[Football] Premier League / Football League attempts to finish the season

[Weststander]

BBC's John Murray just revealed that the PL's unplanned for financial hit would be £1.15B from ending this season early, with £0.75B of that being monies due back to broadcasters.

With the knock on effect of solidarity payments down the pyramid, clubs face the real possibility of going out of business. It's that possibility, that focuses minds such as with Steve Parish.

 

[sparkie]

He's already covered that by saying he doesn't care, he can retire at any time

The more tweets of his I read, the more it is obvious he is having a real meltdown about the season not being finished. And anyone who dislikes his idea of playing in Australia gets both barrels it seems.

Barber and bhafc are now his public enemy number one for daring to comment that neutral grounds are not a fair solution ( when we have 5 home matches left, and some teams only have 4).

I'd argue the point on Twitter with him, but he'd just call me a 'fud' and block me. No point, if I wanted that I'd just unfollow him.

Odd fellow, he has a very strong agenda, I'm just not 100% sure what the root of it all is.

 

[Jim in the West]

BBC's John Murray just revealed that the PL's unplanned for financial hit would be £1.15B from ending this season early, with £0.75B of that being monies due back to broadcasters.

With the knock on effect of solidarity payments down the pyramid, clubs face the real possibility of going out of business. It's that possibility, that focuses minds such as with Steve Parish.

Presumably the other £0.4bn is lost anyway (I assume it's mostly ticket revenue/food & drink, etc). From what I've read, half of the £750m is due to Sky & BT (the rest is for overseas broadcasters). Personally I can't believe that the EPL wouldn't be able to do some sort of deal to get Sky & BT (and the overseas broadcasters) on-side - eg: extending the current deal, giving broadcasters more live games, etc. In addition, if the season is voided then no parachute payments need to be made to the relegated teams, which presumably will save a significant chunk of money. All supposition, of course, but I think figures of losses in excess of £1bn are probably massively inflated. And if clubs are in such dire straights, why have (even) Norwich just signed someone for next season...?

 

[nwgull]

I want the season to be finished because it's the right thing to do. If that means we get relegated then so be it.

That said I am not a massive fan of playing the games without fans. I'd rather they scrapped next season, and played this season's game at the same time next April/May when presumably it would be fine to do so with fans in the stadium.

Yeh, let's have 12 months where none of us get to watch any football whatsoever and clubs have zero income. Terrible idea.

 

[Weststander]

Presumably the other £0.4bn is lost anyway (I assume it's mostly ticket revenue/food & drink, etc). From what I've read, half of the £750m is due to Sky & BT (the rest is for overseas broadcasters). Personally I can't believe that the EPL wouldn't be able to do some sort of deal to get Sky & BT (and the overseas broadcasters) on-side - eg: extending the current deal, giving broadcasters more live games, etc. In addition, if the season is voided then no parachute payments need to be made to the relegated teams, which presumably will save a significant chunk of money. All supposition, of course, but I think figures of losses in excess of £1bn are probably massively inflated. And if clubs are in such dire straights, why have (even) Norwich just signed someone for next season...?

I'm not sure, perhaps a mix.

Presumably non-ST seat sales, ST part refunds, sponsorship repayments, hospitality for games that never happened (this is huge - other clubs also host 1000's in suites & exec boxes not on a 1901 Club committed basis). Behind closed doors 2019/20 football on a pay for view basis for the non-BT/Sky games, might recoup big sums in revenue.

 

[Washie]

I want the season to be finished because it's the right thing to do. If that means we get relegated then so be it.

That said I am not a massive fan of playing the games without fans. I'd rather they scrapped next season, and played this season's game at the same time next April/May when presumably it would be fine to do so with fans in the stadium.

This would kill about 99% of football lubs, as there would be no tv income, no fan income. Footballers would have to get jobs outside of football, so they cannot train to be the very best day in and day out, meaning the quality would go down. This is possibly the worst idea of them all.

 

[Weststander]

I think figures of losses in excess of £1bn are probably massively inflated. And if clubs are in such dire straights, why have (even) Norwich just signed someone for next season...?

I wonder if John Murray was in fact correct. According to the PL's own accounts, which acts a central pool of broadcasting income, they took in £3.15B in 2018/19.

If 9 match weeks are cancelled, on paper that's 9/38 x £3.15B repayable/not receivable from broadcasters and sponsors = £746m.

(£130m is later paid out to charities and other leagues, with £265m in parachute monies).

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I wonder if John Murray was in fact correct. According to the PL's own accounts, which acts a central pool of broadcasting income, they took in £3.15B in 2018/19.

If 9 match weeks are cancelled, on paper that's 9/38 x £3.15B repayable/not receivable from broadcasters and sponsors = £746m.

(£130m is later paid out to charities and other leagues, with £265m in parachute monies).

Would it not depend on the wording of the contracts with the broadcasters ? If Sky etc have bought and paid for an entire season of TV games and then the Government bans large gatherings surely that’s their risk ? Not that I’m advocating leaving them high and dry. They are necessary for the future of the game and that’s why behind closed doors cannot be ruled out....still too soon though.

 

[Weststander]

Would it not depend on the wording of the contracts with the broadcasters ? If Sky etc have bought and paid for an entire season of TV games and then the Government bans large gatherings surely that’s their risk ?

It could do. But why are most clubs including for example Palace and Burnley openly talking about huge losses?

If they could retain all of BT/Sky's money without playing the last 9 fixtures, and BT/Sky couldn't do anything about it legally, shirley 75% of the clubs would've voted for the season to end ages ago?

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It could do. But why are most clubs including for example Palace and Burnley openly talking about huge losses?

If they could retain all of BT/Sky's money without playing the last 9 fixtures, and BT/Sky couldn't do anything about it legally, shirley 75% of the clubs would've voted for the season to end ages ago?

Good point.

 

[Springal]

It could do. But why are most clubs including for example Palace and Burnley openly talking about huge losses?

If they could retain all of BT/Sky's money without playing the last 9 fixtures, and BT/Sky couldn't do anything about it legally, shirley 75% of the clubs would've voted for the season to end ages ago?

I think the club will get / have got this seasons money. But the TV companies are now in credit for 9 rounds of fixtures which will be added onto next season if this one does not complete - and with no certainty around next season starting could be a long period until they see TV money again

 

[Gwylan]

I want the season to be finished because it's the right thing to do. If that means we get relegated then so be it.

That said I am not a massive fan of playing the games without fans. I'd rather they scrapped next season, and played this season's game at the same time next April/May when presumably it would be fine to do so with fans in the stadium.

And here's why this is a non-starter

BBC's John Murray just revealed that the PL's unplanned for financial hit would be £1.15B from ending this season early, with £0.75B of that being monies due back to broadcasters.

If that's a hit for a quarter of the season, no club would want to write off a whole one

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I'm the same. If we go down we go down but the games should be played under the conditions the season so far has been played I would be gutted at going down having had to play those games without the home advantage

But surely there is no possibility of that for many months; perhaps a year?

 

[Lincoln Imp]

I want the season to be finished because it's the right thing to do. If that means we get relegated then so be it.

That said I am not a massive fan of playing the games without fans. I'd rather they scrapped next season, and played this season's game at the same time next April/May when presumably it would be fine to do so with fans in the stadium.

If there was no Premier League football for a year, which would presumably also mean no EPL football either, who would pick up the bill? (If no one did, half the latter would fold, surely?)

 

[blue-shifted]

This would kill about 99% of football lubs, as there would be no tv income, no fan income. Footballers would have to get jobs outside of football, so they cannot train to be the very best day in and day out, meaning the quality would go down. This is possibly the worst idea of them all.

This is why I still firmly believe that all the games should be played. Clearly we are nowhere near being ready to start on health grounds.

The problem is that clubs spend money before it's even come in and the great majority of the 91 league clubs are mortgaged to the hilt and were before the crisis starts. Now they are at risk of having to hand back large chunks of TV cash in addition to not having any matchday income.

At the very least, if there's a commitment to play the games, even if not possible yet, the issue is more of cashflow. TV money doesn't have to be handed back, solidarity payments may remain intact and a few more clubs might get through this.

The primary thought process on how to navigate this minefield, should be with a view of protecting as many clubs as possible (safely). We and others deserve the criticism for prioritising the avoidance of relegation. If this crisis had happened at any time in our history before TB came, we would be one of the clubs going to the wall.

 

[blue-shifted]

If there was no Premier League football for a year, which would presumably also mean no EPL football either, who would pick up the bill? (If no one did, half the latter would fold, surely?)

Yes.

There are several on this thread deluded enough to argue that the "rich clubs" will be made to, or voluntarily subsidise those lower down the pyramid.

There is no chance at all of this happenning

 

[blue-shifted]

I also hear a lot of people saying the broadcasters will have to write off the losses and won't be able to insist on the money being repaid

Highly unlikely. Remember how much money they are losing through cancelled subscriptions and plummeting ad revenues. Sky and BT have bet the farm on football driving their revenues. They will know full when that the majority of league clubs will go under anyway and will be keen on getting their money back before the bankruptcy wave starts.

 

[herecomesaregular]

Well the German and Spanish leagues are talking of getting on with it sooner rather than later so why is the Premier League any different?

 

[Weststander]

I think the club will get / have got this seasons money. But the TV companies are now in credit for 9 rounds of fixtures which will be added onto next season if this one does not complete - and with no certainty around next season starting could be a long period until they see TV money again

The determination of the clubs, less so Barber, makes it seem that they won’t be able to keep the £0.75B, hence the financial fears openly mentioned by CP and Burnley for example.

Or it they refuse to hand it back / can’t hand it back, Sky/BT will deduct it from the July 2020 first tranche of 2020/21 monies payable.

Hence the very focused business brains of Steve Parish & co.

 

[Weststander]

I also hear a lot of people saying the broadcasters will have to write off the losses and won't be able to insist on the money being repaid

Highly unlikely. Remember how much money they are losing through cancelled subscriptions and plummeting ad revenues. Sky and BT have bet the farm on football driving their revenues. They will know full when that the majority of league clubs will go under anyway and will be keen on getting their money back before the bankruptcy wave starts.

Exactly.