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

y0ssar1an22

DM_7 wrote: »

The loan facility/scheme is a short term loan and to help with working capital. It is likely many businesses will have to raise new loans later to repay the short term loan.

In spurs case they have to repay it next year or the year after:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jun/04/tottenham-take-175m-bank-of-england-loan-to-ease-coronavirus-impact#maincontent

can you explain their loss of revenue? as I said in post 3991:

"cant see how they lose £200m of revenue for the 6 months of this year. thats €222m, annualised is €444m. last year they made €428m, while getting to the CL final.

they're as good as gone from the CL this season. how much were the NFL and concerts worth?

Think its more to do with having higher debts to service."


working capital is for your day to day expenses (not your long term debt obligations).

£175m = €194m. thats €32m a month (WTF are they spending that on?!) for a 6 month shortfall?!

spurs in fact have the lowest % revenue going to wages at 39%.

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cz/Documents/consumer-business/cz_annual_review_of_football_finance_2019.pdf

they should be better placed than anyone to absorb losses. with the exception of course of their new debt on the stadium.

this is simply levy trying to get 'free' money.

Fr Tod Umptious

Collie D wrote: »

I get that but still doesn’t make sense to me. They’re standing over a dead ball discussing what to do. By the time anyone could be bothered translating it the free kick is done and dusted.

Or maybe they are saying something like the following while standing over the ball and don't want that all over the media.

Player 1 - Your man <insert player name here> in the wall is some tool.

Player 2 - Yes, I played with him at "<insert club name here>, he's a tosser. But he has a hot wife though, I wouldn't mind banging her.

You know, the kind of thing many young lads would talk about.

Shanotheslayer

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Or maybe they are saying something like the following while standing over the ball and don't want that all over the media.

Player 1 - Your man <insert player name here> in the wall is some tool.

Player 2 - Yes, I played with him at "<insert club name here>, he's a tosser. But he has a hot wife though, I wouldn't mind banging her.

You know, the kind of thing many young lads would talk about.

Somebody marking Vardy " Your wife's a grass " :pac:

ShamoBuc

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

can you explain their loss of revenue? as I said in post 3991:

"cant see how they lose £200m of revenue for the 6 months of this year. thats €222m, annualised is €444m. last year they made €428m, while getting to the CL final.

they're as good as gone from the CL this season. how much were the NFL and concerts worth?

Think its more to do with having higher debts to service."


working capital is for your day to day expenses (not your long term debt obligations).

£175m = €194m. thats €32m a month (WTF are they spending that on?!) for a 6 month shortfall?!

spurs in fact have the lowest % revenue going to wages at 39%.

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cz/Documents/consumer-business/cz_annual_review_of_football_finance_2019.pdf

they should be better placed than anyone to absorb losses. with the exception of course of their new debt on the stadium.

this is simply levy trying to get 'free' money.

Upto June 2021, not. June this year

DM_7

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

can you explain their loss of revenue? as I said in post 3991:

"cant see how they lose £200m of revenue for the 6 months of this year. thats €222m, annualised is €444m. last year they made €428m, while getting to the CL final.

they're as good as gone from the CL this season. how much were the NFL and concerts worth?

Think its more to do with having higher debts to service."


working capital is for your day to day expenses (not your long term debt obligations).

£175m = €194m. thats €32m a month (WTF are they spending that on?!) for a 6 month shortfall?!

spurs in fact have the lowest % revenue going to wages at 39%.

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/cz/Documents/consumer-business/cz_annual_review_of_football_finance_2019.pdf

they should be better placed than anyone to absorb losses. with the exception of course of their new debt on the stadium.

this is simply levy trying to get 'free' money.

I expect they have based reduction income over a longer period and up to the 12 months/June 21 to get the loan approved but I could not tell you what the loss of income is.

They owe over 100million on debt repayments and transfers alone inside the 12 months from their last accounts, maybe that is one example of where short term working capital funding will be required to offset money going out?

I imagine more details will come out in the next few days but the driver for Thursday's news appears to be that the Bank of England publish data on who loans are awarded to on Thursdays.

y0ssar1an22

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Upto June 2021, not. June this year

okay, to june 2021, thats 12 months they need to cover with that loan.

the loan is €194m in total, or €16m per month.

their annual wage bill is 39% of revenue (€428m), which is €166m, or €14m per month.

thats 2m in excess, not taking into account any income at all.

CL alone is about €19m for 1/16th, add to that +~€92m for their postilion in the PL.

that gives them a surplus of ~€113m. why the need for a loan?

ShamoBuc

I would imagine there are a lot of facts and figures involved that are not currently available to us. I would also imagine it will be much clearer when all the facts and figures are actually available.

Cantona's Collars

The WSL has been concluded with Chelsea overtaking City as champions and Liverpool relegated on points per game.

DM_7

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

The WSL has been concluded with Chelsea overtaking City as champions and Liverpool relegated on points per game.

Yikes. That seems wrong when the premier league is going to restart.

Tom Mann Centuria

DM_7 wrote: »

Yikes. That seems wrong when the premier league is going to restart.

Just shows the FA only really play lip service to the women's game. Most teams do too tbh.

Shame, but Chelsea the best team in the WSL this season and deserved Champions.

ShamoBuc

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Just shows the FA only really play lip service to the women's game. Most teams do too tbh.

Shame, but Chelsea the best team in the WSL this season and deserved Champions.

Chelsea have been fantastic. Liverpool deserve to go down, they've been awful.

jayo26

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Just shows the FA only really play lip service to the women's game. Most teams do too tbh.

Shame, but Chelsea the best team in the WSL this season and deserved Champions.

Its just the way it is. In mens and womens game there is only a Handful of leagues that can survive on tv revenue and thats what we are seen now.

Its not about not caring about smaller clubs or womens teams its about them not been in a postion to be worthwhile concluding because of sponsorship or tv money alone.

I think what scotish clubs are doing next season on reguards to selling tv rights packages with season tickets or whatever way they doing it is a good idea that would help the smaller teams in england but even at that i dont think womems game has that much interest.

y0ssar1an22

"Our commitment to the women's game is unwavering"

such horse****. its like all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

couldnt find a full statement though.

in other news:

Sky Sports Premier League returns with 22 live games in opening fortnight; Aston Villa vs Sheff Utd and Man City vs Arsenal scheduled for June 17; Everton vs Liverpool on June 21

Girly Gal

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

The WSL has been concluded with Chelsea overtaking City as champions and Liverpool relegated on points per game.

A bit harsh on Man City, Chelsea could have lost their game in hand, surely the remaing games could have been played out later.

Pubs open June 29th in Ireland once they serve food. Should do well for the football.

Mitch Connor

6 wrote: »

Pubs open June 29th in Ireland once they are serve food. Should do well for the football.

it mentions they have to have table service. So I wonder if that is part of the unspoken guidance. Capping the number of people in a pub to the number of seats/tables - the same as a restaurant. Ie. Don't have 100 people packed in, standing room only, squeezing past each other and queuing at the bar.

ShamoBuc

Mitch Connor wrote: »

it mentions they have to have table service. So I wonder if that is part of the unspoken guidance. Capping the number of people in a pub to the number of seats/tables - the same as a restaurant. Ie. Don't have 100 people packed in, standing room only, squeezing past each other and queuing at the bar.

Looks like that. No going to the bar at all. Sit and order from there.

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

it mentions they have to have table service. So I wonder if that is part of the unspoken guidance. Capping the number of people in a pub to the number of seats/tables - the same as a restaurant. Ie. Don't have 100 people packed in, standing room only, squeezing past each other and queuing at the bar.

Hopefully. They are required to adhere to social distancing.

CrabRevolution

Mitch Connor wrote: »

it mentions they have to have table service. So I wonder if that is part of the unspoken guidance. Capping the number of people in a pub to the number of seats/tables - the same as a restaurant. Ie. Don't have 100 people packed in, standing room only, squeezing past each other and queuing at the bar.

That's the idea anyway, but if Liverpool are one win away from the title and their next game is on TV I really don't see pubs being anything other than packed- rules or no rules.

I wonder how clubs plan to replace match day revenue.

Wrongway1985

jayo26 wrote: »

Its just the way it is. In mens and womens game there is only a Handful of leagues that can survive on tv revenue and thats what we are seen now.

Its not about not caring about smaller clubs or womens teams its about them not been in a postion to be worthwhile concluding because of sponsorship or tv money alone.

Fair enough you wholly accept this and others should too based on your opinion by the sound of things.

I was of the understanding that the leagues recommence approaching with safety,zero fans etc but are doing so with a view to sort out all the variables. This not being applied across the all leagues though further dents the already battered integrity of this season.

I'm of the opposite view, actually they can cancel the WSL because they can afford to do so, those clubs can endure that missed BT money or whatever and isn't in the same global realm. A potential legal complaint from Liverpool women say is not going to have the same ramifications were an Aston Villa or whoever in the Premier League be sunk to the Championship by virtue of points per game.

It's known up to Four teams in the Premier League could face administration within months were football to remain on the shelf. These will quickly waive any notion of integrity in return for whatever coin they can scrape.

The UK isn't Germany, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest when that while the NHS is still struggling and yet testing is going to be promptly made available to some football players just doesn't sit right.

How appropriate the day the top tier returns it does so with Arsenal play Man City a game that was originally postponed when Arsenal manager Mikel Arteta got the feckin' virus!

Mitch Connor

6 wrote: »

I wonder how clubs plan to replace match day revenue.

Seems to be growing talk about fans returning (in reduced numbers at first) from September. So they'll be looking to retain a percentage of their match day rev in 2020/21 season.

Wonder what clubs will try and do some innovative stuff around fan representation at games - such as clubs who have allowed fans to by standees.

Also wonder if clubs with TV stations will try to push those more - with more behind the scenes access etc.

Mitch Connor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Seems to be growing talk about fans returning (in reduced numbers at first) from September. So they'll be looking to retain a percentage of their match day rev in 2020/21 season.

Wonder what clubs will try and do some innovative stuff around fan representation at games - such as clubs who have allowed fans to by standees.

Also wonder if clubs with TV stations will try to push those more - with more behind the scenes access etc.

It's a big hole in revenue to fill. Utd match day revenue is 110m, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs roughly 80m. Give or take 20% of revenue for those clubs. If they can claw back half of it even they'll be doing well.

Arsenal closer to 100m actually on second look.


https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52529679

~Rebel~

6 wrote: »

It's a big hole in revenue to fill. Utd match day revenue is 110m, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs roughly 80m. Give or take 20% of revenue for those clubs. If they can claw back half of it even they'll be doing well.

Arsenal closer to 100m actually on second look.


https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/52529679

Would be a nice boost if they could even just get the exorbitantly expensive corporate hospitality boxes back up and running. I'm sure they could name their price for those at this stage!

ShamoBuc

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Would be a nice boost if they could even just get the exorbitantly expensive corporate hospitality boxes back up and running. I'm sure they could name their price for those at this stage!

Problem is social distancing inside those boxes could be a problem. I was in one that sat 10, you could sit 4 safely maybe 6 at a push? Bigger ones would have the same issue I would imagine. Maybe alternating access to holders every second match. General seating in most grounds could surely give around 1/6 or even 1/5 of capacity with social distancing. Fans will get back, slowly but surely.

Iused2likebusts

Dont have any food/drink for sale in the concourse and limit capacity and crowds should be able to return.

citytillidie

As i said a while ago they are using FIFA sound files for watching the games on Sky

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/21564/12001299/premier-league-restart-crowd-noise-option-part-of-sky-sports-innovative-coverage

wadacrack

https://twitter.com/David_Ornstein/status/1269350859533692930

Collie D

That’s a positive rate of only 0.21%. The UK rate is 5.24% of all tests. Even if you assumed that the almost 300k positive cases in the UK represented every infection in the entire country the PL rate is still only half that of the general population.

Looks like despite the publicised cases of players breaking restrictions the vast majority have played by the rules and taken this seriously and as long as do the return looks safe.

niallo27

There will be fans back in stadiums by october or November, this virus looks like its losing its potency by reports in italy. They could start back with every 3rd or 4th seat, these are all seater stadiums.

niallo27

Collie D wrote: »

That’s a positive rate of only 0.21%. The UK rate is 5.24% of all tests. Even if you assumed that the almost 300k positive cases in the UK represented every infection in the entire country the PL rate is still only half that of the general population.

Looks like despite the publicised cases of players breaking restrictions the vast majority have played by the rules and taken this seriously and as long as do the return looks safe.

That is 5.24% of people tested who I presume have symptoms or are frontline workers so the percentage is going be much higher. If you just took 1000 people from the general population it would probably correspond.

davemckenna25

I think its very misleading to go with 13 positives out of 6274 tests.

As these are generally the same people being tested every few days its not a fair reflection.
13 positive out of 1197 people tested (biggest test group total) I feel is a more accurate way to express the numbers.

It's still a very low positive (1.08%) which is great news for football.

noodler

davemckenna25 wrote: »

I think its very misleading to go with 13 positives out of 6274 tests.

As these are generally the same people being tested every few days its not a fair reflection.
13 positive out of 1197 people tested (biggest test group total) I feel is a more accurate way to express the numbers.

It's still a very low positive (1.08%) which is great news for football.

I don't think so.

A big chunk of our tests in Ireland are repeats (Various healthcare workers and others at risk of exposure).

davemckenna25

noodler wrote: »

I don't think so.

A big chunk of our tests in Ireland are repeats (Various healthcare workers and others at risk of exposure).

In 12 weeks Ireland has done close on 350,00 tests. With a HSE staff of 100,000 (plus others at risk of exposure) that doesn't add up to them being done again and again given the general public that were also tested.

Ireland is only testing those with symptoms... the PL are blanket testing.... no comparison.

LowOdour

Not sure if this is the place to ask, but trying to cover some basis for live matches. So will have a few FTA games on amazon and the iplayer, so can stream them fine.

For Sky matches, has anyone looked at NowTV...says Pick channel can be viewed live but not showing that channel on the app. Planned to buy 2 month entertainment pass (€15) of it works. Nowtv can be somewhat unreliable in my experience

y0ssar1an22

LowOdour wrote: »

Not sure if this is the place to ask, but trying to cover some basis for live matches. So will have a few FTA games on amazon and the iplayer, so can stream them fine.

For Sky matches, has anyone looked at NowTV...says Pick channel can be viewed live but not showing that channel on the app. Planned to buy 2 month entertainment pass (€15) of it works. Nowtv can be somewhat unreliable in my experience

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058035918

that may help, i dunno?!. there are deals for the sky pass as well.

if you can steam amazon fine, you should be grand one way or another.

i have sky via sky-go, and will stream the other 10%. if you have a family member/friend paying for sky, get sky go

noodler

davemckenna25 wrote: »

In 12 weeks Ireland has done close on 350,00 tests. With a HSE staff of 100,000 (plus others at risk of exposure) that doesn't add up to them being done again and again given the general public that were also tested.

Ireland is only testing those with symptoms... the PL are blanket testing.... no comparison.

You might have misinterpreted what I said.

Of course the 350k tests done to date haven't just been the same Beth workers over and over.

But there has been repetition as healthcare workers and nursing home patients are tested regularly in addition to those members of the public who get referred from General Practice.


P.S. Of the 120k odd HSE staff, only a small proportion of them are ICU nurses or workers on a Covid ward.

y0ssar1an22

noodler wrote: »

I don't think so.

A big chunk of our tests in Ireland are repeats (Various healthcare workers and others at risk of exposure).

they prob are. what i think is misleading is the huge rate of negative tests (vs gen pop). its giving gen pop (us) a fake sense of security.

if only premier league players that showed symptoms were tested it would be in line with the national average. at the same time, if everyone in the country was tested, it would be more in line with the PL figures.

using the PL results vs the populations results, as a measure of 'how good' the PL is doing, shows their true motivations, _

Collie D

niallo27 wrote: »

That is 5.24% of people tested who I presume have symptoms or are frontline workers so the percentage is going be much higher. If you just took 1000 people from the general population it would probably correspond.

Yes and I also mentioned the <300k positives as a percentage of the entire UK still being double that of the PL rate.

wadacrack

wadacrack wrote: »

https://twitter.com/David_Ornstein/status/1269350859533692930

Excellent news.

Well on track for the kick off in 10 days time.

Iused2likebusts

Just saw a video of the crowds gathered in manchester for the black lives matter protest on another boards thread. Im sure it was replicated in lots of other UK cities. Crowds gathering due to football is inevitable the younger generation have lost their fear of the virus.

Iused2likebusts

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Just saw a video of the crowds gathered in manchester for the black lives matter protest on another boards thread. Im sure it was replicated in lots of other UK cities. Crowds gathering due to football is inevitable the younger generation have lost their fear of the virus.

You couldn't make it up.

Guy:Incognito

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Crowds gathering due to football is inevitable the younger generation have lost their fear of the virus.

Or sometimes a very important issue comes up that waiting a few weeks isnt an option. Masks were widespread.

Theres no reason to gather at a ground unless youre all going to watch the match on your phone or something. They wont be able to see the game, they wont see the team come out to them.

Iused2likebusts

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Or sometimes a very important issue comes up that waiting a few weeks isnt an option. Masks were widespread.

Theres no reason to gather at a ground unless youre all going to watch the match on your phone or something. They wont be able to see the game, they wont see the team come out to them.

I think its nuts to gather at a ground for the reasons you stated its pointless. More importantly the unneccessary risk of aiding the virus spreading. However its clear that a proportion of the worlds poulation have made their choice with regard opinions towards the virus but as per usual football will cause outrage.

Guy:Incognito

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

However its clear that a proportion of the worlds poulation have made their choice with regard opinions towards the virus but as per usual football will cause outrage.

Maybe because football is fairly pointless in the grand scheme? Surely you can see the difference between the reasons for gathering?


Plus, when it was football, there was plenty of talk from people about how outdoor transmission is much less likely. Huge amounts are wearing masks too.
The bigger issue in that case with football ground would be hundreds of people at a time shoved together in corridors, toilets and queues for food and the toilets.

Iused2likebusts

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Maybe because football is fairly pointless in the grand scheme? Surely you can see the difference between the reasons for gathering?


Plus, when it was football, there was plenty of talk from people about how outdoor transmission is much less likely. Huge amounts are wearing masks too.
The bigger issue in that case with football ground would be hundreds of people at a time shoved together in corridors, toilets and queues for food and the toilets.

Im not talking about inside a football stadium. Im talking about if a crowd gathered outside a stadium.

Guy:Incognito

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

Im not talking about inside a football stadium. Im talking about if a crowd gathered outside a stadium.

I know, thats what the first sentence was about. The last bit was in regard to the general discussion of (paying) crowds being allowed to go watch matches and the issues with football being beyond the part where during the actual watching of the football bit, people are technically outside.

Non solum non ambulabit

I expect the media to hammer small groups of football fans gathering.

Sky sports news will have have cameras outside grounds waiting to capture images of a few local teenagers gathering. Outrage will ensue from rival clubs fans and as normal football fans divided allows media to exploit and tarnish all football fans with one brush.

Football community needs to come together and fight arguments as one.

Mushy

Fierce confused as to what impact Leo being out in Phoenix park will have on the return of football in a different country.

DM_7

Mushy wrote: »

Fierce confused as to what impact Leo being out in Phoenix park will have on the return of football in a different country.

I agree.

Mod Note: The recent talk of Leo, the reasons protests were okay in Ireland (or not) are not related to this thread about football. So move on.


I am going to delete some posts to tidy it up and get back on topic.

Extra Mod Note: okay some posts are now deleted, apologies to anyone who was trying to bring the discussion back to football and had their posts deleted.