9th June d Day for PL

[Well b back 3,190]

There is a poll in EdP ( have a go if you haven’t ). Interestingly some votes are close, but to reintroduce football is an 87 % NO. If that doesn’t send a message to the PL not sure what will.

https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/health/polll-what-do-people-in-norfolk-think-about-easing-lockdown-restrictions-1-6635378

[Jim Smith 2,314]

26 minutes ago, JF said:

 

This is the obvious deal to be done with the big 6 if reports are to be believed. I would still have misgivings about potentially putting players and staff at risk though but i guess they can afford the safety precautions. 

[Hairy Canary 668]

A big point for me is if relegation is removed then that would pave the way for players who feel uncomfortable or who have high risk relatives won’t feel pressured to play against their will.

[Indy 3,286]

Like I said earlier, no relegation in any division, promote the top two in each division, the premiership would have two more teams for one season, more games to televise with five relegated that season, from each division then back to normal.

No point in playing anymore games, those promoted happy, those not relegated no reason to sue! And we all start again when we can.....not now when we can’t!

Edited May 3, 2020 by Indy

[Rock The Boat 1,326]

On 02/05/2020 at 17:31, Yorkshire Canary said:

The Government have an enormous amount on their plate which is self evident and will have for many many months into the future. In that context football is well down the pack of matters to consider with lives being lost, people losing their jobs etc. I wonder in that context if they have misread the mood in the country which by and large even for supporters is not in favor of a start to any league or season before it is safe to do so. More important than discussing about a moral boosting start to football which is inappropriate they need to address the very great threat to the very existence of many of the 92 league clubs and those below. I do not know funds the Premiership and their sponsors have at their disposal but they will be significant and they rather than the Government need to fund survival packages or else when play does eventually restart we may only have half the clubs still around. So Sky and the PL need to bang their heads together possibly facilitated by the Government to preserve a National Institution which is football  rather than bleat on about getting this season finished or even the next one started when it is clearly not safe for players and officials and there will probably be no spectators until next year. What happens to everyone who has paid for next seasons season tickets is another can of worms but one that will not go away

i know this is a football forum but in truth football is way down the list of priorities for a country that will be trying to recover its economy in post-lockdown Britain. If the government steps in to help football then most of that money will go to already highly-paid elite performers or wealthy  broadcasting companies while only a little will ever trickle into grass-roots football. Besides which, there are far more deserving industries than football that will need rescuing and where average incomes are much lower than highly-paid footballers.

And if football was allowed to collapse, it would only disappear for a few years but would eventually re-appear but not with such a highly-paid elite at the top.

[Well b back 3,190]

Farkes view

If we finish the season and we just would risk one life and one human being then we shouldn’t do this’ - City boss

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

On 03/05/2020 at 10:45, PurpleCanary said:

Excellent post, Surfer. The Premier League - or at least some clubs – want to complete the season for their own financial stability, which is understandable, although the recent estimates of how much they would have to pay up to the TV companies in the event of non-completion  are as low as £150m.  Not nothing but probably manageable.

There is an argument that the PL season must be played to a finish so that some TV money can be paid the clubs down the pyramid, to keep them afloat. I am not sure about that, for two reasons.

Firstly, there is the question of how much money does trickle down. At random I looked at the accounts for Rotherham Town. Their turnover last season was £13m, but only £287,000 came from ‘media’. Of course if a club is not getting its usual match-day income then anything is welcome.

But the bigger or at least much more immediate question is timing. This from a David Conn piece in The Guardian on Friday:

After [sports minister] Dowden spoke up in parliament, more than one senior football executive told the Guardian this week they felt uneasy, as if the government needs some good news, some entertainment for the masses, and that lies behind their desire to get the Premier League playing “as soon as possible”. Dowden said in parliament that this would “help release resources through the rest of the system”, but the EFL is understood to be baffled by that, as no more money will go down the football pyramid NOW [my emphasis] if the Premier League starts playing again.

As I read that Conn is saying that the money would arrive too late. Presumably once the season was finished, which now cannot be before late July, and might even be August, if the FA Cup is played. By which time some of these clubs will have gone to the wall. They will not be there to be saved.

Which is why, as I have been saying for nigh on two months now, the government, the football authorities, TV companies, sponsors etc have to get together now to agree a rescue package, and implement it well before June 30. The urgency in general because clubs have outgoings but in effect no income and specifically because there are 800 players out of contact at the end of June.

The Mail had a piece on Friday saying such talks had started. I do hope with sufficient urgency. And one proposal they certainly should consider is yours of using what  in your scenario would be unused parachute payments to secure the finances of the rest of the pyramid. Leagues One and Two are never going to complete, and probably not the Championship either.

 

The potential train-wreck in the EFL is finally getting some coverage in the national media. Some of it contradictory but all in general assessing the situation as potentially dire.

For example I quoted from one source the figure of 800 players being out of contract on June 30, whereas I see Mark Palios, the Tranmere chairman, today puts the figure higher:

‘It looks increasingly unlikely there will be a finish to the {EFL] season. Unless that changes there will be around 1,400 players out of contract at the end of June and very few are likely to find a new employer. In my view most clubs – particularly those in neither a promotion nor relegation battle – will allow contracts to expire regardless.’

Based on the David Conn quote I assumed the Premier League had not yet made an emergency payment to the EFL, but yesterday The Guardian said £125m of solidarity money due at the end of the season had already been handed over.

I don’t know if that includes parachute payments (which of course, go only to at most nine clubs and make up a clear majority of what trickles down). It works out at £1.7m for each of the 71 clubs, which makes me think it does include those hefty parachute payments.

Either way, that emergency money seems nowhere near enough to save the EFL pyramid even in the short-term.  Darren MacAnthony, owner of Peterborough United estimates  club will need about £1.6m “come August time to pay all the bills that have been deferred” during the shutdown and he would like the EFL to create a relief fund of about £170m to bail out clubs in the Championship, League One and League Two who have short-term cash-flow problems.