Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Anniesland Jag

Return to Stadiums in September

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

Hi DD, when i say lower league clubs i don't mean non league. I mean below the premier league.

But the Westminster government money is specifically for non-league clubs, equivalent of highland/lowland league. No suggestion of any funding of Championship or leagues 1 or 2.

Any funding at that level will come from the cash rich EPL (reduce their prize money) that is simply not going to happen in Scotland and if it did then the SPFL can’t realistically divert it back to the Premier League clubs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doncaster and Mulraney on sportsound saying they are looking for money via Barnett formula. Also saying they think that not having fans in grounds is a political decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, fifexile said:

I wonder if the SPFL actually have any money at the moment to pay out. I think the only money likely to be coming in is from Sky and good luck persuading the Premier League clubs and the SPFL to share that with any other clubs. 

I don’t think it would be SPFL money. The National League in England got a Govt grant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I don’t think it would be SPFL money. The National League in England got a Govt grant.

Was that not on the understanding that the English Premier league would support the other senior leagues?

Given Man City has just spent £65 million on their new CB and all the other transfer fees and wages paid there seems to be plenty cash swilling about 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

Doncaster and Mulraney on sportsound saying they are looking for money via Barnett formula. Also saying they think that not having fans in grounds is a political decision.

But even using the Barnett formula, that would be cash for non-league clubs, so nothing to do with the spfl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Auld Jag said:

Doncaster and Mulraney on sportsound saying they are looking for money via Barnett formula. Also saying they think that not having fans in grounds is a political decision.

Yeh heard he was bleating on about how unfair this is to Celtic and Rangers and leaves them at a disadvantage in Europa League games.  Guy is a prat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Dick Dastardly said:

But even using the Barnett formula, that would be cash for non-league clubs, so nothing to do with the spfl

Just quoting what was said on sportsound. Doncaster also said about the Westminster government giving money to rugby in England. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, fifexile said:

Was that not on the understanding that the English Premier league would support the other senior leagues?

Given Man City has just spent £65 million on their new CB and all the other transfer fees and wages paid there seems to be plenty cash swilling about 

 

I think there were supposed to be discussions between Premiership and Govt to try and get an agreement to help EFL clubs - but I think this is different, directly from Govt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I think there were supposed to be discussions between Premiership and Govt to try and get an agreement to help EFL clubs - but I think this is different, directly from Govt.

The question of funding for EFL sides is under discussion between EPL and Dept for Digital,  Media Culture & Sport.  The Dept is unwilling to fund the lower EFL league clubs, with the mega million transfers on the go.  A newspaper disaster for the UK Gov were they to put millions into League clubs  -  even though the clubs that are struggling are the League 1 & 2 clubs, with casualties in recent seasons  -  Bury Macclesfield, and Wigan on the brink.  The UK Gov "expects" EPL clubs to pass funds to the lower leagues, in much the same way that they "expected" the BBC to fund OAP licenses (saving the Chancellor quite a bit of cash).  The EPL have much more clout that the BBC.   They want something in return for their generosity, and it is by no means certain that the EPF will, if you'll pardon the pun, play ball.  I understand that the "something" is crowd return, in some format.

The National League sits under the EFL, and both the EFL and the National League come under the jurisdiction of the FA.  They have received the £9 million (for a three month period).

The Scottish situation is different, in that there is no expectation for SPL clubs to give any money to lower league clubs.  So under Barnet, if Scottish football receives 10% of the £9 million, as additional funding, then it is up the Scottish Government to allocate the funding as they please. No doubt they will consult the SFA.  If they divided that £0.9 million between 42 SPFL clubs, that would be £21,000 each (for three months).

But lower Highland and Lowland League clubs would rightly seek some of the windfall cash also. Dividing £0.9 million between all of these clubs will help, but not by as much as all that.  What happens in 3 months is in the lap of the gods, but potentially some other cash would be forthcoming IF National League clubs were to get more funding.

The Dept of DMC & S has just dished out  £650,000 to 42 independent cinemas, and part of a £30 million fund for independent cinemas, and as I said in an earlier tweet, is putting £1.5 billion into the arts.  So I hope Scottish football get the help they need.  I don't think any of this money will go north of the border without some sort of a fight on the UK Govs part.

I also hope that they get fans into grounds sooner rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Auld Jag said:

Doncaster and Mulraney on sportsound saying they are looking for money via Barnett formula. 

Fair enough. My interpretation of the Barnett formula would result in bald buggers like Mulraney getting hee haw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Fair enough. My interpretation of the Barnett formula would result in bald buggers like Mulraney getting hee haw.

On that basis m'lady, Ms J Low should get the Jags millions:thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

Sensible move scrapping the Challenge Cup. Don't believe it would have been wise to have teams crossing borders to compete. And let's face it a competition without the likes of Solihull Moors and Bray Wanderers just wouldn't seem the same.

I thought the prospect of a booze cruise away day somewhere new was the sole attraction of the Challenge Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, elevenone said:

Yeh heard he was bleating on about how unfair this is to Celtic and Rangers and leaves them at a disadvantage in Europa League games.  Guy is a prat.

You are being kind calling him a prat. The SPFL and SFA are meeting the Scottish government on Monday. So about 48 hours before a very important meeting with the government you go on national radio slagging them off, is that how you get a good outcome from the meeting. Heard Jason Leitch answer their comments and he did not sound happy at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the barnet allocation is 10% of £9m (i.e £900k) they really need to convince the Scottish Government to top it up. Mulreany and Doncaster saying its a political decision not to allow fans in is a great way to start negotiations with the Scottish Governement. If its a political decision what political benefit is there from not allowing fans to attend?

The £380k a year we pay Doncaster looks like money well spent. Why that guy is still in a job defies belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a new transparent risk analysis of every ground to allow fans back in some form needs to happen soon or football is finished.

Whilst bringing 400 fans at a time may not balance the books, it keeps fans keen and involved in football, if we mothball for a season or play behind closed doors for a season we (and other clubs) will lose loads of fans making the risk of going to the wall later higher. 
 

We have enough wide gates (exits) that can be used as safe entrances for a limited scheduled arrival, roughly 250 seats wide by 30 deep to allow social distancing (with masks) for a limited crowd. Yes the experience may be poor but it will be safe (as safe as going to Asda or a pub), and will keep the habit of going to a game alive

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Norgethistle said:

I think a new transparent risk analysis of every ground to allow fans back in some form needs to happen soon or football is finished.

Whilst bringing 400 fans at a time may not balance the books, it keeps fans keen and involved in football, if we mothball for a season or play behind closed doors for a season we (and other clubs) will lose loads of fans making the risk of going to the wall later higher. 
 

We have enough wide gates (exits) that can be used as safe entrances for a limited scheduled arrival, roughly 250 seats wide by 30 deep to allow social distancing (with masks) for a limited crowd. Yes the experience may be poor but it will be safe (as safe as going to Asda or a pub), and will keep the habit of going to a game alive

I agree with this but how many clubs are going to want more?  If Ibrox is allowed 2000 fans and Parkhead only 1500 and say Cally Thistle 2500 can you imagine the fallout over that? Twitter is full of comments from celebs in the entertainment industry asking when they are getting their four hours of BBC scheduling to have a moan. And what if the first minister say ok we'll open up the football and close down pubs? Too many sectors who are only interested in their own. With the infection rate growing daily there's no way things are going to relax. More likely the opposite.

Edited by scotty
hit post too soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, scotty said:

I agree with this but how many clubs are going to want more?  If Ibrox is allowed 2000 fans and Parkhead only 1500 and say Cally Thistle 2500 can you imagine the fallout over that? Twitter is full of comments from celebs in the entertainment industry asking when they are getting their four hours of BBC scheduling to have a moan. And what if the first minister say ok we'll open up the football and close down pubs? Too many sectors who are only interested in their own. With the infection rate growing daily there's no way things are going to relax. More likely the opposite.

Risk assessment by law needs to be carried out by a competent person and cannot be influenced by management of the company. Let’s have them done, published, showing risks (likelihood, severity and detection), with mitigation and containment/ control measures, then an open discussion can take place. If the risk (current) is too high and no containment/control can drop the RPN down, then till situation changes or different controls can be brought in grounds stay closed. Everyone of the businesses I deal with globally has produced this for employees and visitors/ customers, football should be no different. Every business and premises is different and as such should be judged on the individual not a blanket.

One pub/restaurant/ ground can be assessed as being safe for X% but another will be Y, that’s how risk assessments work

Edited by Norgethistle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality at a 10% opening  it doesnt matter about fans being back in or not from a financial point of view, and that seems to be the argument being put forward in the media. It will only be season ticket holders who have already paid for their tickets so the clubs have the money already. There is no increae in income by bringing back 500 fans to most grounds , talking us and Falkirk in our league anyway. If we got the go ahead for say 2500 inside Firhill then thats a realsitic one for clubs to insist on opening, but it would likley mean no PATG and all only available via online bookings at least 24 hours before and zero ablity to go to away games. The bigger clubs want hospitality to bring in more money and IMO thats what this is about

If you add in the access/egress problems with most grounds then that adds more issues for clubs to overcome. Thistle are quite lucky in that we have a lot of room  round the stadium and plenty of turnstiles, some places have maybe 2 or 3 entrances and thats it. As Norge says though its all risk assessment, I think our risk is small but hell knows really

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Junior said:

In reality at a 10% opening  it doesnt matter about fans being back in or not from a financial point of view, and that seems to be the argument being put forward in the media. It will only be season ticket holders who have already paid for their tickets so the clubs have the money already. There is no increae in income by bringing back 500 fans to most grounds , talking us and Falkirk in our league anyway. If we got the go ahead for say 2500 inside Firhill then thats a realsitic one for clubs to insist on opening, but it would likley mean no PATG and all only available via online bookings at least 24 hours before and zero ablity to go to away games. The bigger clubs want hospitality to bring in more money and IMO thats what this is about

If you add in the access/egress problems with most grounds then that adds more issues for clubs to overcome. Thistle are quite lucky in that we have a lot of room  round the stadium and plenty of turnstiles, some places have maybe 2 or 3 entrances and thats it. As Norge says though its all risk assessment, I think our risk is small but hell knows really

Which is why every club should be assessed differently. If we can put measures in place to allow say 2000 in safely why should we be prevented because another club can’t let 100 in safely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Norge that we need risk assessments. I do risks assessments at work and many managers somehow have the idea that assessments are there to take away the problem. I've risk-assessed an office as having a capacity of 5 only to be told by the manager that he needs to have 10 in it. Football chairmen are no different and will only want more. If clubs were told that they could have a few fans in and no hospitality how would they react?  We'd then see how much of the grumblings are really about having fans at football or having fans' money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, scotty said:

I agree with Norge that we need risk assessments. I do risks assessments at work and many managers somehow have the idea that assessments are there to take away the problem. I've risk-assessed an office as having a capacity of 5 only to be told by the manager that he needs to have 10 in it. Football chairmen are no different and will only want more. If clubs were told that they could have a few fans in and no hospitality how would they react?  We'd then see how much of the grumblings are really about having fans at football or having fans' money.

I do the same (previously was a roving rep for health and safety executive), I understand the manager wants 10 in the office, now the onus on him/her to demonstrate what measures they can implement to allow this safely (Rearrangement, split shifts, bigger office) if this doesn’t work it’s still 5, it may raise it to 7, but bottom line is you cannot be pressed into changing the assessment. The manager can choose to have a different person re-do it then the liability falls on them, but that assessment can (legally) be challenged by the workforce as a collective or individual if it is seen not to be encapsulating all risks or graded too light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember Ian McCall saying before we played Hearts at Tynecastle, with the protocol we had at Firhill we could get about 1000 fans in safely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Norgethistle said:

Risk assessment by law needs to be carried out by a competent person and cannot be influenced by management of the company. Let’s have them done, published, showing risks (likelihood, severity and detection), with mitigation and containment/ control measures, then an open discussion can take place. If the risk (current) is too high and no containment/control can drop the RPN down, then till situation changes or different controls can be brought in grounds stay closed. Everyone of the businesses I deal with globally has produced this for employees and visitors/ customers, football should be no different. Every business and premises is different and as such should be judged on the individual not a blanket.

One pub/restaurant/ ground can be assessed as being safe for X% but another will be Y, that’s how risk assessments work

The theory maybe that risk assessments are carried out by a competent person, but how is that determined ? Also, the competent person is usually part of the management team, so not exactly independent. 
Small businesses can’t afford a dedicated safety representative. What do they do ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Auld Jag said:

I remember Ian McCall saying before we played Hearts at Tynecastle, with the protocol we had at Firhill we could get about 1000 fans in safely.

Subtract the likely number of season ticket holders who'll attend and that'll leave the money at the gate. Factor in stewarding costs plus other costs not associated with closed door games (cleaning, signage, ticket sales etc). If turnover exceeds these costs (or even equates roughly with it) the we'd have a goer. I doubt very much if that would be the case.

The Club could I suppose backtrack on the assurance that ALL ST holders get first dibs and ballot off a reduced allocation. You could argue that that would be more favourable to no attendance.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×