Yet more shitforbrains self-interested "but football's different" utter utter wank from the clueless feckless whores laughably in charge of the national game. In what crack crazed nightmare is it plausible that players can train and play together if any form of social distancing is still in place? If crowds are not allowed to assemble, then what the actual fuck do the EFL morons imagine takes place at training or games? 'played behind closed doors' yeah and that stops invisible virus cells spreading about from people that can't possibly know they have them? Every single twunt that put their name to this should resign forthwith and hand back every penny they've taken in remuneration and benefits for the last year - not fit for purpose - not fit for anything. What this screams in foot high letters is that the shameless bandits at EFL think that the infection and deaths of dozens of players, referees, coaches, club staff in general is the acceptable price to pay for the TV money they fear they'll have to give back if the season is eventually cancelled. To say nothing of the families of all those staff who will inevitably get infected and die when their players get home.
We shouldn't be surprised the EFL executive only ever opens its mouth to prove what a worthless clueless whore it is.
We're all football devotees but never has its transparent irrelevance been any clearer to anybody with their eyes and ears open. The EFL needs to get on with helping out the football clubs as best it can and park any thoughts of resumptions until frivolous leisure activity can be considered appropriate.
Any talk, speculation about winding down the distancing practices is terribly dangerous nonsense. IFwe get the infection/hospital admissions/fatalities rates down to something much closer to normal pre-pandemic levels, then and only then can some sort of informed relaxation be considered. Anything more cavalier and complacent than that is to just glibly sign death warrants. This infection is brand new; there is no drug remedy, there is no vaccine nor any tangible prospect of either in the foreseeable future. Crazy talk of 'herd immunity is achieved after 80% of the population has been infected' is essentially incitement to homicide. 80% of 70 million is 56 million, the reported death rate is something around 12% i.e. 6.72 million fatalities tacitly being suggested as the cost of progress. I expect those chattering clowns will be stepping forward to volunteer, will they? They absolutely should do.
I think it's evidently clear that the EFL and footballing bodies in this country are not fit for purpose and only serve one purpose - furthering their own pockets. Anyone that thinks COVID-19 won't complete shake up football, including the EFL, is deluded.
They have cultivated a bubble filled with money and now the bubble is about to pop. Economic shocks like this always seperate the wheat from the chaff and there is a whole lot of chaff in football at the moment.
Do those getting angry about the EFL planning on finishing the season want:
1. Season ends on current table - We're relegated undeservedly as we have a clear opportunity to survive over 9 games.
2. Season is cancelled - We stay up undeservedly as we are in the relegation zone.
3. When the world is in a position for football to resume a mini season of 9 games takes place and then is followed by a cup with a group stage in the lead up. Basically a club world cup. So there is no 2020/2021 season. Just the Covid Cup.
4. Something else
For me I want the season played out behind closed doors, just so that the season ends fairly. Whether we are relegated or survive, it'll be the fairest result. I am certain that's how the clubs themselves would see it also.
I have no idea when the lockdown will be lifted, so would support a mini-season/mini cup if we've run too far into the 20/21 season window.
Just some of who will be present for each and every match. Who the fuck do the footballing powers think they are to be better than social distancing. Assume each game would need an ambulance in attendance too? Not like they've got anything better to be doing right now. The game is rotten, this is for nothing more than keeping pockets lined. They couldn't give a toss for the integrity of the game or the fans, no matter what their statements say.
Do those getting angry about the EFL planning on finishing the season want:
1. Season ends on current table - We're relegated undeservedly as we have a clear opportunity to survive over 9 games.
2. Season is cancelled - We stay up undeservedly as we are in the relegation zone.
3. When the world is in a position for football to resume a mini season of 9 games takes place and then is followed by a cup with a group stage in the lead up. Basically a club world cup. So there is no 2020/2021 season. Just the Covid Cup.
4. Something else
For me I want the season played out behind closed doors, just so that the season ends fairly. Whether we are relegated or survive, it'll be the fairest result. I am certain that's how the clubs themselves would see it also.
I have no idea when the lockdown will be lifted, so would support a mini-season/mini cup if we've run too far into the 20/21 season window.
It's not about getting the fairest result, it's about getting the country back to a safe normality as quickly as possible. Football should be fucked off completely until we know for sure we've got this virus under control. If you're desperate to finish the season, then wait until you can have crowds and do it then. If it's in January then so be it. Either that or you void the season and start again, when it is safe to do so.
Rushing it through now is selfish and reckless, regardless of the results.
How would it work for the away teams, will there be any hotels for them to stay at as otherwise it hardly seems fair to expect teams to travel up and down in a day
Exeter vs Carlisle Grimsby vs Plymouth Morecambe vs Plymouth
Do those getting angry about the EFL planning on finishing the season want:
1. Season ends on current table - We're relegated undeservedly as we have a clear opportunity to survive over 9 games.
2. Season is cancelled - We stay up undeservedly as we are in the relegation zone.
3. When the world is in a position for football to resume a mini season of 9 games takes place and then is followed by a cup with a group stage in the lead up. Basically a club world cup. So there is no 2020/2021 season. Just the Covid Cup.
4. Something else
For me I want the season played out behind closed doors, just so that the season ends fairly. Whether we are relegated or survive, it'll be the fairest result. I am certain that's how the clubs themselves would see it also.
I have no idea when the lockdown will be lifted, so would support a mini-season/mini cup if we've run too far into the 20/21 season window.
I agree, there are arguments for every point really.
Personally i think it should continue whenever the government confirm its ok to do so.
The harshest is end the season as it is, more for us than anyone as we have been there for 1 game and would be proper sods law.
It all depends when the season ends, but if not they should pro-rata the season or play 1 game vs everyone, at least teams will be able to plan for a half season. i quite like the cup idea too tbh but lets just see when this season finishes then worry about next season when its more realistic.
In Germany they’ve allowed players to start training again (in groups of 5 or less) But at the same time the Bundesliga chief executive said he doesn’t expect crowds to be allowed until the start of next year at the earliest.
Even if they do decide to resume the season, players won't have trained or played for at least 2-3 months or more, so they can't just roll straight back into games. Will need a few weeks of training and probably friendly matches to get back up to speed.
I think at this stage it’s just a simple hypothesis that if potentially social distancing measures have been partially relaxed but mass gatherings are still not permissible then this plan or variation would be a potential way forward. Seems a reasonable observation from them in a world of uncertainty if the overwhelming desire is not to ‘null and void’ the season.
Next season Feb-Nov, same the year after, straight into Qatar 2022
Contracts, TV money etc are all huge problems but there is no easy solution. Every scenario has businesses, players, clubs etc all losing out and potentially going bankrupt....unfortunately there is no nice way of doing it where everyone will be happy. Football will never be the same again.
Ultimately it’s about making sure it’s safe to return, before we return.
Just some of who will be present for each and every match. Who the fuck do the footballing powers think they are to be better than social distancing. Assume each game would need an ambulance in attendance too? Not like they've got anything better to be doing right now. The game is rotten, this is for nothing more than keeping pockets lined. They couldn't give a toss for the integrity of the game or the fans, no matter what their statements say.
We are talking sometime in June I would think. 2 months away. I expect things to be relatively back to normal by then. Only thing to worry about is if it breaks out again. I imagine thats why they said initially it could be behind closed doors. If after a couple of weeks no new outbreaks happen then I imagine then would be looking at opening stadiums.
Just some of who will be present for each and every match. Who the fuck do the footballing powers think they are to be better than social distancing. Assume each game would need an ambulance in attendance too? Not like they've got anything better to be doing right now. The game is rotten, this is for nothing more than keeping pockets lined. They couldn't give a toss for the integrity of the game or the fans, no matter what their statements say.
We are talking sometime in June I would think. 2 months away. I expect things to be relatively back to normal by then. Only thing to worry about is if it breaks out again. I imagine thats why they said initially it could be behind closed doors. If after a couple of weeks no new outbreaks happen then I imagine then would be looking at opening stadiums.
Make you right.
It will not go from 30 people maximum in a supermarket to 35k upwards at a football match.
Just some of who will be present for each and every match. Who the fuck do the footballing powers think they are to be better than social distancing. Assume each game would need an ambulance in attendance too? Not like they've got anything better to be doing right now. The game is rotten, this is for nothing more than keeping pockets lined. They couldn't give a toss for the integrity of the game or the fans, no matter what their statements say.
We are talking sometime in June I would think. 2 months away. I expect things to be relatively back to normal by then. Only thing to worry about is if it breaks out again. I imagine thats why they said initially it could be behind closed doors. If after a couple of weeks no new outbreaks happen then I imagine then would be looking at opening stadiums.
2months Golfie Over a million people will still be in lockdown by then
Not for the first time, it was left to Andy Holt to articulate the fear infecting many EFL clubs. Accrington Stanley’s owner uses Twitter as a platform to think out loud, and a long thread posted on Thursday gave a voice to the strain being felt in the lower leagues as COVID-19 bites ever deeper.
The Premier League has spent weeks pursuing wage deferrals from their players and pushing a scenario where behind-closed-doors games bring this season to a conclusion, but in the divisions below the English top flight, coronavirus is creating an existential crisis. Clubs like Holt’s are against the wall with no regular income, no obvious way of avoiding future funding gaps and the absolute certainty that the mess of COVID-19 will be upon them for months to come, if not longer.
Never mind this season, Holt warned, what about next season? “We’re doomed in the medium term if we don’t find new funds to place lost ones,” he wrote.
The EFL needs no reminding about the delicate state of its competitions. Bury were expelled by the organisation in August after failing to fulfil their fixtures in the midst of overwhelming debts. Macclesfield Town and Southend United have repeatedly failed to pay players on time in the past 12 months and Bolton Wanderers spent part of 2019 in administration. Trouble was afoot long before coronavirus began turning the screw.
A deep look by The Athletic into the effect of football’s shutdown on the EFL’s 71 members uncovered a myriad of problems in which shortfalls of cash, differing priorities and a lack of certainty about how the game will reset itself are threatening dire consequences for clubs fighting to find a way through the mire.
A month on from the suspension of the 2019-20 season, we have been told of:
Serious concerns about the survival of individual teams
Fears that advanced payments from the EFL and the Premier League will lead to financial shortfalls at a later date
Clubs in Leagues One and Two leaning towards the option of ending the season now
Complaints about a “lack of insight” from the government and football’s governing bodies about when or how matches will resume
Owners braced for a “depressed” transfer market and a significant drop in the value of their players
Holt’s tweets, in which he criticised the Premier League and others for “undue haste” in trying to bring this season to a finish, pointed to an issue which is hampering professional football in England from top to bottom: conflicting interests standing in the way of collective resolve or a unified plan.
There are teams in the Championship, such as Leeds United and West Bromwich Albion, who have promotion to the Premier League at their fingertips and would back nothing less than the 2019-20 season resuming. There are others, including Accrington, who are more concerned that a rush to restart fixtures will incur costs which push them over the edge further down the line. What is the point in extending the road, Holt asked, if the road runs out next season anyway?
Four weeks into the COVID-19 shutdown, the EFL is in a state of near paralysis.
According to those with knowledge of EFL discussions, there is no credible blueprint for restarting the season yet, only an insistence from a majority of Championship sides that the season be completed and warnings from others that matches behind closed doors will land them with bills they cannot afford to pay.
Such is the concern around playing games in empty stadiums, that one Championship club’s chief executive has suggested time-outs during games so more TV adverts can be sold and more revenue brought in.
The Premier League stands to lose significant amounts in television fees if the current campaign ends early (which is why it is willing to arrange televised games behind closed doors at the earliest opportunity), but broadcast payments in the EFL are made to clubs at the start of each season and the relevance of them in this scenario is moot. Games without crowds cost money to stage and provide no meaningful earnings. At the lowest levels, they have the potential to be crippling.
“We’re well run on a tight budget but we’re feeling the pinch, so I can’t imagine what’s happening at those clubs who’ve repeatedly and irresponsibly fallen foul of FFP,” says Luton Town chief executive Gary Sweet. “We’re treading cautiously on furloughing. So far, we have furloughed some staff but only lower paid, and only if they are genuinely out of work to do. I want a clear conscience on the HMRC day of reckoning.
“We also think that furloughing players is unlawful. It’s certainly immoral. We are discussing the notion of contributions from players, as we are with all staff. We believe that every employee will need to help in our recovery, including the players, manager, senior management and me. No matter how well-run a business is in any industry, it is impossible to plan for catastrophic circumstances like this.”
Another senior Championship official told The Athletic: “There’s no real guidance about what the solution will be. The ideas being reported are nowhere near as far along in implementation as they’re made out to be. We’re not getting a lot of insight from a high level of government or football. The scenarios are quite complex and most of us are guessing about the steps we’ll take next. Nothing will restart until government advice changes.”
Clubs are taking financial matters into their own hands while they wait for clearer leadership. Numerous teams in the EFL’s bottom two divisions have furloughed regular staff and some, like Accrington and Sunderland, are furloughing players and coaches as a means of cutting expenditure to the lowest possible level. The Athleticunderstands Millwall had decided to furlough their first-team squad and backroom team from the start of May, but reversed that decision yesterday.
Ethically, using public money to cover players’ salaries is a contentious issue, while an EFL manager told The Athletic he was concerned about the commitment of squads who returned to complete the season having lost a portion of their pay in the interim. In addition, confusion surrounds the question of how furloughing affects a club’s ability to interact with players on the government’s job retention scheme. Sports lawyers believe a duty of care means training drills and fitness programmes will fall outside of the restrictions.
Certain sides in the Championship — Leeds, Brentford and Birmingham City — moved quickly to agree wage deferrals with their squads but this is another area where contrasting opinions result in disagreement. A few weeks ago, before the second tier’s 24 clubs put their heads together to discuss a collective player wage deferral scheme, there were voices of support for it. Salaries would drop to a maximum ceiling of £6,000 a week. An extended period of relief would help to keep clubs in shape. Financially it was plausible and worth debating.
Then the meeting started, and dissent grew. For sides at the lower end of the wage spectrum, such as Barnsley, Luton and Charlton Athletic, that limit of £6,000 did not go far enough. For others, it seemed that the plan was benefiting owners and chairmen who had allowed salary costs to run out of control. Stoke City and Preston North End had already made commitments to pay their squads in full until August and did not want to renege. By the end of the discussion, the idea of a centrally agreed deferral had fallen apart.
The EFL’s members are no different to their Premier League counterparts in that respect: heavily focused on money, unsure of who to trust and struggling to move forward in a collective manner. The disparate approach to the shutdown can be seen in the reaction of clubs to their own cash-flow worries. As a Championship chairman told The Athletic: “Solidarity was never going to be achieved. A collective approach can’t work. It’s got to be down to individual negotiations.” Another executive describes a one-size-fits-all deferral scheme as “impossible”. “You’ve got too many people involved for it to not fall apart,” he says. “All it takes is a few complaints and you’re nowhere with it.”
Leeds acted unilaterally a week later — before the scheduled payment of their wage bill for March — by agreeing to defer wages owed to their first-team players, coaching staff and members of senior management. They imposed an upper limit of £6,000 a week and deferred 100 per cent of all bonuses, an indefinite deal which will remain in place until the club are able to return to full pay. Repayment will come with a small amount of interest on top and the agreement is allowing regular staff to receive full salaries for the time being. Leeds, who posted losses of £21 million in their last accounts, felt decisive action was needed. Figures at rival clubs were privately critical of them for acting alone.
Similar steps were taken by Birmingham, who asked anyone in the squad earning more than £6,000 a week to take a 50 per cent deferral for four months. Brentford also negotiated a temporary limit of around £6,000 with their players. Blackburn Rovers tried to impose a plan of their own but the squad refused to accept it, complaining they were given too little time to consider the details.
For some owners, football’s shutdown threatens to hit their business interests directly. Andrea Radrizzani, Leeds’ majority shareholder, made most of his money through the sale of television rights, and he controls online broadcaster Eleven Sports. Brentford owner Matthew Benham’s gambling firm is equally reliant on live sport. The Coates family, who own Stoke, built up the Bet365 empire but have so far stopped short of making cuts and will hold off on any job losses until at least August.
The EFL and Premier League have attempted to provide assistance in the short term by opening the door to pots of money. The EFL set up a £50 million relief package consisting of advanced payments of “basic award” funding and interest-free loans. The Premier League channeled £125 million into the EFL and National League, although that figure represented money which clubs below the top flight were expecting at a later date: just over £56 million in solidarity payments, the same in parachute payments and around £11 million in academy grants.
However, the EFL is temporarily withholding the distribution of the Premier League’s money while it “seeks additional clarity” on details such as a wider deferral of player wages. Conversations with the Professional Footballers’ Association, the players’ union, are ongoing but still to bear fruit. When the cash comes, it will be welcome. But it won’t last long, which will lead to another reckoning in the future. As Accrington’s Holt said, existing revenue streams paid early can only take clubs so far. What nobody will promise is a tranche of new cash to deal with subsequent liabilities.
“The money from the EFL and the Premier League takes the pressure off now,” says one CEO, “but if you’ve deferred players’ wages, loaned money from the EFL and spent Premier League money which would normally have been used later in the year — or taken PAYE and VAT holidays — then you’re going to be facing some big bills eventually. There’ll be a lot of money owed at the other end of all this, that’s for sure. You’ll be seeing problems a year down the line, even if this money helps for the time being. A lot of this money is budgeted for anyway.”
One option that has cropped up in conversation among clubs and agents is a change to how transfer fees are paid once the window reopens.
Currently, a club selling a player for, say, £5 million would get the money in instalments over a couple of years. But if cashflow is an issue, clubs might have to lower their valuations and take a reduced fee in one lump sum.
In the minds of some, next season matters more than this one. Clubs are continuing to try to sell season tickets, a vital source of revenue, but cannot promise fans when the 2020-21 campaign will kick off or how it will look.
They have contractual commitments that need to be met and obligations which have been complicated by the likelihood that this season will not end on time. Leeds, as an example, are due to switch kit manufacturers from Kappa to Adidas this summer. The Athletic understands that if 2019-20 is to be played to a conclusion, they intend to continue playing in Kappa-branded kits for the duration, to fulfil their deal with the Italian firm.
When that date will fall though, nobody knows.
In Leagues One and Two, there are murmurings of a scenario where this season is left to lie and clubs concentrate instead on making sure next season runs smoothly. The chaos that would cause in deciding promotion and relegation is untold, with implications for the Premier League and the Championship, but the argument about the integrity of competitions carries little weight with those who are worried about basic survival. There is a sense of football changing for ever — and not necessarily for the better.
The one thing prominent figures in EFL circles can say for sure is that most Championship clubs want to complete their fixtures, in part to prevent legal action brought on by any attempt to void the season.
The EFL itself wants all remaining fixtures completed, too. Rick Parry, the chief executive whose handling of the situation is said to have restored a degree of trust in the governing body, yesterday wrote to all 71 clubs. He told them to suspend training until May 16 at the earliest but predicted that the organisation would need around 56 days to wrap up the campaign, including the play-offs.
Despite the plea made by Holt, the letter said that “our working assumption at this stage is that matches will be played behind closed doors when we eventually return.”
“It almost has to finish, come what may,” says a Championship chairman. “You can imagine what the claims would be from Leeds and West Brom if they didn’t go up. What’s the loss in revenues? It’s £200 million-plus, so you have to finish it, irrespective of what happens to next season.”
No solution is likely to avoid EFL clubs taking a hit en masse on transfer fees, another area where income is key. Transfer experts say the impact of COVID-19 will lead to a depressed market in which buying clubs hold the power and Premier League teams are more able than ever to poach the players they want. Valuations will drop and the £10 million-plus purchases which have taken players out of the Championship in recent seasons no longer seem realistic. “There’s going to be nothing like the same magnitude (of deals),” a club source said. “Anything you were thinking about before is going to be substantially reduced. That’s going to have a massive impact because clubs normally use the market to balance their books.”
In all of the chatter, there is one thing which everyone in the EFL agrees on: that resuming the season, or resuming football in general, will not be the end of anything. It will draw a line under the sport’s shutdown, but in the context of stabilising the health of vulnerable clubs, it is only the start of a long game with plenty of pain to come.
Some in the game say they are fighting for integrity. Some are genuinely questioning if they will make it through the worst.
"The Coates family, who own Stoke, built up the Bet365 empire but have so far stopped short of making cuts and will hold off on any job losses until at least August."
Founder and chief executive, Denise Coates paid herself £277m in salary plus £46m in dividends last year. In 2018 she paid herself 265m. In 2017 she paid herself 217m.
Not going to criticise her as i know she donates a hell of a lot of money to charity, but i would seriously hope that Stoke would be the last club outside the premier league to even be considering cuts or job losses.
"Games without crowds cost money to stage and provide no meaningful earnings. At the lowest levels, they have the potential to be crippling"
This is a very good point and completely understandable why the lower leagues would rather cancel the season than restart it behind closed doors and lose even more money.
"Games without crowds cost money to stage and provide no meaningful earnings. At the lowest levels, they have the potential to be crippling"
This is a very good point and completely understandable why the lower leagues would rather cancel the season than restart it behind closed doors and lose even more money.
I'm not personally saying games should start. I can't see how they can. But in terms of income, surely using I-Follow could bring revenue to clubs with behind closed door matches.
Just some of who will be present for each and every match. Who the fuck do the footballing powers think they are to be better than social distancing. Assume each game would need an ambulance in attendance too? Not like they've got anything better to be doing right now. The game is rotten, this is for nothing more than keeping pockets lined. They couldn't give a toss for the integrity of the game or the fans, no matter what their statements say.
It’s not just them - they’ll need security, because saying it’s behind closed doors won’t stop people turning up. Transport/hotels as someone else mentioned. If the plan is to televise it, you’ll need camera crews. If anyone breaks a bone, they will need to go to an overworked hospital.
And then a player on a team comes down with COVID, and the whole team, and probably the last team they played need to go back into quarantine for 14 days, losing at least 4 games.
I also assume local authorities and police forces will still have the power to shut this down, regardless of what the EFL wants.
Comments
Anti climaxes are so disappointing.
In what crack crazed nightmare is it plausible that players can train and play together if any form of social distancing is still in place? If crowds are not allowed to assemble, then what the actual fuck do the EFL morons imagine takes place at training or games? 'played behind closed doors' yeah and that stops invisible virus cells spreading about from people that can't possibly know they have them? Every single twunt that put their name to this should resign forthwith and hand back every penny they've taken in remuneration and benefits for the last year - not fit for purpose - not fit for anything.
What this screams in foot high letters is that the shameless bandits at EFL think that the infection and deaths of dozens of players, referees, coaches, club staff in general is the acceptable price to pay for the TV money they fear they'll have to give back if the season is eventually cancelled. To say nothing of the families of all those staff who will inevitably get infected and die when their players get home.
We shouldn't be surprised the EFL executive only ever opens its mouth to prove what a worthless clueless whore it is.
We're all football devotees but never has its transparent irrelevance been any clearer to anybody with their eyes and ears open.
The EFL needs to get on with helping out the football clubs as best it can and park any thoughts of resumptions until frivolous leisure activity can be considered appropriate.
Any talk, speculation about winding down the distancing practices is terribly dangerous nonsense.
IF we get the infection/hospital admissions/fatalities rates down to something much closer to normal pre-pandemic levels, then and only then can some sort of informed relaxation be considered. Anything more cavalier and complacent than that is to just glibly sign death warrants. This infection is brand new; there is no drug remedy, there is no vaccine nor any tangible prospect of either in the foreseeable future. Crazy talk of 'herd immunity is achieved after 80% of the population has been infected' is essentially incitement to homicide. 80% of 70 million is 56 million, the reported death rate is something around 12% i.e. 6.72 million fatalities tacitly being suggested as the cost of progress. I expect those chattering clowns will be stepping forward to volunteer, will they? They absolutely should do.
We won 14-2
1. Season ends on current table - We're relegated undeservedly as we have a clear opportunity to survive over 9 games.
2. Season is cancelled - We stay up undeservedly as we are in the relegation zone.
3. When the world is in a position for football to resume a mini season of 9 games takes place and then is followed by a cup with a group stage in the lead up. Basically a club world cup. So there is no 2020/2021 season. Just the Covid Cup.
4. Something else
For me I want the season played out behind closed doors, just so that the season ends fairly. Whether we are relegated or survive, it'll be the fairest result. I am certain that's how the clubs themselves would see it also.
I have no idea when the lockdown will be lifted, so would support a mini-season/mini cup if we've run too far into the 20/21 season window.
Just some of who will be present for each and every match. Who the fuck do the footballing powers think they are to be better than social distancing. Assume each game would need an ambulance in attendance too? Not like they've got anything better to be doing right now. The game is rotten, this is for nothing more than keeping pockets lined. They couldn't give a toss for the integrity of the game or the fans, no matter what their statements say.
Rushing it through now is selfish and reckless, regardless of the results.
Exeter vs Carlisle
Grimsby vs Plymouth
Morecambe vs Plymouth
Stand out as real sods for the away team
Personally i think it should continue whenever the government confirm its ok to do so.
The harshest is end the season as it is, more for us than anyone as we have been there for 1 game and would be proper sods law.
It all depends when the season ends, but if not they should pro-rata the season or play 1 game vs everyone, at least teams will be able to plan for a half season. i quite like the cup idea too tbh but lets just see when this season finishes then worry about next season when its more realistic.
But at the same time the Bundesliga chief executive said he doesn’t expect crowds to be allowed until the start of next year at the earliest.
Next season Feb-Nov, same the year after, straight into Qatar 2022
Contracts, TV money etc are all huge problems but there is no easy solution.
Every scenario has businesses, players, clubs etc all losing out and potentially going bankrupt....unfortunately there is no nice way of doing it where everyone will be happy.
Football will never be the same again.
Ultimately it’s about making sure it’s safe to return, before we return.
It will not go from 30 people maximum in a supermarket to 35k upwards at a football match.
Over a million people will still be in lockdown by then
Not for the first time, it was left to Andy Holt to articulate the fear infecting many EFL clubs. Accrington Stanley’s owner uses Twitter as a platform to think out loud, and a long thread posted on Thursday gave a voice to the strain being felt in the lower leagues as COVID-19 bites ever deeper.
The Premier League has spent weeks pursuing wage deferrals from their players and pushing a scenario where behind-closed-doors games bring this season to a conclusion, but in the divisions below the English top flight, coronavirus is creating an existential crisis. Clubs like Holt’s are against the wall with no regular income, no obvious way of avoiding future funding gaps and the absolute certainty that the mess of COVID-19 will be upon them for months to come, if not longer.
Never mind this season, Holt warned, what about next season? “We’re doomed in the medium term if we don’t find new funds to place lost ones,” he wrote.
The EFL needs no reminding about the delicate state of its competitions. Bury were expelled by the organisation in August after failing to fulfil their fixtures in the midst of overwhelming debts. Macclesfield Town and Southend United have repeatedly failed to pay players on time in the past 12 months and Bolton Wanderers spent part of 2019 in administration. Trouble was afoot long before coronavirus began turning the screw.
A deep look by The Athletic into the effect of football’s shutdown on the EFL’s 71 members uncovered a myriad of problems in which shortfalls of cash, differing priorities and a lack of certainty about how the game will reset itself are threatening dire consequences for clubs fighting to find a way through the mire.
A month on from the suspension of the 2019-20 season, we have been told of:
Holt’s tweets, in which he criticised the Premier League and others for “undue haste” in trying to bring this season to a finish, pointed to an issue which is hampering professional football in England from top to bottom: conflicting interests standing in the way of collective resolve or a unified plan.
There are teams in the Championship, such as Leeds United and West Bromwich Albion, who have promotion to the Premier League at their fingertips and would back nothing less than the 2019-20 season resuming. There are others, including Accrington, who are more concerned that a rush to restart fixtures will incur costs which push them over the edge further down the line. What is the point in extending the road, Holt asked, if the road runs out next season anyway?
Four weeks into the COVID-19 shutdown, the EFL is in a state of near paralysis.
According to those with knowledge of EFL discussions, there is no credible blueprint for restarting the season yet, only an insistence from a majority of Championship sides that the season be completed and warnings from others that matches behind closed doors will land them with bills they cannot afford to pay.
Such is the concern around playing games in empty stadiums, that one Championship club’s chief executive has suggested time-outs during games so more TV adverts can be sold and more revenue brought in.
The Premier League stands to lose significant amounts in television fees if the current campaign ends early (which is why it is willing to arrange televised games behind closed doors at the earliest opportunity), but broadcast payments in the EFL are made to clubs at the start of each season and the relevance of them in this scenario is moot. Games without crowds cost money to stage and provide no meaningful earnings. At the lowest levels, they have the potential to be crippling.
“We’re well run on a tight budget but we’re feeling the pinch, so I can’t imagine what’s happening at those clubs who’ve repeatedly and irresponsibly fallen foul of FFP,” says Luton Town chief executive Gary Sweet. “We’re treading cautiously on furloughing. So far, we have furloughed some staff but only lower paid, and only if they are genuinely out of work to do. I want a clear conscience on the HMRC day of reckoning.
“We also think that furloughing players is unlawful. It’s certainly immoral. We are discussing the notion of contributions from players, as we are with all staff. We believe that every employee will need to help in our recovery, including the players, manager, senior management and me. No matter how well-run a business is in any industry, it is impossible to plan for catastrophic circumstances like this.”
Another senior Championship official told The Athletic: “There’s no real guidance about what the solution will be. The ideas being reported are nowhere near as far along in implementation as they’re made out to be. We’re not getting a lot of insight from a high level of government or football. The scenarios are quite complex and most of us are guessing about the steps we’ll take next. Nothing will restart until government advice changes.”
Clubs are taking financial matters into their own hands while they wait for clearer leadership. Numerous teams in the EFL’s bottom two divisions have furloughed regular staff and some, like Accrington and Sunderland, are furloughing players and coaches as a means of cutting expenditure to the lowest possible level. The Athleticunderstands Millwall had decided to furlough their first-team squad and backroom team from the start of May, but reversed that decision yesterday.
Ethically, using public money to cover players’ salaries is a contentious issue, while an EFL manager told The Athletic he was concerned about the commitment of squads who returned to complete the season having lost a portion of their pay in the interim. In addition, confusion surrounds the question of how furloughing affects a club’s ability to interact with players on the government’s job retention scheme. Sports lawyers believe a duty of care means training drills and fitness programmes will fall outside of the restrictions.
Certain sides in the Championship — Leeds, Brentford and Birmingham City — moved quickly to agree wage deferrals with their squads but this is another area where contrasting opinions result in disagreement. A few weeks ago, before the second tier’s 24 clubs put their heads together to discuss a collective player wage deferral scheme, there were voices of support for it. Salaries would drop to a maximum ceiling of £6,000 a week. An extended period of relief would help to keep clubs in shape. Financially it was plausible and worth debating.
Then the meeting started, and dissent grew. For sides at the lower end of the wage spectrum, such as Barnsley, Luton and Charlton Athletic, that limit of £6,000 did not go far enough. For others, it seemed that the plan was benefiting owners and chairmen who had allowed salary costs to run out of control. Stoke City and Preston North End had already made commitments to pay their squads in full until August and did not want to renege. By the end of the discussion, the idea of a centrally agreed deferral had fallen apart.
The EFL’s members are no different to their Premier League counterparts in that respect: heavily focused on money, unsure of who to trust and struggling to move forward in a collective manner. The disparate approach to the shutdown can be seen in the reaction of clubs to their own cash-flow worries. As a Championship chairman told The Athletic: “Solidarity was never going to be achieved. A collective approach can’t work. It’s got to be down to individual negotiations.” Another executive describes a one-size-fits-all deferral scheme as “impossible”. “You’ve got too many people involved for it to not fall apart,” he says. “All it takes is a few complaints and you’re nowhere with it.”
Leeds acted unilaterally a week later — before the scheduled payment of their wage bill for March — by agreeing to defer wages owed to their first-team players, coaching staff and members of senior management. They imposed an upper limit of £6,000 a week and deferred 100 per cent of all bonuses, an indefinite deal which will remain in place until the club are able to return to full pay. Repayment will come with a small amount of interest on top and the agreement is allowing regular staff to receive full salaries for the time being. Leeds, who posted losses of £21 million in their last accounts, felt decisive action was needed. Figures at rival clubs were privately critical of them for acting alone.
Similar steps were taken by Birmingham, who asked anyone in the squad earning more than £6,000 a week to take a 50 per cent deferral for four months. Brentford also negotiated a temporary limit of around £6,000 with their players. Blackburn Rovers tried to impose a plan of their own but the squad refused to accept it, complaining they were given too little time to consider the details.
For some owners, football’s shutdown threatens to hit their business interests directly. Andrea Radrizzani, Leeds’ majority shareholder, made most of his money through the sale of television rights, and he controls online broadcaster Eleven Sports. Brentford owner Matthew Benham’s gambling firm is equally reliant on live sport. The Coates family, who own Stoke, built up the Bet365 empire but have so far stopped short of making cuts and will hold off on any job losses until at least August.
The EFL and Premier League have attempted to provide assistance in the short term by opening the door to pots of money. The EFL set up a £50 million relief package consisting of advanced payments of “basic award” funding and interest-free loans. The Premier League channeled £125 million into the EFL and National League, although that figure represented money which clubs below the top flight were expecting at a later date: just over £56 million in solidarity payments, the same in parachute payments and around £11 million in academy grants.
However, the EFL is temporarily withholding the distribution of the Premier League’s money while it “seeks additional clarity” on details such as a wider deferral of player wages. Conversations with the Professional Footballers’ Association, the players’ union, are ongoing but still to bear fruit. When the cash comes, it will be welcome. But it won’t last long, which will lead to another reckoning in the future. As Accrington’s Holt said, existing revenue streams paid early can only take clubs so far. What nobody will promise is a tranche of new cash to deal with subsequent liabilities.
“The money from the EFL and the Premier League takes the pressure off now,” says one CEO, “but if you’ve deferred players’ wages, loaned money from the EFL and spent Premier League money which would normally have been used later in the year — or taken PAYE and VAT holidays — then you’re going to be facing some big bills eventually. There’ll be a lot of money owed at the other end of all this, that’s for sure. You’ll be seeing problems a year down the line, even if this money helps for the time being. A lot of this money is budgeted for anyway.”
One option that has cropped up in conversation among clubs and agents is a change to how transfer fees are paid once the window reopens.
Currently, a club selling a player for, say, £5 million would get the money in instalments over a couple of years. But if cashflow is an issue, clubs might have to lower their valuations and take a reduced fee in one lump sum.
In the minds of some, next season matters more than this one. Clubs are continuing to try to sell season tickets, a vital source of revenue, but cannot promise fans when the 2020-21 campaign will kick off or how it will look.
They have contractual commitments that need to be met and obligations which have been complicated by the likelihood that this season will not end on time. Leeds, as an example, are due to switch kit manufacturers from Kappa to Adidas this summer. The Athletic understands that if 2019-20 is to be played to a conclusion, they intend to continue playing in Kappa-branded kits for the duration, to fulfil their deal with the Italian firm.
When that date will fall though, nobody knows.
In Leagues One and Two, there are murmurings of a scenario where this season is left to lie and clubs concentrate instead on making sure next season runs smoothly. The chaos that would cause in deciding promotion and relegation is untold, with implications for the Premier League and the Championship, but the argument about the integrity of competitions carries little weight with those who are worried about basic survival. There is a sense of football changing for ever — and not necessarily for the better.
The one thing prominent figures in EFL circles can say for sure is that most Championship clubs want to complete their fixtures, in part to prevent legal action brought on by any attempt to void the season.
The EFL itself wants all remaining fixtures completed, too. Rick Parry, the chief executive whose handling of the situation is said to have restored a degree of trust in the governing body, yesterday wrote to all 71 clubs. He told them to suspend training until May 16 at the earliest but predicted that the organisation would need around 56 days to wrap up the campaign, including the play-offs.
Despite the plea made by Holt, the letter said that “our working assumption at this stage is that matches will be played behind closed doors when we eventually return.”
“It almost has to finish, come what may,” says a Championship chairman. “You can imagine what the claims would be from Leeds and West Brom if they didn’t go up. What’s the loss in revenues? It’s £200 million-plus, so you have to finish it, irrespective of what happens to next season.”
On that, opinion is far from unanimous.
No solution is likely to avoid EFL clubs taking a hit en masse on transfer fees, another area where income is key. Transfer experts say the impact of COVID-19 will lead to a depressed market in which buying clubs hold the power and Premier League teams are more able than ever to poach the players they want. Valuations will drop and the £10 million-plus purchases which have taken players out of the Championship in recent seasons no longer seem realistic. “There’s going to be nothing like the same magnitude (of deals),” a club source said. “Anything you were thinking about before is going to be substantially reduced. That’s going to have a massive impact because clubs normally use the market to balance their books.”
In all of the chatter, there is one thing which everyone in the EFL agrees on: that resuming the season, or resuming football in general, will not be the end of anything. It will draw a line under the sport’s shutdown, but in the context of stabilising the health of vulnerable clubs, it is only the start of a long game with plenty of pain to come.
Some in the game say they are fighting for integrity. Some are genuinely questioning if they will make it through the worst.
Founder and chief executive, Denise Coates paid herself £277m in salary plus £46m in dividends last year.
In 2018 she paid herself 265m.
In 2017 she paid herself 217m.
Not going to criticise her as i know she donates a hell of a lot of money to charity, but i would seriously hope that Stoke would be the last club outside the premier league to even be considering cuts or job losses.
This is a very good point and completely understandable why the lower leagues would rather cancel the season than restart it behind closed doors and lose even more money.
I am betting on the FA and EFL to do the latter.
££££££££££££