October 3rd
-
- Posts: 5722
- Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
October 3rd
Start date for the National League.
We will start the season in the FA Cup that weekend.
Final games will be on 29th May, with play-offs in June. That is 35 match weekends, standard season is 39 weekends.
I wonder how this will impact players’ salaries, who are normally paid over 39 weeks.
We will start the season in the FA Cup that weekend.
Final games will be on 29th May, with play-offs in June. That is 35 match weekends, standard season is 39 weekends.
I wonder how this will impact players’ salaries, who are normally paid over 39 weeks.
Re: October 3rd
I don't know if it will - if I am not mistaken as players are on a fixed term contract they are paid a fee to fulfil that contract (ie the season denoted in the contract).
So I would think most of our contracts say £x amount paid in 40 weekly instalments rather than "we will pay £x per week"
So I would think most of our contracts say £x amount paid in 40 weekly instalments rather than "we will pay £x per week"
Re: October 3rd
While it is promising that there is a start date, there's a whole load of questions which remain. It's still not clear to me at least how it will work financially with reduced crowds. If less than ~50% capacity are allowed in, we will be losing potential income. How do we plug that gap? Are there clauses in the contracts which state pay goes down if crowds are restricted? Live streaming? But looking at what happened for the playoffs I can't see that plugging much of a financial gap. Plus if reduced numbers are allowed in, who is allowed in? We've sold season tickets so they presumably have priority - but then we will get no week to week income. And what about hospitality? Then there's the issue of fairness, as how can it be done in a fair way when some clubs will be affected by reduced capacities while others may not be? And that's before you get on to the health issues and the protocols for postponements/testing, potential second waves, and so on.
I fear it will be very challenging for clubs financially. It was tough during the lockdown with no income, but furloughing staff meant outgoings were dramatically reduced. But if we end up with full costs, but vastly reduced incomes - well, that adds up to danger.
I fear it will be very challenging for clubs financially. It was tough during the lockdown with no income, but furloughing staff meant outgoings were dramatically reduced. But if we end up with full costs, but vastly reduced incomes - well, that adds up to danger.
Re: October 3rd
These questions are still being worked through. There are caveats on all the communications that conversations are still ongoing in terms of what a covid safe football club need to do - and the date is simply indicative / desired.
If starting the season means the vast majority of clubs are no longer a going concern that is more problematic than delayed start to the season.
If starting the season means the vast majority of clubs are no longer a going concern that is more problematic than delayed start to the season.
Re: October 3rd
Yes I'm sure they are still being worked through. But, I was just thinking out loud with regards to a whole load of questions and concerns that I have, which I'm sure others of course have thought of. However, it means I am not getting excited at this moment in time about the potential return of non-league football!
Re: October 3rd
Its difficult - the real challenge will be when a good proportion of clubs are ready but some aren't...will those that aren't ready / can't cope be sacrificed for the rest.
Looking closer to home comparing ourselves against the rest of our division we are going to be one of the last who are "ready". We disproportionately rely on the income driven by utilisation of our capacity (how many other clubs use c.45% of their capacity and don't have a benefactor)
Looking closer to home comparing ourselves against the rest of our division we are going to be one of the last who are "ready". We disproportionately rely on the income driven by utilisation of our capacity (how many other clubs use c.45% of their capacity and don't have a benefactor)
Last edited by lo36789 on Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
- theoriginalfatcat
- Posts: 6774
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: October 3rd
The banning (for want of a better word) of away supporters from travel is the only limitation that to me might work.
Not only would this keep crowd numbers down a bit but it would hopefully stop any virus moving from one area to another for footballing reasons.
In our league it shouldn't hurt finances too much and would leave clubs to show to the league how they plan to safely accommodate their usual number of home supporters, in our case maybe 1200?
Like al-quaker I am just thinking out loud too, before any turkey asks me to provide "evidence"....
Not only would this keep crowd numbers down a bit but it would hopefully stop any virus moving from one area to another for footballing reasons.
In our league it shouldn't hurt finances too much and would leave clubs to show to the league how they plan to safely accommodate their usual number of home supporters, in our case maybe 1200?
Like al-quaker I am just thinking out loud too, before any turkey asks me to provide "evidence"....
Profile pic
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!
Re: October 3rd
We’d suffer if we had York at home before Xmas. Incidentally, a couple of seasons ago the season started with the FA cup for steps 5 and 6 and the move was very unpopular and FA said they wouldn’t do it again. Well this is now the case for us but these are of course unprecedented times.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Re: October 3rd
al_quaker wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:18 amWhile it is promising that there is a start date, there's a whole load of questions which remain. It's still not clear to me at least how it will work financially with reduced crowds. If less than ~50% capacity are allowed in, we will be losing potential income. How do we plug that gap? Are there clauses in the contracts which state pay goes down if crowds are restricted? Live streaming? But looking at what happened for the playoffs I can't see that plugging much of a financial gap. Plus if reduced numbers are allowed in, who is allowed in? We've sold season tickets so they presumably have priority - but then we will get no week to week income. And what about hospitality? Then there's the issue of fairness, as how can it be done in a fair way when some clubs will be affected by reduced capacities while others may not be? And that's before you get on to the health issues and the protocols for postponements/testing, potential second waves, and so on.
I fear it will be very challenging for clubs financially. It was tough during the lockdown with no income, but furloughing staff meant outgoings were dramatically reduced. But if we end up with full costs, but vastly reduced incomes - well, that adds up to danger.
you raise lots of valid questions that clubs and the relevant authorities will be working on.
To pick up on one point you raise and the one I highlight. This really is a non point. Some clubs get bigger crowds than others normally, is that unfair? It is the way of the world. Nothing unfair about different clubs having different sized grounds ?
Re: October 3rd
Barring exceptional reasons, eg outbreak of covid in squad or region put on lockdown, clubs that are not ready will I am sure be treated as failing to fulfill any fixture that is postponed and face an Fa/League charge and if guilty then potentially fines/ points deductions etc
Looking closer to home comparing ourselves against the rest of our division we are going to be one of the last who are "ready". We disproportionately rely on the income driven by utilisation of our capacity (how many other clubs use c.45% of their capacity and don't have a benefactor)
Re: October 3rd
I think it raises questions of fairness, because it is an imposed restriction which won't be felt equally. It's not a natural difference between clubs, it will be a restriction which affects different teams.spen666 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:41 amal_quaker wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:18 amWhile it is promising that there is a start date, there's a whole load of questions which remain. It's still not clear to me at least how it will work financially with reduced crowds. If less than ~50% capacity are allowed in, we will be losing potential income. How do we plug that gap? Are there clauses in the contracts which state pay goes down if crowds are restricted? Live streaming? But looking at what happened for the playoffs I can't see that plugging much of a financial gap. Plus if reduced numbers are allowed in, who is allowed in? We've sold season tickets so they presumably have priority - but then we will get no week to week income. And what about hospitality? Then there's the issue of fairness, as how can it be done in a fair way when some clubs will be affected by reduced capacities while others may not be? And that's before you get on to the health issues and the protocols for postponements/testing, potential second waves, and so on.
I fear it will be very challenging for clubs financially. It was tough during the lockdown with no income, but furloughing staff meant outgoings were dramatically reduced. But if we end up with full costs, but vastly reduced incomes - well, that adds up to danger.
you raise lots of valid questions that clubs and the relevant authorities will be working on.
To pick up on one point you raise and the one I highlight. This really is a non point. Some clubs get bigger crowds than others normally, is that unfair? It is the way of the world. Nothing unfair about different clubs having different sized grounds ?
Say it's only 10% capacity, which I've seen mentioned. Gateshead will be relatively unaffected, we will be allowed ~300 fans in. Our revenues will be severly impacted due to covid legislation, there's will be impacted only slightly. This is an extreme example, but it highlights that the potential covid restrictions won't be felt equally. I fail to see how that is anything other than unfair. We, as a team which fills a reasonable % of our ground, will be affected by reduced capacities more than others. Are we going to be forced into a relegation battle because our revenue streams are going to impacted by league/government imposed restrictions more than some other teams in the league?
Whether there's a reasonable solution this of course is a different matter.
Re: October 3rd
al_quaker wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:59 amI think it raises questions of fairness, because it is an imposed restriction which won't be felt equally. It's not a natural difference between clubs, it will be a restriction which affects different teams.spen666 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:41 amal_quaker wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:18 amWhile it is promising that there is a start date, there's a whole load of questions which remain. It's still not clear to me at least how it will work financially with reduced crowds. If less than ~50% capacity are allowed in, we will be losing potential income. How do we plug that gap? Are there clauses in the contracts which state pay goes down if crowds are restricted? Live streaming? But looking at what happened for the playoffs I can't see that plugging much of a financial gap. Plus if reduced numbers are allowed in, who is allowed in? We've sold season tickets so they presumably have priority - but then we will get no week to week income. And what about hospitality? Then there's the issue of fairness, as how can it be done in a fair way when some clubs will be affected by reduced capacities while others may not be? And that's before you get on to the health issues and the protocols for postponements/testing, potential second waves, and so on.
I fear it will be very challenging for clubs financially. It was tough during the lockdown with no income, but furloughing staff meant outgoings were dramatically reduced. But if we end up with full costs, but vastly reduced incomes - well, that adds up to danger.
you raise lots of valid questions that clubs and the relevant authorities will be working on.
To pick up on one point you raise and the one I highlight. This really is a non point. Some clubs get bigger crowds than others normally, is that unfair? It is the way of the world. Nothing unfair about different clubs having different sized grounds ?
Say it's only 10% capacity, which I've seen mentioned. Gateshead will be relatively unaffected, we will be allowed ~300 fans in. Our revenues will be severly impacted due to covid legislation, there's will be impacted only slightly. This is an extreme example, but it highlights that the potential covid restrictions won't be felt equally. I fail to see how that is anything other than unfair. We, as a team which fills a reasonable % of our ground, will be affected by reduced capacities more than others. Are we going to be forced into a relegation battle because our revenue streams are going to impacted by league/government imposed restrictions more than some other teams in the league?
Whether there's a reasonable solution this of course is a different matter.
Why won't it be imposed equally. If every club can only have for example 1/4 of its capacity - that is applied to all clubs. The fact club a may have a tiny ground and fills it normally where as club B have a huge ground and rarely fill any of it is not making it unfair.
You are trying to find a reason to make an issue about
It is no more unfair to clubs than to say it is unfair Darlington get 1500 every week whereas Lemington only get 300. The fact that therefore Darlington get more revenue from fans than Lemington is unfair on Lemington.
Unless every ground is identical, every crowd is identical in size, every player is paid the same and is of equal ability and fitness etc- then you will always be able to make a claim something is unfair
If you are worried about the % of the ground your fans fill, then the answer is get a bigger ground. Why should a club who maintain a bigger ground every year be penalised for the extra costs and expense they pay every year, because another club only maintain a tiny ground. Grounds are different sizes. Should Gateshead be limited to 3000 if they drew a glamour tie in the FA cup because that is all Darlington could get in if they got a glamour tie? Of course not. Clubs have different capacities at their grounds all the time.
Accept the fact that not everything is equal. Is it unfair that Darlington do not have a clubhouse/ venue they can make money from, but other clubs do? Perhaps every club who has a clubhouse or external venue should have to close it down. Then perhaps Darlington should be limited to crowds the same size as say Lemington because its unfair they get bigger crowds, more support and more fan revenue than other clubs. All of which is complete nonsense and is not going to happen.
its a difference, its not unfair. The world is not a homogenous place. Get over it
Re: October 3rd
I do accept that not everything is equal, and you raise some reasonable points. Natural variations do exist between clubs, however I do still think a league/government imposed restrction which will impact some clubs revenues but not others at short notice does raise questions of fairness.
However, to be honest spen, I have no trust that you are debating in good faith, so that's me done replying to you.
However, to be honest spen, I have no trust that you are debating in good faith, so that's me done replying to you.
-
- Posts: 6025
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: October 3rd
Spen has never argued in good faith.
For some reason he’s an incredibly insecure individual who tries to drag other people down by insulting them (as proven in this thread). Disagreeing with people reasonably is beyond him, and he has no intention of doing so.
We all know he’s a troll (just check out the Spennymoor London Branch Twitter account he runs). It’s beyond me why he’s still allowed to post on here, given his obvious intentions to bait and disrupt.
For some reason he’s an incredibly insecure individual who tries to drag other people down by insulting them (as proven in this thread). Disagreeing with people reasonably is beyond him, and he has no intention of doing so.
We all know he’s a troll (just check out the Spennymoor London Branch Twitter account he runs). It’s beyond me why he’s still allowed to post on here, given his obvious intentions to bait and disrupt.
Re: October 3rd
Indeed. It's one thing on here, another on his social media profile, whether that's the 'London Branch' or his personal account.
Happy to debate my views with genuine Darlington fans, and happy for people to point out flaws in my current thinking. But debating with a troll with more faces than the town clock? Not for me
Happy to debate my views with genuine Darlington fans, and happy for people to point out flaws in my current thinking. But debating with a troll with more faces than the town clock? Not for me
-
- Posts: 6025
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: October 3rd
To prove your point about unfairness, let’s say we decided to move to the Arena for a season, even if grounds were only allowed 10% capacity, we could get in our full regular attendance (which averaged at around 1400-1500) I believe.al_quaker wrote:I do accept that not everything is equal, and you raise some reasonable points. Natural variations do exist between clubs, however I do still think a league/government imposed restrction which will impact some clubs revenues but not others at short notice does raise questions of fairness.
However, to be honest spen, I have no trust that you are debating in good faith, so that's me done replying to you.
Yet staying at Blackwell would see us only able to bring in 300. These are loopholes (and you can fair bet other clubs would play merry hell about it).
Re: October 3rd
Maybe unfairness isn't quite the right word. Maybe it should have been competitive integrity or something like that. It's better than no football for sure, but I am just thinking out loud as to how a temporary restriction imposed on member clubs will not be felt equally. No doubt spen is already spinning it on social media to attack though.
-
- Posts: 1625
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: October 3rd
That's a very, VERY good point - so obviously the league won't think of it.theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:57 amThe banning (for want of a better word) of away supporters from travel is the only limitation that to me might work.
Not only would this keep crowd numbers down a bit but it would hopefully stop any virus moving from one area to another for footballing reasons.
Re: October 3rd
Erm I have made no comment on any other social media about your bleating of unfairness because of this perceived abuse you are bleating on about. Still don't let your paranoia stop you thinking its unfairal_quaker wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:08 amIndeed. It's one thing on here, another on his social media profile, whether that's the 'London Branch' or his personal account.
Happy to debate my views with genuine Darlington fans, and happy for people to point out flaws in my current thinking. But debating with a troll with more faces than the town clock? Not for me
-
- Posts: 6009
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:41 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: October 3rd
I think he is just calling you out on your general two face activity.
It's a fair comment really.
It's a fair comment really.
Re: October 3rd
I've never mentioned 'abuse', but don't let that stop you from exaggerating my feelings on this. I'm also far from paranoid, just musing.spen666 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:29 pmErm I have made no comment on any other social media about your bleating of unfairness because of this perceived abuse you are bleating on about. Still don't let your paranoia stop you thinking its unfairal_quaker wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 11:08 amIndeed. It's one thing on here, another on his social media profile, whether that's the 'London Branch' or his personal account.
Happy to debate my views with genuine Darlington fans, and happy for people to point out flaws in my current thinking. But debating with a troll with more faces than the town clock? Not for me
Meanwhile, everyone on here knows you're a two-faced troll. You've got history of slating DFC on twitter. Spennymoor Town fans hanging around on here and then commenting about it on twitter. Pathetic isn't it.
-
- Posts: 6025
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: October 3rd
Fairly standard Spen playbook there. Almost predictable now.
Deliberately distort the point and accuse others of being paranoid. If he’s had to sink to that level, fair to say al_quaker has the better of him in this discussion.
I notice he’s even locked his own Twitter account - he’s not afraid to tell it like it is, but only to the people who already agree with him.
Deliberately distort the point and accuse others of being paranoid. If he’s had to sink to that level, fair to say al_quaker has the better of him in this discussion.
I notice he’s even locked his own Twitter account - he’s not afraid to tell it like it is, but only to the people who already agree with him.
-
- Posts: 1753
- Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:49 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: October 3rd
Would it not be fairer if we have to limit numbers to base it on last season’s average attendance ? I don’t know the exact figures, but let’s say Gateshead ground can hold 10000 but their average gate was 1000 and say numbers were cut to 50 percent because of Covid so they would be allowed 500, we would be around the 750 mark, this way it would based on attendance not capacity.
Or I could be talking bollocks.
Or I could be talking bollocks.
-
- Posts: 259
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 11:52 am
Re: October 3rd
the only problem with that is you do get fans that travel into games from afar.Ghost_Of_1883 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 2:09 pmThat's a very, VERY good point - so obviously the league won't think of it.theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 8:57 amThe banning (for want of a better word) of away supporters from travel is the only limitation that to me might work.
Not only would this keep crowd numbers down a bit but it would hopefully stop any virus moving from one area to another for footballing reasons.
- theoriginalfatcat
- Posts: 6774
- Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
- Team Supported: Darlington
Re: October 3rd
There's no need to go any further than this - it's a good point well made - Spen's gone into "Turbotit mode"
To go on to a different point, I think it would be unfair for the league to impose any major restrictions that would lead to clubs losing money or getting into financial difficulties. For them to effectively say " we're kicking off now, about 10 of you will defo lose money with our new crowd restrictions but it's not unfair. The world is not a homogenous place. Get over it"
Profile pic
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!
Feethams the Panda. 28 Jan 2012.
Now extinct!
Re: October 3rd
theoriginalfatcat wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:39 pmThere's no need to go any further than this - it's a good point well made - Spen's gone into "Turbotit mode"
To go on to a different point, I think it would be unfair for the league to impose any major restrictions that would lead to clubs losing money or getting into financial difficulties. For them to effectively say " we're kicking off now, about 10 of you will defo lose money with our new crowd restrictions but it's not unfair. The world is not a homogenous place. Get over it"
Its no more unfair than the capacity at any ground is different from other grounds. Its a difference between clubs. Blackwell Meadows for example has a bigger capacity than Lemington. That doesn't make it unfair. Its a fact of life that some grounds are bigger than others and can therefore hold more people.
As long as the same criteria are used to determine capacity at each ground ( as happens normally with the Green Guide) then there is nothing unfair.unless you are saying it is unfair to have ground capacity limits.
It may well hit Darlington harder than say Brackley, but that doesn't make it anymore unfair than Darlington having a much bigger crowd supporting them at a game than most other teams in normal times.
Its a difference, its not unfair
Re: October 3rd
Here’s a thought.Open the ground and if you want to go.then go.Wear a mask if we have to.If you’re frightened of this bug then stay away.Thousands of people on beaches,protests and the great pub opening day and no spike in infections.Darlopartisan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:38 pmWould it not be fairer if we have to limit numbers to base it on last season’s average attendance ? I don’t know the exact figures, but let’s say Gateshead ground can hold 10000 but their average gate was 1000 and say numbers were cut to 50 percent because of Covid so they would be allowed 500, we would be around the 750 mark, this way it would based on attendance not capacity.
Or I could be talking bollocks.
I’d rather take my chance with 1500 in the open air than with 100 in a supermarket .
Tin hat is on,fire away
Re: October 3rd
As long as people wear facemasks and follow guidelines implemented by the clubs I see very little chance of a spike in the virus, but people must be aware of how important it is to keep yourself right and use common sense, to be able to stay safe.
Re: October 3rd
Exactly. Make face masks a condition of entry, no exceptions, possibly temperature checks at turnstiles, capacity limited to 1500 all ticket and split the ground so everyone can’t go onto the tin shed. Think people would then be as safe at BM as anywhere else.Emdubya wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:06 pmHere’s a thought.Open the ground and if you want to go.then go.Wear a mask if we have to.If you’re frightened of this bug then stay away.Thousands of people on beaches,protests and the great pub opening day and no spike in infections.Darlopartisan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 4:38 pmWould it not be fairer if we have to limit numbers to base it on last season’s average attendance ? I don’t know the exact figures, but let’s say Gateshead ground can hold 10000 but their average gate was 1000 and say numbers were cut to 50 percent because of Covid so they would be allowed 500, we would be around the 750 mark, this way it would based on attendance not capacity.
Or I could be talking bollocks.
I’d rather take my chance with 1500 in the open air than with 100 in a supermarket .
Re: October 3rd
I imagine there is probably some public liability insurance issues but I actually don't disagree with some principles of this.Emdubya wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 6:06 pmHere’s a thought.Open the ground and if you want to go.then go.Wear a mask if we have to.If you’re frightened of this bug then stay away.Thousands of people on beaches,protests and the great pub opening day and no spike in infections.
I’d rather take my chance with 1500 in the open air than with 100 in a supermarket .
Tin hat is on,fire away
- it should be clear that it is not a clubs obligation to police adherence to social distance within "household bubbles".
- there needs to be guidance on whether standing side by side with a face mask enables a 1m social distance and equally what transmission is like when standing behind another person (ie do you need to be a full metre away from them when not face-to-face).
Tubes, buses, aeroplanes and taxis seem to be able to argue that you can be closer than 1m if wearing a face covering and avoiding face to face contact so there is a precedent.