kentgas
Archie Stephens
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271 
|
Post by kentgas on Dec 3, 2020 12:49:11 GMT
The Premier League and English Football League (EFL) have agreed a rescue package amounting to £250m to help ease the financial challenge faced by EFL clubs as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.
The Championship will receive a £200m loan while a £50m grant has been agreed for League One and Two clubs
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Dec 3, 2020 12:54:42 GMT
Details to follow I guess... that £50mil won't be £1mil per Club...
|
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Dec 3, 2020 13:05:18 GMT
Pathetic!!
|
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Dec 3, 2020 15:02:39 GMT
The £50m rescue package for Leagues One and Two is split into two parts - £30m will be paid to the 48 clubs as a grant based on missed gate receipts from the 2019-20 and 2020-21 seasons.
League One clubs will receive a minimum payment of £375,000.
League Two clubs will receive a minimum payment of £250,000.
The remaining £15m will be distributed using a lost gate revenue share calculation.
A further £20m monitored grant will be provided and clubs can apply based on need. A joint Premier League and EFL panel will determine club eligibility.
Clubs receiving a monitored grant will be subject to restrictions with respect to transfer spend and player wages.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Dec 3, 2020 15:05:17 GMT
Get yer cap out Tis.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Dec 3, 2020 18:26:11 GMT
How much was given up to get that? It's the big question.
I think the situation has been discussed in a strange way in general. Let's be clear - it's the owners of the football clubs who are getting the bailout here. Many of those owners run their clubs unsustainably and irresponsibly. Some of them don't really deserve to be bailed out.
Yes, the top of the game should ideally owe a certain responsibility to the rest but this is a bit more of a complex issue than the idea that the Premier League should bail out the rest.
I worry about the strings that would be attached to any bailout because obviously we know the PL clubs are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. This is a deal and, frankly, I'd almost rather watch a few clubs go to the wall, than have to take some of the strings that were being attached to the original discussion.
I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea that PL money is simply going to be used to prop up badly run clubs and self-interested lower league owners so that we can get back to the unsustainable model when everything gets back to something like normality. This might be a unique opportunity to drive some much needed change - instead owners of football league clubs have gone to the PL with a begging bowl and a desire to protect as much of that crappy status quo as possible.
Is it possible for all sides to be wrong here? I think it is.
OK, so maybe, I'm a bit idealistic in this and survival simply trumps any grand positive reimagining of the football league model. But, just because the PL one was a load of self-interested guff doesn't mean that it isn't obviously necessary because this money is basically dissapear into a mammoth black hole.
The whole situation has had an air of unreality about it. Owners cry poverty yet seemed largely OK with pressing the go button on a season that they knew was going to be largely played behind closed doors. Why? Did they think a bigger bailout was coming? I've never understood this. I like that there's lower league football to distract us but I have never understood how clubs thought they were going to make this work in any way. Everyone cries poverty and we were told before this happened about clubs being on the brink but no club has actually bellied up yet yet? That doesn't square with the precariousness of football finances. This is a huge hit to an industry where many clubs already claimed they lived month-to-month even before this. Our owner seems willing to prop us up (or we'd be stuffed) but surely they're can't all be willing to commit to propping up their clubs for an unspecified undefined period (if so - then why are they?). Yet here we all are. I find the whole thing baffling.
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Dec 4, 2020 9:49:05 GMT
How much was given up to get that? It's the big question.
I think the situation has been discussed in a strange way in general. Let's be clear - it's the owners of the football clubs who are getting the bailout here. Many of those owners run their clubs unsustainably and irresponsibly. Some of them don't really deserve to be bailed out.
Yes, the top of the game should ideally owe a certain responsibility to the rest but this is a bit more of a complex issue than the idea that the Premier League should bail out the rest.
I worry about the strings that would be attached to any bailout because obviously we know the PL clubs are not doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. This is a deal and, frankly, I'd almost rather watch a few clubs go to the wall, than have to take some of the strings that were being attached to the original discussion.
I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea that PL money is simply going to be used to prop up badly run clubs and self-interested lower league owners so that we can get back to the unsustainable model when everything gets back to something like normality. This might be a unique opportunity to drive some much needed change - instead owners of football league clubs have gone to the PL with a begging bowl and a desire to protect as much of that crappy status quo as possible.
Is it possible for all sides to be wrong here? I think it is.
OK, so maybe, I'm a bit idealistic in this and survival simply trumps any grand positive reimagining of the football league model. But, just because the PL one was a load of self-interested guff doesn't mean that it isn't obviously necessary because this money is basically dissapear into a mammoth black hole.
The whole situation has had an air of unreality about it. Owners cry poverty yet seemed largely OK with pressing the go button on a season that they knew was going to be largely played behind closed doors. Why? Did they think a bigger bailout was coming? I've never understood this. I like that there's lower league football to distract us but I have never understood how clubs thought they were going to make this work in any way. Everyone cries poverty and we were told before this happened about clubs being on the brink but no club has actually bellied up yet yet? That doesn't square with the precariousness of football finances. This is a huge hit to an industry where many clubs already claimed they lived month-to-month even before this. Our owner seems willing to prop us up (or we'd be stuffed) but surely they're can't all be willing to commit to propping up their clubs for an unspecified undefined period (if so - then why are they?). Yet here we all are. I find the whole thing baffling.
How much was given up to get that? It's the big question. Answer: Nothing. £50mil is a drop in the ocean to the PL. Obviously welcome, it's not a game changer. It's a short term bung to give L1 & L2 Clubs some breathing space. And it's good PR for the PL and gets the Government off of their back. The £200mil loan to championship Clubs is... a loan. The EFL have no bargaining position whatsoever. I think they were praying for more. There was no strategy. Just a hope and a prayer. This will get resolved in March when the PL deliver their 'long term strategy', which will hopefully tackle sustainability throughout football and deliver a fairer distribution of TV money. It will also reveal the true 'price' that the EFL will pay. Obviously there's been an awful lot going on behind closed doors. Change is a comin'. FWIW - I think the initial "Big Picture" proposal was actually very sound. Obviously you have to take out the "Big 6 / Big 9" being given more power. Once you've done that - looks good to me. To re-cap: EFL receive 25% of TV money (probably far tighter governance required on how Clubs spend that money) Scrap parachute payments Reduce PL to 18 teams Scrap the EFL Cup and Community Shield This allows more space to increase the size and scope of European competition, so the 'big' Clubs get their revenue back that way. Does this go some way to answering your bafflement Irish? |
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Dec 4, 2020 9:53:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by laughinggas on Dec 4, 2020 10:19:35 GMT
Funny, managers in Prem complaining about number of fixtures, travel etc and the clubs want more games in Europe!
|
|
eppinggas
Administrator
Ian Alexander
Don't care
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 8,109
|
Post by eppinggas on Dec 4, 2020 12:17:04 GMT
Funny, managers in Prem complaining about number of fixtures, travel etc and the clubs want more games in Europe! Managers will always complain about playing too many games. Owners - want the maximum revenue from the games that get played. So the number of games played over a season will likely stay the same. But Liverpool / Man City etc will be playing Ajax / Monaco etc in an expanded champions league, rather than playing in the EFL Cup against Crawley / Morecambe etc. I forget the question. But the answer is money. |
|
|
|
Post by Colyton Gas. on Dec 13, 2020 19:18:11 GMT
 Banksy been at work in my Home district of Totterdown I see.If he did one at the Mem we could sell it for a few quid. |
|
