COVID-19 In Scottish Football

[capt_oats]

1 hour ago, Theyellowbox said:

Hibs, Hearts, Motherwell, Dundee United, Aberdeen and St Johnstone have or are about to pay fees for players this season. These clubs almost never pay a fee for a player. Before this season, I think the last time St Johnstone paid a fee was c2009 for McKay and Davidson. When was the last time Hibs paid £300k for a player?

Outwith Rangers and Celtic it is very uncommon for Scottish clubs to pay a transfer fee.

@Desp has already covered it but it's not unheard of for us to pay transfer fees, Moult and Carson are the really obvious ones but if you look through our transfer history for recent seasons it's peppered with 'undisclosed fees'. I mean even Liam Donnelly was an "undisclosed fee".

Quote

The 22-year-old Northern Ireland international centre back has signed an initial two-year contract, subject to the usual registration formalities, with the club paying an undisclosed fee for his services.

Link

It's fair to say that the majority of our signings don't incur a fee but equally with reference to this season it's not a regular occurrence for us to have received a club record fee of c.£3m.

We posted a profit of £346k for the curtailed season and it's predicted that we'll post a record profit for the 20/21 season (our previous record was 17/18 - £1.72m).

I'm not sure why there's an inference that the Scottish Government loan made available has influenced our investment of that profit whether it's in playing staff, stadium upgrades or infrastructure.

Edited January 7, 2022 by capt_oats

[Dons_1988]

2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

I agree with that. It's not up to the government to dictate how clubs spend their money. BUT, given there is a finite amount of money that the Scottish government can provide to support sport and businesses in general, they will undoubtedly be looking at the needs of each business to judge where best to provide support.

I'd say they would rather give cash to businesses to keep them afloat and employing people across as many sectors as possible than providing funds to football clubs so they can continue to pay transfer fees because that is what they normally do.

We as football fans may not like that and may feel it disadvantages some clubs vs others, but that will be the reality. They will also (and some may not like this) look and see whether industries will be able to recover the lost revenue at a later date and its an issue of timing vs lost revenue compared to others where by being closed just means lost revenue completely. 

Your final point re revenue lost/deferred is perfectly valid and is a reasonable way to allocate funding, as long as it’s applied sensibly I.e Aberdeen playing rangers on a Tuesday night in January instead of 29th December is absolutely revenue lost, not deferred. 

the rest sounds like an arbitrary and irresponsible way of allocating funds. 

[Theyellowbox]

Just now, Dons_1988 said:

Your final point re revenue lost/deferred is perfectly valid and is a reasonable way to allocate funding, as long as it’s applied sensibly I.e Aberdeen playing rangers on a Tuesday night in January instead of 29th December is absolutely revenue lost, not deferred. 

the rest sounds like an arbitrary and irresponsible way of allocating funds. 

I think we are both in agreement. I don't think the Scottish Government SHOULD necessarily look at a way a football club operates, but I think they WILL and to a degree, I could understand that when restricted in what financial support they can provide, they may well think £ spend to keep a business from closing is better spend than allowing Aberdeen to continue to pay transfer fees.

What Aberdeen and all other clubs need to demonstrate clearly is what lost revenue there would be from the reduction to 500 people in a crowd and make a case for compensation.

Where it becomes trickier is to claim for anything where what might have been a weekend game pre winter shutdown becomes a midweek game post winter shutdown as govt would argue that the game could still take place at a weekend at a later date and it's not their concern how a fixture list is drawn up. I'm not sure I'd agree, but I could see them argue it.

Of course, if government still restrict clubs to 500 fans post the winter break, then clubs should rinse them for every penny they can conceivably get. 

[Forever_blueco]

34 minutes ago, DMCs said:

I think it's unlikely because there really aren't that many free dates left. Only Kyogo is a certainty to get called up as well.

According to the tabloids today all 4 have been granted special permission from Japanese government for the ties under “public interest “along with rogic for Australia will see Celtic down 5 players . 
 

I wouldn’t be surprised to see it shifted to around or just after the split similar to 2007-08 season 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Forever_blueco

[kingjoey]

8 hours ago, Theyellowbox said:

I think we are both in agreement. I don't think the Scottish Government SHOULD necessarily look at a way a football club operates, but I think they WILL and to a degree, I could understand that when restricted in what financial support they can provide, they may well think £ spend to keep a business from closing is better spend than allowing Aberdeen to continue to pay transfer fees.

What Aberdeen and all other clubs need to demonstrate clearly is what lost revenue there would be from the reduction to 500 people in a crowd and make a case for compensation.

Where it becomes trickier is to claim for anything where what might have been a weekend game pre winter shutdown becomes a midweek game post winter shutdown as govt would argue that the game could still take place at a weekend at a later date and it's not their concern how a fixture list is drawn up. I'm not sure I'd agree, but I could see them argue it.

Of course, if government still restrict clubs to 500 fans post the winter break, then clubs should rinse them for every penny they can conceivably get. 

I think the Government need to demonstrate why Albion Rovers can have 500 fans in a ground that holds 1500, with the fans mostly next to each other, and Celtic can have 500 fans in a ground that holds 60000 with no one next to each other.

[Clown Job]

7 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

I think the Government need to demonstrate why Albion Rovers can have 500 fans in a ground that holds 1500, with the fans mostly next to each other, and Celtic can have 500 fans in a ground that holds 60000 with no one next to each other.

They’ve already admitted the 500 limit isn’t anything to do with the science but about sending a message 

Clicky

A total of 500 as a maximum for outdoorevents gives a very clear signal to people in the country that we have to reduce that interaction. 

"So for example a crowd of 500 at a Rangers game compared to a crowd of 50,000 which would normally be of that order makes a very, very clear significant point that we have to reduce dramatically the level of socialinteraction.

[wastecoatwilly]

18 hours ago, Forever_blueco said:

According to the tabloids today all 4 have been granted special permission from Japanese government for the ties under “public interest “along with rogic for Australia will see Celtic down 5 players . 
 

I wouldn’t be surprised to see it shifted to around or just after the split similar to 2007-08 season 

I think if it's still only 500 fans Celtic will try to get the game moved to a later date.
Politics at it's best.
Both the Dundee utd and Hearts game included.

Edited January 8, 2022 by wastecoatwilly

[Grangemouth Bairn]

19 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

I think if it's still only 500 fans Celtic will try to get the game moved to a later date.
Politics at it's best.

If Celtic lose the 4 players (I’m including Rogic and not Ideguchi who hasn’t featured for a while at International  level) they can apply for postponement under SPFL rules however there is no way the SPFL will just grant postponement of one fixture so it’d likely be that Celtic’s matches vs Hearts, Rangers and Dundee would all need to be re-arranged.

[wastecoatwilly]

37 minutes ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

If Celtic lose the 4 players (I’m including Rogic and not Ideguchi who hasn’t featured for a while at International  level) they can apply for postponement under SPFL rules however there is no way the SPFL will just grant postponement of one fixture so it’d likely be that Celtic’s matches vs Hearts, Rangers and Dundee would all need to be re-arranged.

Using the fans to strengthen Celtic's position is likely, the tarts game is away so i'm not sure whether the tarts would be on board with it.  
The whole idea for moving the winter break forward was to give the fans a chance to get back into stadiums.

Edited January 8, 2022 by wastecoatwilly

[Grangemouth Bairn]

13 minutes ago, wastecoatwilly said:

Using the fans to strengthen Celtic's position is likely, the tarts game is away so i'm not sure whether the tarts would be on board with it.  
The whole idea for moving the winter break forward was to give the fans a chance to get back into stadiums.

If you apply for postponement, which I’m not convinced you will, the decision will sit with the SPFL.

[wastecoatwilly]

7 minutes ago, Grangemouth Bairn said:

If you apply for postponement, which I’m not convinced you will, the decision will sit with the SPFL.

I'm pretty sure if Celtic are 4 or 5 players down,Sevco,Dundee utd and the tarts will want the games played with or without fans going back on their decision to bring the winter break forward.

[bennett]

1 hour ago, wastecoatwilly said:

I think if it's still only 500 fans Celtic will try to get the game moved to a later date.
Politics at it's best.
Both the Dundee utd and Hearts game included.

Neil Doncaster has stated that no more games can be moved and why 1 set of games went ahead with 500 fans. 

 

[wastecoatwilly]

2 minutes ago, bennett said:

Neil Doncaster has stated that no more games can be moved and why 1 set of games went ahead with 500 fans. 

 

Don Neilcaster can never give the clubs an offer they can't refuse zippy.

[ropy]

Can you ask for a postponement because you are missing players that have never played for you?

[Mark Connolly]

2 minutes ago, ropy said:

Can you ask for a postponement because you are missing players that have never played for you?

Of course you can.

Celtic are currently investigating how to get a postponement due to Novak Djokovic not being allowed into Australia.

 

[wastecoatwilly]

19 minutes ago, ropy said:

Can you ask for a postponement because you are missing players that have never played for you?

Celtic have the Hibs and Alloa games before the players go on international duty M8.
Getting the players in early was a great move from Celtic.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Using the fans to strengthen Celtic's position is likely, the tarts game is away so i'm not sure whether the tarts would be on board with it.  
The whole idea for moving the winter break forward was to give the fans a chance to get back into stadiums.

Given that the Hearts board is answerable to the foundation of Hearts and the foundation is answerable people like me it would seem unlikely

Arguably it would represent a failure of democracy and a need for reform

[wastecoatwilly]

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

Given that the Hearts board is answerable to the foundation of Hearts and the foundation is answerable people like me it would seem unlikely

Arguably it would represent a failure of democracy and a need for reform

The ideal scenario is for the budgie cage to be full and Celtic to be down 4 or 5 players for the self preservation society.

[Leith Green]

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

Given that the Hearts board is answerable to the foundation of Hearts and the foundation is answerable people like me it would seem unlikely

Arguably it would represent a failure of democracy and a need for reform

I know what you are saying, but that is not really how the setup works, its not a democracy (and neither should or could it be).

FoH set strategic goals, some of which are fan "asks" - but you have an executive board who are tasked with executing and achieving those goals - basically the same as any large organisation.

This means that they make day to day board decisions which they deem to be in the best interests of the club - some of which will not be popular with some fans but are in the best interests of the club.

Something like the situation described in the posts above wouldnt even be run by FoH (except those on the exec board) never mind the fans.

Nothing could ever be agreed otherwise.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

I know what you are saying, but that is not really how the setup works, its not a democracy (and neither should or could it be).
FoH set strategic goals, some of which are fan "asks" - but you have an executive board who are tasked with executing and achieving those goals - basically the same as any large organisation.
This means that they make day to day board decisions which they deem to be in the best interests of the club - some of which will not be popular with some fans but are in the best interests of the club.
Something like the situation described in the posts above wouldnt even be run by FoH (except those on the exec board) never mind the fans.
Nothing could ever be agreed otherwise.

I wasn’t being entirely serious