players, it will just continue to re informed the view that some in power have of selfish football.

Play it this way then. Imagine the clubs go back to the government further down the line looking for government support, why should the government hand out further loans when some if what they have given now is paid out in transfers as opposed to paying wages to keep people in employment? I accept the loans were not given with specific conditions, but the general assumption was that they were to keep the clubs afloat and people in employment.

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Of course it was a no brainer and I'm not saying clubs wouldn't be sensible I taking it, but it IS a bit of a cheek to keep looking for money each time there is some restrictions while at the same time spending cash on signing players. 

It's nothing to do with being economic illiterate, its about recognising that Scottish football keeps looking for special treatment and government support and when they get it, they decide to then act in a selfish way. We maybe see individual clubs, but government see a single industry. But some clubs taking loans and then spending that or part of it on fees for overseas players, it will just continue to re informed the view that some in power have of selfish football.

Play it this way then. Imagine the clubs go back to the government further down the line looking for government support, why should the government hand out further loans when some if what they have given now is paid out in transfers as opposed to paying wages to keep people in employment? I accept the loans were not given with specific conditions, but the general assumption was that they were to keep the clubs afloat and people in employment.

The ‘special treatment’ Scottish football/sport has got is to be singled out to be restricted from trading by the government based on some very shaky data. They want compensated that, why is this difficult? 

[Theyellowbox]

36 minutes ago, G51 said:

This whole philosophy is rooted in the poisonous mindset that having debt and not repaying it is immoral - the essence of neoliberalism. It seems to have really taken hold since the 08 recession, when people thought the moral (or “right”) course of action was to cut funds to healthcare, education and public services rather than take on more immoral debt, because the concept of debt forgiveness has been conveniently forgotten from the public consciousness despite existing for pretty much all of human history (yes I recently re-read David Graeber).

But that’s for a different thread. I’ll get us back on track by calling Neil Doncaster a b*****d.

Dent used in the right way, such as for funding public services is a good thing. Spend £1 now on preventative medicine is better than £3 down the line on reactive care etc.

I just think debt in sport is not something to be encouraged. If it is debt as a result of infrastructure that regardless of league position has a future value, then that is sensible, but if a club runs up debt to sign players  which a) have no sell on value at the end of contract and b) have a massive drop in value if say relegated, then that is not sensible. Yes, clubs should develop, buy and sell players as that is a sensible model, but to go into perpetual debt in order to buy players isn't. 

[AJF]

5 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Of course it was a no brainer and I'm not saying clubs wouldn't be sensible I taking it, but it IS a bit of a cheek to keep looking for money each time there is some restrictions while at the same time spending cash on signing players. 

It's nothing to do with being economic illiterate, its about recognising that Scottish football keeps looking for special treatment and government support and when they get it, they decide to then act in a selfish way. We maybe see individual clubs, but government see a single industry. But some clubs taking loans and then spending that or part of it on fees for overseas players, it will just continue to re informed the view that some in power have of selfish football.

Play it this way then. Imagine the clubs go back to the government further down the line looking for government support, why should the government hand out further loans when some if what they have given now is paid out in transfers as opposed to paying wages to keep people in employment? I accept the loans were not given with specific conditions, but the general assumption was that they were to keep the clubs afloat and people in employment.

Are there any stipulations on what the government funding should be used for?

[Theyellowbox]

2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

The ‘special treatment’ Scottish football/sport has got is to be singled out to be restricted from trading by the government based on some very shaky data. They want compensated that, why is this difficult? 

They are not being restricted though are they? Clubs can play games post shutdown and I agree if there is still ongoing restrictions, that is different, but as it stands, clubs did and do not have to play games right now and could play the games at any point between now and summer. They may choose not to of course. 

[Theyellowbox]

3 minutes ago, AJF said:

Are there any stipulations on what the government funding should be used for?

No, but I liken it to someone asking to borrow £100 from you to pay the £50 electricity bill and then you see them the next day away putting the other £50 on a horse at the bookies. You didn't say they couldn't gamble the other £50, but equally, given they pleaded poverty, you would assume they'd have either banked it in case needed next time or paid it back if they didn't need it.

Imagine then if they came back next time looking for more money, regardless of whether they won the bet or not, would you be as inclined to give it to them? 

[AJF]

20 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

No, but I liken it to someone asking to borrow £100 from you to pay the £50 electricity bill and then you see them the next day away putting the other £50 on a horse at the bookies. You didn't say they couldn't gamble the other £50, but equally, given they pleaded poverty, you would assume they'd have either banked it in case needed next time or paid it back if they didn't need it.

Imagine then if they came back next time looking for more money, regardless of whether they won the bet or not, would you be as inclined to give it to them? 

That analogy falls flat because spending money on players is a fundamental cost in order for a football club to operate, whether it be wages or transfer fees. Therefore clubs are spending the money for the purposes of their trade, which the money was intended for. Your analogy of someone spending money on something they didn't get the money for is incomparable.

Surely the purpose of any funding is to allow a club to operate as normally as possible. Spending money on players is normal.

Edited January 7, 2022 by AJF

[Theyellowbox]

6 minutes ago, AJF said:

That analogy falls flat because spending money on players is a fundamental cost in order for a football club to operate, whether it be wages or transfer fees. Therefore clubs are spending the money for the purposes of their trade, which the money was intended for. Your analogy of someone spending money on something they didn't get the money for is incomparable.

Surely the purpose of any funding is to allow a club to operate as normally as possible. Spending money on players is normal.

Spending money on transfer fees in Scotland is far from normal!

[G51]

45 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Dent used in the right way, such as for funding public services is a good thing. Spend £1 now on preventative medicine is better than £3 down the line on reactive care etc.

I just think debt in sport is not something to be encouraged. If it is debt as a result of infrastructure that regardless of league position has a future value, then that is sensible, but if a club runs up debt to sign players  which a) have no sell on value at the end of contract and b) have a massive drop in value if say relegated, then that is not sensible. Yes, clubs should develop, buy and sell players as that is a sensible model, but to go into perpetual debt in order to buy players isn't. 

But if a club borrows money to sign a player, therefore going into debt, and that player earns that club competition prize money that wouldn’t otherwise be accessible to that club without him, then the debt is justifiable from a payback perspective regardless of what money is gained when he leaves the club.

To take it a step further, if a club buys a player based on a calculated chance that the player will deliver prize money or an increased transfer fee, and goes into debt to do so, then the debt is still justifiable from a payback perspective. Just because the final result wasn’t right doesn’t mean the process wasn’t sound. 

To go proper galaxy brain, it doesn’t particularly matter if the debt is justifiable or not, because much of what investment in a player worthwhile is difficult to quantify, and because the concept of “justifying” debt should be anathema to people.
 

[Dons_1988]

54 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

They are not being restricted though are they? Clubs can play games post shutdown and I agree if there is still ongoing restrictions, that is different, but as it stands, clubs did and do not have to play games right now and could play the games at any point between now and summer. They may choose not to of course. 

They were restricted on Boxing Day and may continue to be. 

If government want to restrict businesses trading to any extent through circumstances they have no control over then they should be compensated. 

It’s like saying a hospitality venue shouldn’t go out and buy new decorations for the bar because they’ve asked for government support. 
 

25 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Spending money on transfer fees in Scotland is far from normal!

Trading players is fundamental to the clubs, the funds involved is nothing to do with the SG. 

[craigkillie]

"You could always just play the football matches another time" is the sort of thing I'd expect some idiot to say on Twitter, not a fan on a football forum.

[lubo_blaha]

They are not being restricted though are they? Clubs can play games post shutdown and I agree if there is still ongoing restrictions, that is different, but as it stands, clubs did and do not have to play games right now and could play the games at any point between now and summer. They may choose not to of course. 

Premiership clubs will have lost north of £1million between them for Boxing Day alone. Championship clubs are still playing, losing out week on week and the League 1 and 2 clubs who get over 500 on average are missing out also. Even rearranging games doesn’t eliminate all of the costs for the original dates that were in place, changing plans for the winter break at a few days notice will have costs clubs a fair bit as well.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

4 minutes ago, lubo_blaha said:

Premiership clubs will have lost north of £1million between them for Boxing Day alone. Championship clubs are still playing, losing out week on week and the League 1 and 2 clubs who get over 500 on average are missing out also. Even rearranging games doesn’t eliminate all of the costs for the original dates that were in place, changing plans for the winter break at a few days notice will have costs clubs a fair bit as well.

It may be clearly unfair but surely premiership clubs should shut up and "take their medicine"

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

It may be clearly unfair but surely premiership clubs should shut up and "take their medicine"

No, that’s just hearts. And we’d do it again. 

[54_and_counting]

With regards to clubs taking loans and spending it on transfers, surely the clubs only have to say that they were originally going to spend this money on players

[Frank Grimes]

What are the predictions then?

Back to normal by the 17th or we continue with 500 fans rattling around our stadiums?

I’m expecting some kind of half way house like we had at the start of the season, 30% of capacity or some other nonsense 

Which will still piss everyone off including me

I want to go to St Mirren and Livingston away but can’t make fucking plans for either yet