Dumbarton FC - Administration

Its the oldest trick in the book as all you do is go into administration,stiff the daft creditors and pay them off at 10p in the £ or whatever and take the points deduction.

No-one is going to take your stadium away from you so you start again debt free with often the same group of owners under a slightly different guise.

The list of clubs is endless who have used this method of reconstruction and its all done on purpose and the same club always emerges at the other end.

Livi are past masters and might have done it 3 times now and its still the exact same club playing out of the exact same stadium with the exact same fans.

I remember Malonga scoring a screamer in one of the rare highlights of our visits there in the Championship.

Also young John McGinn making his debut there as a sub and immediately pinging an effortless 50 yard pass. Couldn't save us from defeat but we knew we had a player alright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centre Hawf

There's no real answer to it but I've always felt Scotland has a mix of too many teams and too many supporting the old firm which leaves too many clubs spread thin on reliable income. One bad season and it's armageddon. Even outside the SPFL there's a whole host of Lowland League and Juniors.

The make up of the countrys population now can't sustain clubs that were once able to thrive due to a much stronger workforce in the area. It won't get better for teams like Dumbarton, Greenock Morton, QOTS, or Alloa to name just a few.

---

Historically though, the “wee clubs” have been better at cutting their cloth, getting on with things and accepting being at the level they’re at.

It’s been a bigger problem for Dundee, Motherwell, right through to Hearts and Rangers.

The past few years have been pretty unprecedented financially and I think a lot of folk are in denial about it. Covid, war in Ukraine, Trussonomics and the “cost of living crisis” have led to costs rocketing for businesses. There’s only so far that many organisations can go to cover those costs by either finding new customers or putting up prices - and I could imagine it being a very challenging trading environment for lower league football clubs, challenging to the extent that it might force some fairly radical change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiber-nation

I remember Malonga scoring a screamer in one of the rare highlights of our visits there in the Championship.

Also young John McGinn making his debut there as a sub and immediately pinging an effortless 50 yard pass. Couldn't save us from defeat but we knew we had a player alright.

---

Sure it was also Scott Allan’s last game of his first spell for us, no a great atmosphere in the Hibs end with plenty infighting about what was going on with him and pretty poisonous towards the end, to be excepted when you’re getting beat by Dumbarton though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waxy

I was at this also it was a must win.
I somehow remember Gordon Durie scoring in a 2-2 draw too must have been a bit later.

---

Just checked: The Jukebox double was 40-years ago this week. (I was there too) The 2-0 win was later that season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

Historically though, the “wee clubs” have been better at cutting their cloth, getting on with things and accepting being at the level they’re at.

It’s been a bigger problem for Dundee, Motherwell, right through to Hearts and Rangers.

The past few years have been pretty unprecedented financially and I think a lot of folk are in denial about it. Covid, war in Ukraine, Trussonomics and the “cost of living crisis” have led to costs rocketing for businesses. There’s only so far that many organisations can go to cover those costs by either finding new customers or putting up prices - and I could imagine it being a very challenging trading environment for lower league football clubs, challenging to the extent that it might force some fairly radical change.

---

To an extent. I think the issue has always been when you try to overstretch yourself for promotion or even staying up you can find it catching up with you and clubs sink like stones as a result even if they don't go into admin. Cowdenbeath were in the Championship with us and are now nothing but a footnote in the Lowland league, similar to the likes of Berwick Rangers, East Stirlingshire, and Albion Rovers. Teams that will likely now for a long long time be nothing resembling what they perhaps once were. Of course you could argue in a few of their cases that opening the trap door of League 2 just called out a lot of these clubs for not really being worth their space in the league set up in comparison to who came in. But the teams replacing them are averaging 500 to 600 fans a game and it's nearly impossible to see how that can sustain anything long term and that's with the clubs currently semi-pro.

You're spot on about the denial of the financial hit everything is having. I know even from my line of work the eye watering costs to keep things running. I certainly wouldn't want to be the person in charge of balancing the books at a Forfar or Stirling Albion for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .Sean.

Sure it was also Scott Allan’s last game of his first spell for us, no a great atmosphere in the Hibs end with plenty infighting about what was going on with him and pretty poisonous towards the end, to be excepted when you’re getting beat by Dumbarton though

---

Aye it was and I remember the arguments, one guy in particular used to be regularly going totally radge at games like these :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiber-nation

Aye it was and I remember the arguments, one guy in particular used to be regularly going totally radge at games like these :greengrin

---

One of the pavement dancers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Hart RIP

Just checked: The Jukebox double was 40-years ago this week. (I was there too) The 2-0 win was later that season.

---

I’ve lost all track of time now.
It all just happened sometime around the earlyish eighties

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibernian Verse

One of the pavement dancers?

---

Nah, he was well debated on here, haven't sent him for ages actually.

I don't think less teams makes any difference to the economic dynamics of Scottish football.

If we say that Arbroath, Montrose, Forfar and Brechin are all too close together are fans of the respective clubs all going to go and watch Angus County? Or all get behind whichever team makes the cut to be the one that represents the area? Same is true of Fife. Raith Rovers, East Fife, Cowdenbeath and Dunfermilne fans aren't all going to get behind Fife United any more than we were going to get behind Mercer's 'merger'. A cursory glance at ICT shows what happens when you merge teams against the wishes of the fans. It's unsustainable long term because you will never grow a fanbase.

'We need less teams' is an often heard cry but with little substance into how it materially improves things. All it would do is see a generation of fans lost to senior football altogether or more people 'supporting' a Glasgow side on TV.

There may well be an organic loss of clubs given time but there are probably fans of global superclubs and football administrators alike who would quite happily see a club like Hibs as collateral damage in that organic loss in their quest for even more money concentrated in an increasingly closed shop. We'd hardly see that as a positive because a couple of Scottish mega clubs would theoretically be better for the greater good.

These clubs aren't stealing support from each other or the bigger clubs. There isn't a big pool of supporters waiting to get behind a local team if only a couple of other teams in the area got punted to the sidelines. The only clubs hoovering up support from all over are Celtic and Rangers.

We really don't have that many full time teams in Scotland, the majority in the league set up are part time. Regionalisation may be one solution to keep costs down but even then Scotland is so lowland heavy in terms of population and teams I'm not sure that is workable either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I don't think less teams makes any difference to the economic dynamics of Scottish football.

If we say that Arbroath, Montrose, Forfar and Brechin are all too close together are fans of the respective clubs all going to go and watch Angus County? Or all get behind whichever team makes the cut to be the one that represents the area? Same is true of Fife. Raith Rovers, East Fife, Cowdenbeath and Dunfermilne fans aren't all going to get behind Fife United any more than we were going to get behind Mercer's 'merger'. A cursory glance at ICT shows what happens when you merge teams against the wishes of the fans. It's unsustainable long term because you will never grow a fanbase.

'We need less teams' is an often heard cry but with little substance into how it materially improves things. All it would do is see a generation of fans lost to senior football altogether or more people 'supporting' a Glasgow side on TV.

There may well be an organic loss of clubs given time but there are probably fans of global superclubs and football administrators alike who would quite happily see a club like Hibs as collateral damage in that organic loss in their quest for even more money concentrated in an increasingly closed shop. We'd hardly see that as a positive because a couple of Scottish mega clubs would theoretically be better for the greater good.

These clubs aren't stealing support from each other or the bigger clubs. There isn't a big pool of supporters waiting to get behind a local team if only a couple of other teams in the area got punted to the sidelines. The only clubs hoovering up support from all over are Celtic and Rangers.

We really don't have that many full time teams in Scotland, the majority in the league set up are part time. Regionalisation may be one solution to keep costs down but even then Scotland is so lowland heavy in terms of population and teams I'm not sure that is workable either.

---

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that the minnows all merge together to create a regional powerhouse. What's done is done and these clubs exist, I would never say that they should all pack it in for the sake of combining their attendances to potentially be another Dunfermline or Raith etc. But I do think the amount of them limits their ceilings and even lowers their floors of what is achievable by them individually, much in the same way I think four divisions of 42 teams is a poorer set up for the game in general.

Something will have to change in how the SPFL runs or how it funds the lower leagues though because the financial issues will only grow worse I think in the coming few seasons for some clubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I don't think less teams makes any difference to the economic dynamics of Scottish football.

If we say that Arbroath, Montrose, Forfar and Brechin are all too close together are fans of the respective clubs all going to go and watch Angus County? Or all get behind whichever team makes the cut to be the one that represents the area? Same is true of Fife. Raith Rovers, East Fife, Cowdenbeath and Dunfermilne fans aren't all going to get behind Fife United any more than we were going to get behind Mercer's 'merger'. A cursory glance at ICT shows what happens when you merge teams against the wishes of the fans. It's unsustainable long term because you will never grow a fanbase.

'We need less teams' is an often heard cry but with little substance into how it materially improves things. All it would do is see a generation of fans lost to senior football altogether or more people 'supporting' a Glasgow side on TV.

There may well be an organic loss of clubs given time but there are probably fans of global superclubs and football administrators alike who would quite happily see a club like Hibs as collateral damage in that organic loss in their quest for even more money concentrated in an increasingly closed shop. We'd hardly see that as a positive because a couple of Scottish mega clubs would theoretically be better for the greater good.

These clubs aren't stealing support from each other or the bigger clubs. There isn't a big pool of supporters waiting to get behind a local team if only a couple of other teams in the area got punted to the sidelines. The only clubs hoovering up support from all over are Celtic and Rangers.

We really don't have that many full time teams in Scotland, the majority in the league set up are part time. Regionalisation may be one solution to keep costs down but even then Scotland is so lowland heavy in terms of population and teams I'm not sure that is workable either.

---

You've convinced me that we need fewer clubs in Scotland.

But only two fewer.

https://open.substack.com/pub/andrew...meOnShare=true

There needs to be purposeful action taken by the SPFL. We need to work with everyone not just for two clubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centre Hawf

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that the minnows all merge together to create a regional powerhouse. What's done is done and these clubs exist, I would never say that they should all pack it in for the sake of combining their attendances to potentially be another Dunfermline or Raith etc. But I do think the amount of them limits their ceilings and even lowers their floors of what is achievable by them individually, much in the same way I think four divisions of 42 teams is a poorer set up for the game in general.

Something will have to change in how the SPFL runs or how it funds the lower leagues though because the financial issues will only grow worse I think in the coming few seasons for some clubs.

---

I know on one is actively suggesting that but when people throw out 'we have too many clubs in Scotland' what do they actually mean? If you could go back a century or more then aye you'd start out with less clubs but reducing the number of clubs now would make no material difference to the situation we have beyond costing us fans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrew70

https://open.substack.com/pub/andrew...meOnShare=true

There needs to be purposeful action taken by the SPFL. We need to work with everyone not just for two clubs.

---

“Clubs in the Championship, League One, and League Two often rely heavily on gate receipts, community fundraising, and sponsorships.”

the moment we went away from that is where football went wrong. There was zero gate accounting that the likes of Hamilton opted for. Chasing the football money outwith the sustainable parameter is a slippery slope as well increasingly find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

I know on one is actively suggesting that but when people throw out 'we have too many clubs in Scotland' what do they actually mean? If you could go back a century or more then aye you'd start out with less clubs but reducing the number of clubs now would make no material difference to the situation we have beyond costing us fans.

---

I can only speak for myself but when I say we have too many clubs I mean I think we just have too many to realistically try and prop up as it stands in a professional league set up. I said before but I think 42 is too many to have in our 'professional' set up even if most of them aren't even professional anymore.

Denmark have 24 in a professional system before it drops into the separate semi-professional set up and then into a non-professional pyramid.
Croatia have 26 in it's two professional league before it goes straight into a regional set up.
Norway have went with two divisions of 16 then straight into a regional set up.

Times have changed and the genie is out the bottle. Gone are the days of the Doonhamers all going back down from Glasgow to Dumfries to watch Queens, or Greenock halving it's population and Dumbarton shrinking by two thirds over the course of the last 100 years to help sustain a healthy local support for teams.

We can talk about sharing more of Celtic and Rangers' European money down the SPFL but everyone will have their own argument as to why they're due the money more than anyone else. The TV deal money isn't going to get any better either so how much can we spare to go around 42 teams before it starts to hurt our co-efficiency for example. All so we can prop up a couple extra clubs that we feel an obligation to do so because they've been here all this time?

For me I'd be reformatting the SPFL into 2 divisions of around 32 teams and dropping 10 of them back out into the lowland/highland league. I know it's an unpopular opinion and it's likely to never happen as turkeys won't vote for christmas but I think it would be the best route to make better use of what little money we have in the game without it going to clubs miles down the ladder to pay semi-professional players that have no real business doing so to the extent they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Hart RIP

One of my favourite games was at Boghead 40-years ago when we were competing with Dumbarton to stay up.
Took a massive crowd through and beat them 2-0.
Willie Irvine and Brian Rice if memory serves.
I remember the song "You're goin' doon, you're going doon, We're no."
GGTTH

---

Sure it was Gordon Durie and Rice that scored. Hibs ran buses and we took a good few thousand. Edit,, my bad, it was indeed the two you said.
Was a while ago, lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PHeffernan

Do we? What would be gained by it?

At the moment we effectively have 2 leagues of full time clubs and 2 leagues of part time clubs.
The supporters of the part time clubs love their clubs as much as we love ours and have their own dreams.
Why would you want to mess with that?

---

Agree. Also plenty more clubs lower down the pyramid that are important in their communities. I've no idea what fewer clubs or clubs going out of business is meant to achieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centre Hawf

I can only speak for myself but when I say we have too many clubs I mean I think we just have too many to realistically try and prop up as it stands in a professional league set up. I said before but I think 42 is too many to have in our 'professional' set up even if most of them aren't even professional anymore.

Denmark have 24 in a professional system before it drops into the separate semi-professional set up and then into a non-professional pyramid.
Croatia have 26 in it's two professional league before it goes straight into a regional set up.
Norway have went with two divisions of 16 then straight into a regional set up.

Times have changed and the genie is out the bottle. Gone are the days of the Doonhamers all going back down from Glasgow to Dumfries to watch Queens, or Greenock halving it's population and Dumbarton shrinking by two thirds over the course of the last 100 years to help sustain a healthy local support for teams.

We can talk about sharing more of Celtic and Rangers' European money down the SPFL but everyone will have their own argument as to why they're due the money more than anyone else. The TV deal money isn't going to get any better either so how much can we spare to go around 42 teams before it starts to hurt our co-efficiency for example. All so we can prop up a couple extra clubs that we feel an obligation to do so because they've been here all this time?

For me I'd be reformatting the SPFL into 2 divisions of around 32 teams and dropping 10 of them back out into the lowland/highland league. I know it's an unpopular opinion and it's likely to never happen as turkeys won't vote for christmas but I think it would be the best route to make better use of what little money we have in the game without it going to clubs miles down the ladder to pay semi-professional players that have no real business doing so to the extent they are.

---

This is the sensible route to take. Having small part time clubs dealing with travelling all around the country to fulfil fixtures is a commercial and logistical nonsense. There should be two professional leagues and a regionalised pyramid system which feeds into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centre Hawf

I can only speak for myself but when I say we have too many clubs I mean I think we just have too many to realistically try and prop up as it stands in a professional league set up. I said before but I think 42 is too many to have in our 'professional' set up even if most of them aren't even professional anymore.

Denmark have 24 in a professional system before it drops into the separate semi-professional set up and then into a non-professional pyramid.
Croatia have 26 in it's two professional league before it goes straight into a regional set up.
Norway have went with two divisions of 16 then straight into a regional set up.

Times have changed and the genie is out the bottle. Gone are the days of the Doonhamers all going back down from Glasgow to Dumfries to watch Queens, or Greenock halving it's population and Dumbarton shrinking by two thirds over the course of the last 100 years to help sustain a healthy local support for teams.

We can talk about sharing more of Celtic and Rangers' European money down the SPFL but everyone will have their own argument as to why they're due the money more than anyone else. The TV deal money isn't going to get any better either so how much can we spare to go around 42 teams before it starts to hurt our co-efficiency for example. All so we can prop up a couple extra clubs that we feel an obligation to do so because they've been here all this time?

For me I'd be reformatting the SPFL into 2 divisions of around 32 teams and dropping 10 of them back out into the lowland/highland league. I know it's an unpopular opinion and it's likely to never happen as turkeys won't vote for christmas but I think it would be the best route to make better use of what little money we have in the game without it going to clubs miles down the ladder to pay semi-professional players that have no real business doing so to the extent they are.

---

100% this. I just can't be bothered typing it all out! 2 leagues then regional. Would actually help smaller teams really. Teams like Dumbarton, and other s***e like that, can still exist, I just think there's not really any place for these teams in a senior, country wide set up. Especially in a country like Scotland.

As for Celtic and Rangers's, well it's been like this really for over 100 years so what's going to change now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sambajustice

100% this. I just can't be bothered typing it all out! 2 leagues then regional. Would actually help smaller teams really. Teams like Dumbarton, and other s***e like that, can still exist, I just think there's not really any place for these teams in a senior, country wide set up. Especially in a country like Scotland.

As for Celtic and Rangers's, well it's been like this really for over 100 years so what's going to change now?

---

How would regional leagues work in Scotland though?

We effectively have 22 professional teams in the country and the rest are part time teams as it is. If the suggestion above is to increase the pro set up to 2 leagues of 16 then you'd be trying to support more rather than less full time teams (assuming the 2nd tier would be run as a fully professional full time league). Obviously the money is slightly less thinly spread but enough that it would make a material difference? Teams coming out of any regional pyramid would still then be faced with the logistical and financial pressures of going into a national set up unless the idea was to make the theoretical top 2 tiers a closed shop?

We currently have the Lowland and Highland Leagues with the EoS, WoS etc etc feeding in. Trying to divide lower league clubs into a further regional set up would be something of a logistical nightmare. We have seen it when the LC group stages were regionalised with Hearts being in a south group and Hibs in a north to try and balance the books so to speak. I'm not against the idea of change but trying to implement regionalisation in Scotland would lead to a massive disparity in teams from the central belt and the south when compared to the highlands/north both in terms of numbers and quality. It's already the case really with the top end of the East and West of Scotland leagues stacked with top teams at the level all fighting for a place in the Lowland League whilst the North Caledonian League, Midlands League and North Superleague are all of a far lower standard and in terms of numbers with nothing like the same level of competition to enter the Highland League.

Times have undoubtedly changed since every town could support a football team or 2 but without a time machine there is no easy fix. Let's be honest Edinburgh isn't really big enough to support 2 teams when you look at the size of some one club cities down south but it's a cultural and societal legacy. Most clubs at the lower levels have been pretty effective at cutting their cloths to adapt to new circumstances and with the opening of the pyramid clubs like East Stirling, Albion Rovers and Brechin have found their level whilst more ambitious clubs better set up to cope with the logistics and finances of the national set up have taken their place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centre Hawf

I can only speak for myself but when I say we have too many clubs I mean I think we just have too many to realistically try and prop up as it stands in a professional league set up. I said before but I think 42 is too many to have in our 'professional' set up even if most of them aren't even professional anymore.

Denmark have 24 in a professional system before it drops into the separate semi-professional set up and then into a non-professional pyramid.
Croatia have 26 in it's two professional league before it goes straight into a regional set up.
Norway have went with two divisions of 16 then straight into a regional set up.

Times have changed and the genie is out the bottle. Gone are the days of the Doonhamers all going back down from Glasgow to Dumfries to watch Queens, or Greenock halving it's population and Dumbarton shrinking by two thirds over the course of the last 100 years to help sustain a healthy local support for teams.

We can talk about sharing more of Celtic and Rangers' European money down the SPFL but everyone will have their own argument as to why they're due the money more than anyone else. The TV deal money isn't going to get any better either so how much can we spare to go around 42 teams before it starts to hurt our co-efficiency for example. All so we can prop up a couple extra clubs that we feel an obligation to do so because they've been here all this time?

For me I'd be reformatting the SPFL into 2 divisions of around 32 teams and dropping 10 of them back out into the lowland/highland league. I know it's an unpopular opinion and it's likely to never happen as turkeys won't vote for christmas but I think it would be the best route to make better use of what little money we have in the game without it going to clubs miles down the ladder to pay semi-professional players that have no real business doing so to the extent they are.

---

This is an excellent and well argued post. 👍

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

Times have undoubtedly changed since every town could support a football team or 2 but without a time machine there is no easy fix. Let's be honest Edinburgh isn't really big enough to support 2 teams when you look at the size of some one club cities down south but it's a cultural and societal legacy.

---

I would question this. Liverpool, Sheffield, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol all have two pro teams with populations that aren't that much greater (or smaller) than Edinburgh (Lothian has a population of c850,000).


The point about regionalisation. There would be fixes to some of the issues you mention feeder leagues and a pyramid system would work itself out over time.

Not sure we will ever see a 16 team top league though, Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. The second tier also needs to be smaller for financial viability.

This also brings the women's game into focus for me, the madness of Hibs trying to support a professional women's game and competing with the gruesome twosome in order to access the "riches" of women's European competition. A stupid proposition that can't be sustainable on the crowds etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by superfurryhibby

I would question this. Liverpool, Sheffield, Manchester, Nottingham, Bristol all have two pro teams with populations that aren't that much greater (or smaller) than Edinburgh.

The point about regionalisation. There would be fixes to some of the issues you mention feeder leagues and a pyramid system would work itself out over time.

Not sure we will ever see a 16 team top league though, Turkeys don't vote for Christmas. The second tier needs to be smaller for financial viability.

This also brings the women's game into focus for me, the madness of Hibs trying to support a professional women's game and competing with the gruesome twosome in order to access the "riches" of women's European competition. A stupid proposition that can't be sustainable on the crowds etc.

---

100% this!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pretty Boy

How would regional leagues work in Scotland though?

We effectively have 22 professional teams in the country and the rest are part time teams as it is. If the suggestion above is to increase the pro set up to 2 leagues of 16 then you'd be trying to support more rather than less full time teams (assuming the 2nd tier would be run as a fully professional full time league). Obviously the money is slightly less thinly spread but enough that it would make a material difference? Teams coming out of any regional pyramid would still then be faced with the logistical and financial pressures of going into a national set up unless the idea was to make the theoretical top 2 tiers a closed shop?

---

There's definitely a lot of logistics you'd have to work out and it probably won't suit every single person or club perfectly.

But I think if we were to change to say a 16/16 or even a 12/20 set up for arguments sake it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone who gets promoted into the 'Championship' has to become full-time overnight, the same as how anyone who get promoted to it now doesn't necessarily need to make that change. And anyone in a regional set up can keep themselves as a semi-pro team if they feel it helps their case to get promoted or if they can financially justify it. It's the clubs prerogative if they want to put more money in and budget for it or adapt and 'cut their cloth' as we've already mentioned teams doing.

Of course the teams would face some pressures with getting promoted, but that isn't really adding anything new to what we already have if say Spartans go from Lowland league to League 2. But you'd like to think by making this type of change the prize money can be more condensed to help ease the transition of anyone coming up from this hypothetical regional division into a more established championship division and a mix of better gate receipts and prize money for a Spartans or a Forfar for example who make it up that season.

It's proven to be a system that works elsewhere in nations that have similar sized populations and some even span greater distances than we have. I see no reason why it can't work here.

Less clubs means more money for the remaining ones no?

Dumbarton add nothing to the game and have been taking money that will be shared around the others in future.

Any club that can’t support itself financially shouldn’t be in the professional leagues.

They can still be a community club being financed by their local community. If there’s not enough people interested to keep them going then so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..

Less clubs means more money for the remaining ones no?

Dumbarton add nothing to the game and have been taking money that will be shared around the others in future.

Any club that can’t support itself financially shouldn’t be in the professional leagues.

They can still be a community club being financed by their local community. If there’s not enough people interested to keep them going then so be it.

---

In terms of the money that's dispersed centrally, e.g. prize money, etc. then yes it would. Others forms of income, e.g. ticket sales, merchandise, other matchday revenue, etc. which will be a far more significant amount proportionally for those clubs would potentially be lost to the game. I really doubt Dumbarton fans would go follow Morton, for example.

I remember when COVID hit and many predicted some clubs might struggle in the future, a couple of years past that now though but still the economy is not in good place so hard to blame it on that.

Just hope the Scottish game can survive lower league in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..

Less clubs means more money for the remaining ones no?

Dumbarton add nothing to the game and have been taking money that will be shared around the others in future.

Any club that can’t support itself financially shouldn’t be in the professional leagues.

They can still be a community club being financed by their local community. If there’s not enough people interested to keep them going then so be it.

---

How are you defining this?