Football & Coronavirus [READ MOD NOTE IN FIRST POST - updated 06-05-20]

Fitz*

RasTa wrote: »

They will need the money more then City, United etc. There is going to be an even bigger divide and lots of clubs going under if FA are just thinking about TV $$$

And if a scenario arises with no promotion and relegation, the gap will be even bigger again.

In Holland, there is a big worry about the future of Cambuur as they will not be promoted now, but they have a talented young team. These players will now be snapped up for cheap by the Eredivisie teams before next season and makes it even harder again for the club to get promoted next season as their best players will have left the club.

The same could happen to Leeds with Ben White & Kalvin Philips. WBA could suffer the same fate with their players. Bielsa may leave the club after 2 years, and they have also put a good lot of money into gaining promotion this season. WBA will also have no parachute payments to fall back on and may not be able to compete with other Championship teams as they do not have the funds to buy better players to replace those that have left and moved up to the Premier League themselves. Bilic may leave.

Meanwhile West Ham and Aston Villa have got a get out of jail free card, and Norwich too. Aston Villa spent over £100m last summer on the hope that they stayed in the Premier League. The club as a whole is under a lot of pressure financially so relegation will set them back years again. They will have to sell Jack Grealish and they don't look to have any similar player like him coming through to drag them out of the Championship again. Norwich, while spending very little could lose their highly rated young full backs and not able to replace them adequately in order to gain promotion again. If there is no promotion & relegation, that is a massive swing in the fortunes of 4 clubs and the directions they go in.



Lower league games will have to go ahead without fans anyways. But the clubs need the gate receipts to survive, so to help some of the lower league clubs, is it feasible for each of the Premier League clubs to forgo (lets pick an arbitrary figure of) £5m of the owed TV money, and use this £100m package to help out lower league clubs, if play resumes behind closed? There would be a pool of money for football organisers to dip into and help the 71 other clubs out that are struggling financially by giving them a certain percentage of this pool.

Ask each of the lower league clubs to prove their average home attendance for the season. I have just picked Ipswich Town at random here and their average attendance at home for the league this season in League One is 19,549. This is one of the highest average attendances in the football league and higher than half of the championship teams. Average ticket price is £30. They have 5 remaining games left so they would be losing out on around £2.9m. Now this is including people that would have already paid for season tickets etc but I'm sure if they would benefit by having an extra £1m coming in from the £100m pool to make up some of this gate receipt shortfall.

Mitch Connor

gstack166 wrote: »

The players have all the power here, if they don’t feel safe football doesn’t happen. Rightly so, why should they put themselves and their families in danger. You can’t play a contact sport all the while whilst the rest of the world is being told to stay 2 metres apart.

and as of now there isn't really an indication that the players are against it (i have no doubt a number are).

So, again, going by current plans, talks, speculation etc.... football is closer to returning in June than it has been at any other point over the last few weeks.

Things can change, but I don't think it is correct to say that (season cancelled) is the direction the wind is blowing right now.

Fitz*

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If it was as simple as offering the fans streams, why didn't they do it previously and open up that revenue model? There must be a contractual reason.

I think it's because nearly all lower league games occur at 15.00 on a Saturday, when there is a blackout of showing the games live. Now, I think that there are plans to remove this now, so it could help.

Further to my post above, let's say for example the FA allow the games to be streamed and a person can pay £5 to stream his lower league team's game behind closed doors live and he pays that. The club is still making an income, but obviously not as high as with a 'normal' game. I'll keep with my Ipswich example and let's say that they get 15,000 streams, each person paying £5. The fans would probably pay that, as its cheaper than a match ticket and they know it is directly contributing to keeping the club afloat. That's £75,000 income for that match day. Normal ticket prices would have an income of £580,000 but then the option of dipping into the '£100m pool' can help top up the £75,000 income for that game and bring it closer to a regular match day income. Not all of it, but a portion and enough to keep a club ticking over somewhat. A bit like the furlough scheme.

It keeps football clubs afloat, ages paid and finish out the season and can prevent clubs going bust by having to pay wages, while playing games and no match day revenue.

gstack166

Mitch Connor wrote: »

and as of now there isn't really an indication that the players are against it (i have no doubt a number are).

So, again, going by current plans, talks, speculation etc.... football is closer to returning in June than it has been at any other point over the last few weeks.

Things can change, but I don't think it is correct to say that (season cancelled) is the direction the wind is blowing right now.

There were only a handful of voices in support of playing behind closed doors in Premier League fan forums. One issue clubs will raise is the fact they are so reliant on TV money and are they worried about having to return money they have already spent on wages. In the top 4’s case TV money is well over £100m.

However surely the way round this is for broadcasters to renegotiate the deal with clubs, extend the timescales, add an extra year in etc so that clubs would only take a hit over a longer time frame, it would be smaller and they'd be able to budget for it.

Richard Hillman

I know a lot of us have joked about the Voiding option but the longer it goes on the more it seems like the most valid option.

The leagues that will all end early will have to deal with the relegation/promotion situation. There is a lot of bother already brewing in Holland about the fact that they cancelled relegated and won't be promoting anyone. For a lot of the leagues, especially the 20 team leagues (England, Spain, Serie A, France) if they promote 2 teams, the league will need to be extended by 4 game weeks. If their leagues are starting in September, it will be an absolute Jam to get those games in before Euro2021. Winter Breaks will have to be cancelled. England will have to at least drop the League Cup.

The Premier League season was meant to kick off on the 8th of August. Usually in August they jam in an extra midweek game. So if they get a September start of 5th of September, they will be 5 games down already and then will have to find room for the extra 4 games from the increased teams. Add in the Champions League/Europa League, FA Cup, International weekends, it just ain't fitting.

So increasing the league numbers for 1 year may not be an option. If they just end it and deem it as completed, there may be legal ramifications from the due to be promoted teams.

So essentially to avoid legal action, Voiding could be the only option.

Mitch Connor

FitzShane wrote: »

I think it's because nearly all lower league games occur at 15.00 on a Saturday, when there is a blackout of showing the games live. Now, I think that there are plans to remove this now, so it could help.

Further to my post above, let's say for example the FA allow the games to be streamed and a person can pay £5 to stream his lower league team's game behind closed doors live and he pays that. The club is still making an income, but obviously not as high as with a 'normal' game. I'll keep with my Ipswich example and let's say that they get 15,000 streams, each person paying £5. The fans would probably pay that, as its cheaper than a match ticket and they know it is directly contributing to keeping the club afloat. That's £75,000 income for that match day. Normal ticket prices would have an income of £580,000 but then the option of dipping into the '£100m pool' can help top up the £75,000 income for that game and bring it closer to a regular match day income. Not all of it, but a portion and enough to keep a club ticking over somewhat. A bit like the furlough scheme.

It keeps football clubs afloat, ages paid and finish out the season and can prevent clubs going bust by having to pay wages, while playing games and no match day revenue.

According to their financial accounts for 18/19, they made 4605000 on gate receipts. If only accounting for 23 home games in the champ that is 200k a match, so your 75k a match proposal would make a huge dent in losses based on match day income.

If you could encourage donations (like Twitch) you'd see a higher number too

Fitz*

Mitch Connor wrote: »

According to their financial accounts for 18/19, they made 4605000 on gate receipts. If only accounting for 23 home games in the champ that is 200k a match, so your 75k a match proposal would make a huge dent in losses based on match day income.

If you could encourage donations (like Twitch) you'd see a higher number too

Yes, it is a lot lower than regular match day income, but it is also better than 0. And also where the proposed £100m pool of money to supplement this 75k can help bring up the match day income to a more regular level.

Cantona's Collars

818,000 tests across the UK so far.

765 deaths since yesterday.

Richard Hillman

Mitch Connor wrote: »

If they can do that, great.

If it was as simple as offering the fans streams, why didn't they do it previously and open up that revenue model? There must be a contractual reason.

Yes, obviously Sky have the rights to the football league but I think they'll probably forgo any objection for games that they are not covering themselves or 3pm games. They may even be able to jockey off the coverage and show some games.

Otherwise the Football League (not that they'd have the balls) could paint Sky as the enemy of league football. Objecting to small clubs trying to make an quick bit of income in such tough times.

Chuck Noland

Gary Neville on the football show is echoing what many have said already and that if football comes back it may not be completed as once a player or manager contracts CoVid due too football he can’t see that club continuing on and fulfilling fixtures

citytillidie

No football then until August 2021 at least if they are going to wait for a vaccine. No Euros next summer and lots of clubs gone bust

RasTa

Yeah that's looking more likely. Japan saying similar about the Olympics.

gstack166

citytillidie wrote: »

No football then until August 2021 at least if they are going to wait for a vaccine. No Euros next summer and lots of clubs gone bust

Unfortunately so.

citytillidie

RasTa wrote: »

Yeah that's looking more likely. Japan saying similar about the Olympics.

Or have a look at see what the situation is like later in there year. I said ages ago that you could hold off for the year and resume the season next March where it stopped and continue on from there, of course if able to

gstack166

citytillidie wrote: »

Or have a look at see what the situation is like later in there year. I said ages ago that you could hold off for the year and resume the season next March where it stopped and continue on from there, of course if able to

Losing a full season is much worse to your worry about clubs folding than losing 9 games. That suggestion of yours will never happen.

Cantona's Collars

Sky: Dybala still isn't clear of coronavirus a month after contracting it. His latest test hasn't come back negative but the viral load is low.

niallo27

Chuck Noland wrote: »

Gary Neville on the football show is echoing what many have said already and that if football comes back it may not be completed as once a player or manager contracts CoVid due too football he can’t see that club continuing on and fulfilling fixtures

For 99.99% of footballers they probably wont even know they have got it. Now if a footballer gets seriously sick that's different but why would just getting it stop that club from fulfilling fixtures.

citytillidie

citytillidie wrote: »

No football then until August 2021 at least if they are going to wait for a vaccine. No Euros next summer and lots of clubs gone bust

There will definitely be football before August 2021

niallo27

6 wrote: »

There will definitely be football before August 2021

Of course there will be, some seriously deluded people on here if they think there wont be.

Arghus

niallo27 wrote: »

For 99.99% of footballers they probably wont even know they have got it. Now if a footballer gets seriously sick that's different but why would just getting it stop that club from fulfilling fixtures.

If a player is running around on the pitch one day and tests positive the next you could have a situation where you may have to test all of the other players and also most of the staff on both sides.

Potentially you could have a lot of people going to isolation. And I presume fixtures will already be quite congested.

niallo27

niallo27 wrote: »

Of course there will be, some seriously deluded people on here if they think there wont be.

It's the only site I've seen those views on, and it's only one or two people so it's not a widely held view tbf.

No way football will be allowed to just fail.

niallo27

Arghus wrote: »

If a player is running around on the pitch one day and tests positive the next you could have a situation where you may have to test all of the other players and also most of the staff on both sides.

Potentially you could have a lot of people going to isolation. And I presume fixtures will already be quite congested.

Only isolation if they test postive though. Also they would test as early as they can before the game starts. This is all dependant on faster tests.

Arghus

6 wrote: »

It's the only site I've seen those views on, and it's only one or two people so it's not a widely held view tbf.

No way football will be allowed to just fail.

It won't be allowed to just "fail", there'll have to be some support put in place to get clubs through it.

But football isn't as big an industry in real terms as some seem to think it is on here. Most football clubs are medium sized businesses and this crisis is going to put huge corporations that dwarf clubs and big players in industry that employ hundreds and thousands potentially out of business.

Certain businesses will be allowed to fail.

Football isn't as economiclly vital as it's profile would suggest.

Arghus

niallo27 wrote: »

Only isolation if they test postive though. Also they would test as early as they can before the game starts. This is all dependant on faster tests.

Key sentence there: This is all dependent on faster tests.

Fitz*

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Sky: Dybala still isn't clear of coronavirus a month after contracting it. His latest test hasn't come back negative but the viral load is low.

That's more of a worry to all of humanity than just football.

As an aside, I wonder what his self isolation methods were like? Is it possible that he re-contracted it?

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

It won't be allowed to just "fail", there'll have to be some support put in place to get clubs through it.

But football isn't as big an industry in real terms as some seem to think it is on here. Most football clubs are medium sized businesses and this crisis is going to put huge corporations that dwarf clubs and big players in industry that employ hundreds and thousands potentially out of business.

Certain businesses will be allowed to fail.

Football isn't as economiclly vital as it's profile would suggest.

So, there will be football before August 2021 then. Either with or without support. We are agreeing I believe.

Liam O

niallo27 wrote: »

For 99.99% of footballers they probably wont even know they have got it. Now if a footballer gets seriously sick that's different but why would just getting it stop that club from fulfilling fixtures.

12 minutes after a player being reported as still having it in their system after weeks.

Impressive.

6 has come back with the latest 2 liner ignoring the responses to their previous vague and unending nonsense posts I see too. Any chance of engaging with discussion or is it going to be further weeks of ignoring challenges to your posts?

FitzShane

FitzShane wrote: »

That's more of a worry to all of humanity than just football.

As an aside, I wonder what his self isolation methods were like? Is it possible that he re-contracted it?

Hopefully he just never shook it off. The other scenario wouldn't be good.

Guy:Incognito

Arghus wrote: »

It won't be allowed to just "fail", there'll have to be some support put in place to get clubs through it.

But football isn't as big an industry in real terms as some seem to think it is on here. Most football clubs are medium sized businesses and this crisis is going to put huge corporations that dwarf clubs and big players in industry that employ hundreds and thousands potentially out of business.

Certain businesses will be allowed to fail.

Football isn't as economically vital as it's profile would suggest.

While some might be overestimating it, you are vastly underestimating it describing it as just a medium sized business. The knock on to each of these clubs is huge. Hundreds of matchday staff, businesses across the world making Jerseys ,kit and merchandise. Pubs showing matches, ones around grounds that only fill up on match days, sponsors, tv companies, haulage etc etc etc

Theres a lot more involved than the direct employees of 1 or 2 of these "medium sized businesses" in each city or town.

niallo27

Liam O wrote: »

12 minutes after a player being reported as still having it in their system after weeks.

Impressive.

6 has come back with the latest 2 liner ignoring the responses to their previous vague and unending nonsense posts I see too. Any chance of engaging with discussion or is it going to be further weeks of ignoring challenges to your posts?

Well challenge my post so, instead of the usually sly digs.

Arghus

6 wrote: »

So, there will be football before August 2021 then. Either with or without support. We are agreeing I believe.

I never said anything about no football before August 2021.

Guy:Incognito

gstack166 wrote: »

Losing a full season is much worse to your worry about clubs folding than losing 9 games. That suggestion of yours will never happen.

If football doesnt come back till March next year then next season is gone anyway.

niallo27

Arghus wrote: »

It won't be allowed to just "fail", there'll have to be some support put in place to get clubs through it.

But football isn't as big an industry in real terms as some seem to think it is on here. Most football clubs are medium sized businesses and this crisis is going to put huge corporations that dwarf clubs and big players in industry that employ hundreds and thousands potentially out of business.

Certain businesses will be allowed to fail.

Football isn't as economiclly vital as it's profile would suggest.

Economically is might not be the biggest but socially it is huge, football is everywhere. It's a huge part of towns and cities all over the UK.

RasTa

niallo27 wrote: »

Economically is might not be the biggest but socially it is huge, football is everywhere. It's a huge part of towns and cities all over the UK.

More so at grass routes. Mostly people overseas at the big clubs these days. Some ultras want the bubble to burst

Arghus

Arghus wrote: »

I never said anything about no football before August 2021.

That was the context of the post you originally replied to. Gstack166 reckoned no football until 2021. I disagree. Looks like we both are on the same page in that regard.

Arghus

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

While some might be overestimating it, you are vastly underestimating it describing it as just a medium sized business. The knock on to each of these clubs is huge. Hundreds of matchday staff, businesses across the world making Jerseys ,kit and merchandise. Pubs showing matches, ones around grounds that only fill up on match days, sponsors, tv companies, haulage etc etc etc

Theres a lot more involved than the direct employees of 1 or 2 of these "medium sized businesses" in each city or town.

There's exceptions at the top of the pile, but 90% of clubs in the football league are small to medium businesses, that don't generate huge profits.

Now, I'm not saying that the money involved in football isn't significant, but it's not as huge, nowhere near as huge, as lets say that involved with the airline sector - which could easily collapse - the hospitality sector or non-food retail. Those will get assistance first.

Yes, the continued existence of football clubs supports a lot of other tangential business. But that isn't unique, that's how it is with a lot of businesses. A big factory in a town keeps many other smaller local operations in buisness.

Liam O

niallo27 wrote: »

Well challenge my post so, instead of the usually sly digs.

I have to challenge "99.9% of footballers probably won't even know they have it"? Anything to back that up? The previous post was about a young enough player having it in their system after a month. Is there anything that you can point to that shows people between the age of 18-35 who get the virus don't show symptoms in 99.9% of cases?

Arghus

niallo27 wrote: »

Economically is might not be the biggest but socially it is huge, football is everywhere. It's a huge part of towns and cities all over the UK.

Yes, but that doesn't mean it's guaranteed a quick return.

Shaking people's hands was huge up until pretty recently. Could be a while before we see it again.

citytillidie

Weatherspoons in England looking to open by June

stesaurus

Ok worst case scenario here and football can't return until there's a vaccine. Say for arguments sake September 2021.
So 18 months roughly without football, minimum. No clubs could afford that barring City, PSG etc even Utd would struggle.

What I think would a great idea is to get the game back competitive among all teams and not just the few rich elite. Lots of changes required but now would be that time.
Clubs release all players from contracts and are free agents. Some sort of globally agreed payoff scheme that wouldn't cover their full contracts and would try to balance out to those earning least. Let them get a normal job for a year or pursue a new interest. This solves the vast majority of cash flow issues so clubs can possibly survive for a year or so.

Imagine the scramble to sign up players from say July 1st 2021 onward. Sky would wet themselves with transfer news and so would fans in fairness.
New TV deals in place to replace current ones. Leagues should be expected to lower demands and savings passed directly on to customers.
All games shown but not moved about to maximise exposure to just the top clubs over and over.
Remove agents power from the game. Collectively decide that players have to pay any agent fees. They'll soon start getting their agents in line if they are paying them out of their own pocket.
Wage and transfer caps with the caveat the only a small amount of money can be taken out of a club. This ensures that players are paid fairly but not to the obnoxious levels currently.
Much lower ticket prices and maximum prices brought in. Away tickets cannot cost more than home tickets.
Restructure league formats to 18 teams max, lets face it some will not return no matter what. More time for rest periods or potential fixture congestion.

citytillidie

citytillidie wrote: »

Weatherspoons in England looking to open by June

He didn't want to shut in the first place so definitely no surprise there!

Tom Mann Centuria

citytillidie wrote: »

Weatherspoons in England looking to open by June

Well he's a grade A cnut.

kksaints

citytillidie wrote: »

Weatherspoons in England looking to open by June

They have one of those Mike Ashley types as the founder and CEO. Ugly, ugly company.

wadacrack

stesaurus wrote: »

Ok worst case scenario here and football can't return until there's a vaccine. Say for arguments sake September 2021.
So 18 months roughly without football, minimum. No clubs could afford that barring City, PSG etc even Utd would struggle.

What I think would a great idea is to get the game back competitive among all teams and not just the few rich elite. Lots of changes required but now would be that time.
Clubs release all players from contracts and are free agents. Some sort of globally agreed payoff scheme that wouldn't cover their full contracts and would try to balance out to those earning least. Let them get a normal job for a year or pursue a new interest. This solves the vast majority of cash flow issues so clubs can possibly survive for a year or so.

Imagine the scramble to sign up players from say July 1st 2021 onward. Sky would wet themselves with transfer news and so would fans in fairness.
New TV deals in place to replace current ones. Leagues should be expected to lower demands and savings passed directly on to customers.
All games shown but not moved about to maximise exposure to just the top clubs over and over.
Remove agents power from the game. Collectively decide that players have to pay any agent fees. They'll soon start getting their agents in line if they are paying them out of their own pocket.
Wage and transfer caps with the caveat the only a small amount of money can be taken out of a club. This ensures that players are paid fairly but not to the obnoxious levels currently.
Much lower ticket prices and maximum prices brought in. Away tickets cannot cost more than home tickets.
Restructure league formats to 18 teams max, lets face it some will not return no matter what. More time for rest periods or potential fixture congestion.

Relax, clubs will be back before any vaccine. Teams still playing in Belarus with no issues. We will have to learn to live with the virus. Football will eventually adapt.

giveitholly

So football in Holland and France can't start until Sept at the earliest(correct me if I am wrong) .So already they will be playing catch up to try finish next season with the potential of Euros starting next June.Listening to the experts there will be a second wave in the autumn/early winter so it looks certain next season is going to be interrupted as well.What will happen if two seasons in a row can't be finished,it will be some mess thats for sure

RasTa

citytillidie wrote: »

Weatherspoons in England looking to open by June

That's one place I hope goes bust. Used to pop in for a pint from time to time, no chance now.

niallo27

Liam O wrote: »

I have to challenge "99.9% of footballers probably won't even know they have it"? Anything to back that up? The previous post was about a young enough player having it in their system after a month. Is there anything that you can point to that shows people between the age of 18-35 who get the virus don't show symptoms in 99.9% of cases?

The player in question said he will was feeling perfect and fully able to train despite testing positive. Listen if you are young and fit, this thing will hardly bother you, this cant be news to you.

niallo27

RasTa wrote: »

That's one place I hope goes bust. Used to pop in for a pint from time to time, no chance now.

One thing we can all agree on.

citytillidie

RasTa wrote: »

That's one place I hope goes bust. Used to pop in for a pint from time to time, no chance now.

I wonder if the staff will be back after he told them to go work for tesco after refusing to pay until furlough kicked in

Liam O

niallo27 wrote: »

The player in question said he will was feeling perfect and fully able to train despite testing positive. Listen if you are young and fit, this thing will hardly bother you, this cant be news to you.

Actually things that are completely unproven and not based on any fact but being spouted as so would be news to me.